Capitalism as a response to Humanism.
Representative democracy promised ... representation. Neo-Confucianism promised stability through progress. Both seem to have stalled. Gloom now surrounds these humanist ideologies from the East and the West.
Capital markets are like, "number go up". What gives?
Democracy in the Anglosphere is in gridlock, with the UK and Australia burning through successive Prime Ministers. US Congress regularly leaves its own funding in limbo. The system purportedly most responsive to its citizens is seemingly capable of only minor tweaks, and even then after bitter partisanship.
Social and demographic progress is levelling off in Asia, beginning with the Asian Financial Crisis, with brief respite provided by the early-2000s China boom. Asian developmental authoritarianism, smugly proclaimed by post-independence statesmen to be rooted in a superior, non-western (read: non-colonial) humanism, seems to be dropping the 'developmental'.
A pandemic changed lifestyles, changed societies, but only temporarily dented markets. People are bearish on democracy, bearish on 'Asian values', but bullish on capital.
I think there's a link.
Let's start with Asian-style humanism.
Humanism East: Neo-Confucianism
Combining the nihilistic metaphysics of Buddhism, the rigorous practice of Confucianism, and the mystical cosmology of Taoism, Neo-Confucianism spread through East Asia from the 9th to the 17th centuries. Neo-Confucianists believed that moral cultivation could lead to social harmony and political stability.
Leaders of resurgent East and South East Asian countries in the post-war 20th century used the Neo-Confucian playbook to drive breakneck national reform.
"Everything is impermanent, so you may as well adapt people and society to better fit reality."
But that didn't last very long.
Rather than improving systems, the focus has shifted to improving adherence to systems. China uses modern technology to enforce its restrictive hukou system. Japan designs and produces new fax machines every year. Indonesians use social media to hew closer to ideals of modest Islamic dress .
Entire industries, auxiliary to the education system, rely on life-or-death examinations - a legacy of the Han dynasty - to generate innovative ways to drill students in course content. Yet despite the growing ranks of disconnected youth, no one questions whether the system itself is past its prime.
'Social harmony' has become an excuse to quash reform in Neo-Confucian societies, which I guess means they've become, well, Confucian.
Now let's head Westwards.
Humanism West: Representative Democracy
Representative Democracy originated in ancient Rome. It gained traction in Western Europe as ascendant nobles wanted a greater say in what their royalty was doing with their taxes (hint: starts with 'cru-' and ends with '-sades').
To be fair, democracy never claimed to include everyone in 'demo'.
But fast forward to the 21st century and the flawed label is taken at face value. The notion that effective democracy requires inclusive civil rights has become entrenched.
Except that democracy functions just fine without it.
Centuries-old electoral rules partially disenfranchise concentrated populations, like ethnic or gender minorities gravitating to urban areas.
The U.S.' electoral college won Bush and Trump office despite them losing the popular vote. While voters have become equal, votes have not.
You might vote to pay for government services, law reform, and a green transition by closing tax loopholes, but if retirees in regional towns don't, you're out of luck. Australian Labor learned that the hard way in 2019.
To be generous, the reality that representative democracy sidelines all but the electorally significant was never intended to match its imposed promise of broad representation assuring broad compromise.
To be un-generous, democracy is merely a cover for plutocracy. 'Open' debate distracts us from the fact that outcomes have already been paid for. After all, it costs money to 'inform' targeted voting blocs that immigrants are stealing their houses, refugees are stealing their welfare, and delinquents are stealing their cars.
The way to 'win' at representative democracy, it seems, is not to represent everyone, but to convince a well-distributed demographic that you will represent them against everyone else.
Before Capitalism, I'd like to talk about revealed preference.
Revealed Preference: Actions speak louder than Words
Pre-election polls in 2008 and 2012 overestimated Obama's support among white voters compared to actual election results. This "Bradley effect" suggests that some voters may have given socially desirable responses to pollsters, but voted for the white candidate.
While there are explanations other than the fear of sounding racist, this story illustrates our capacity to say one thing and do another.
What we're saying is that we believe in humanism; people, society, connections, equity, and striving to 'do better'.
What we're doing is choosing stagnation, either out of 'reverence', or to use the status quo as a bulwark against an 'other'. We squirm out of our obligations to progress and equality through spurious arguments of merit. Calling out noxious practices in East Asia is framed as disrespectful. The West can drum up plenty of reasons why those in the heartland should remain able to override the city. Minority rights are 'divisive'.
What we're also doing is buying. Gold, land, companies, debt. Everything except people (which is illegal, please don't try.) Y'know, capital.
Capitalism: Profits over People
Capitalism emerged in Europe in the 16th century, and is based on the principles of private property, free markets, the profit motive, and competition.
From its early days, capitalism was less an ethical imperative and more observations of phenomena.
For instance, high prices encourages more supply. (Pure genius.) Capital will flow from less-profitable to more-profitable ventures, vaulting logistic, legal, and even moral obstructions along the way. (Well, duh.) Encumbered assets are worth less than unencumbered assets. (Big brain time!)
Whenever it was given a moral framing, capitalism would be pitched as a utilitarian way to maximize mass human happiness.
Modern capitalism doesn't bother. It won the cold war when the collectivist Soviet Union collapsed in the '90s, giving it the swagger with which to bypass the humanism charade.
Capitalism doesn't pretend to care about people.
And let's face it, our choices reveal that we don't care about people either. We just want free five-day shipping, and equity in the company that delivers it.
You could be horrified that primacy of capital disregards both morality and representation. That is, until you remember that humanism, despite a strong start and talking a big game, has faltered lately on both fronts.
Before we move on, let's acknowledge that 'capitalism', 'humanism', 'democracy', and 'Confucianism' have been simplified here, hopefully not overly so or misrepresented. Let's also acknowledge that they are interdependent. Western thought borrowed states' duties to its citizens from the East. Neo-Confucians saw the practicality in limited democracy. Finally, capitalism depends heavily on the humanist right to private property.
More Cowbell Capitalism
Leaving aside whether Eastern and Western humanism failed to live up to their promises, the criticism that capitalism undermines human values begs the question whether human values should be paramount.
We are, after all, only a fraction of Earth's biodiversity, and an even smaller fraction of its mass.
Justifying capitalism in human terms dwindled as capital got more productive much faster than humans. It used to take weeks to transfer money through paper notes and ledgers. Now it takes seconds. Robots and computers output far more than assembly lines and calculation pools. Put simply, it's now clear that:
Things > People
And while capitalism exalts capital at the expense of alienating workers, it doesn't marginalise all humans. It sure as heck puts owners of capital on a pedestal.
Yet, ownership is no longer limited to a few moustache-twirling robber barons. It has been democratised through retirement funds, electronic exchanges, and even rent-to-own housing. You and many others are now owners, and quite a few not only enjoy it but are looking for new ways to exercise ownership.
If owners had a moral imperative, it would be to protect the value of their capital. Capitalism can exploit, yes, but it can also nurture. Owners can be amoral and rapacious, yes, but they can also be stewards, seeking through secure private property rights to enhance their asset without fear of ideological interference.
I can sit back and enjoy dividends and lend my shareholder vote to green activism. I could subdivide my land to build a few faux-Tuscan dog boxes, or I could plant few seedlings that will grow into carbon sinks. That's the beauty of capitalism: I don't get to use the language of social justice to tell you what to do with your stuff.
Capitalism leverages natural human tendencies to focus on something bigger than we are. Perhaps that's why people East and West are buying in.
References:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confucianism
- https://iep.utm.edu/neo-confucian-philosophy/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
- https://www.britannica.com/topic/representative-democracy
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
- https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism
Comments
Post a Comment