RE: On the oversimplification of anti-capitalist critiques; discussion and responses

01/02/25

Table of Contents

1.

I made a blog post entitled On the oversimplification of anti-capitalist critiques (or: what you think you hate isn't capitalism), which I posted on Reddit and Mastodon. It garnered a few responses and inspired some discussion. I thought it would be fortuitous, educational, and in good faith to compile these dialogues here as a follow-up post; should it garner further attention, I'll update with new remarks and my subsequent responses.

I've redacted usernames by default. If you'd like yours linked in your response, let me know. Also let me know if you want your response removed.

I have also edited my own replies here or there for better readability. They are copied below blockquoted replies; any commentary I've added while drafting this follow-up post will be underneath a ✘ ✘ ✘ divider. (I tried using blockquotes for my text as well, but I didn't think it was very readable.)

Any readers looking to discuss further can contact me by my email: xavier@xavierhm.blog.

Thanks to everyone who read and replied to the original post!

2.

In some ways, this is a fairly common fallacy, a kind of backwards logic. He's right, but it doesn't necessarily imply what he concludes from the evidence. It doesn't follow that functionally equivalent and adequate tools could not be made very differently, under very different circumstances. That specific pencil is a product of a system that happened to exist at the time, but equivalent tools long preceded almost every detail he lists. The system is not essential to the outcome.

This line of thinking always leads me to tech manufacturing. Devising a self-sufficient pencil or pen and ink is a lot simpler than, say, building a computer and all of its component parts, not to mention the software loaded onto it.

Which incentives would motivate a large scale economy to manufacture luxury/leisure consumer technological goods, outside of the for-profit functions of a free market?

✘ ✘ ✘

[They did not reply further.]

I feel like people who are against capitalism (and therefore advocate for systems which are less efficient than our current free market and global trade ecosystem) never acknowledge that any alternative will lead to a reduced material quality of life, which is just as important, if not more so, than ideological purity or vibes-based theory.

3.

That’s the problem. What would it take for a small community of people to manufacture pencils (or better, to satisfy their need for writing instruments) with minimum dependance on that system? Can we identify materials that produce bad environmental and geopolitical externalities and develop locally sourced alternatives? Can we compile a list of frequently used manufacturing techniques and find ways to do them without massive capital investment and thus reliance on investors?

I'd say this line of thinking works on a small scale with simple goods, which is a commendable effort. I myself am trying to switch toward a more self-sufficient low waste lifestyle. But outside of that context l feel like it escapes being realistic. Forget supply and infrastructure; it takes time and labor which people aren't going to just voluntarily donate, hence the profit system that outsourced labor in the first place.

Corporatism, investor overreach, etc etc can all be targeted by legislation, judicial review, and political reform, none of which require dismantling capitalism itself.

✘ ✘ ✘

People are like: capitalism bad. My solution? Small scale self-sufficiency.

Which is fine. But then you aren't arguing about capitalism as a whole, or advocating for a replacement. Just personal lifestyles within capitalism, which is a non-answer to, I don't know, the "capitalist apologetics" I presented in my original post, haha.

Rampant consumerism, waste, and ecological harm are all side effects of the global capitalist economy, there is no doubt about that. Using these things as arguments against capitalism, however, isn't very productive in my opinion. We're better off working within our legislative systems at hand than building a new world order. That sort of sentiment also leads to degrowth ideas, which I don't believe in either, but that is another topic for another time.

This part in particular stood out to me:

Can we compile a list of frequently used manufacturing techniques and find ways to do them without massive capital investment and thus reliance on investors?

I feel like frequently used manufacturing techniques are so predominant only because of the investment and infrastructure capitalism provides. There is no way to "do" manufacturing at the same scale and quality and "remove" capitalism from the equation. At least that's my conjecture; I'm not an economist.

✘ ✘ ✘

[They replied again, clarifying:]

Small scale is what I’m talking about. Solving society’s problems is not my wheelhouse. I just want people to have the alternative.

[To which I said:]

Yeah, that's fair. I think the route to that would be pushing for more sustainability, eco-friendly, and self-sufficient lifestyles. Community gardens, co-ops, no-buy groups etc.

I watched this short YouTube doc a long time ago. I think you'd like these two a lot.

[They did not reply further.]

✘ ✘ ✘

Here is the Youtube video I referenced; it really changed my perspective on consumerism (read: below) and motivated me to look into low-waste/zero-waste alternatives. Please give it a watch!

Quick aside on consumerism:

Consumerism is another modern discontent I believe people misattribute to capitalism. People put all the onus on corporations, advertising companies, and society at large (who are certainly also to blame!) but forget that they themselves are also complicit as consumers to whom the market caters.

(See also: the meme of anti-capitalists bemoaning capitalism while typing on Macbooks decorated with socialist stickers from Etsy and Redbubble, drinking coffee at Starbucks, posting to social media sites born during the dot com boom; see also, again: Hasan Piker, noted online leftist, buying a $1 million home in L.A, with a purported net-worth of $2.8 million.)

4.

I've written elsewhere previously that I am pretty ambivalent about "capitalism." I don't think there are many circumstances where capitalism is 1) well defined, 2) particularly wonderful.

I think Marxists do a decent job at defining capitalism in terms of an economic system based around commodity production, wage labour, and the expansion of capital. This of course covers economies from 1800s England and Germany to modern day Saudi Arabia and Russia. I think this is fair, and these economies are capitalist but it exposes the fact that capitalism alone isn't particularly desirable.

On the other hand, you might have a libertarian definition where "capitalism" is defined in terms of free markets. I find this not particularly useful, and it results in just a comparison of any real life country to an ideal platonic state of "free market" with some arbitrary cut off point. Is Sweden a "free market", is American health care in a "free market"? Are 1800s England and Germany or modern Saudi Arabia capitalist to a libertarian? Is anything?

To me I think the Marxist definition is more coherent, and then the thing worth defending is not this particular economic relationship but instead liberalism. It invites different questions and allows for a much more holistic view of freedom - one mixed in with concepts of equality, democracy, tied to questions of the legitimacy of the state. Defending liberalism allows you to defend a capitalist relationship without prioritising it or centering it over all other potential forms of human relations.

And a lot of people's issues with "capitalism" can be tied effectively to illiberalism. Rent seeking, regulatory capture, dysfunctional democracy, unequal treatment etc can all be addressed through a prescription of liberalism much more effectively than "capitalism." (Emphasis mine)

[I replied:]

the fact that capitalism alone isn't particularly desirable.

Yes, this is the crux of the issue as far as public opinion goes, and I suppose a more capitalism-skeptic way of describing the thesis of my third section.

On the other hand, you might have a libertarian definition where "capitalism" is defined in terms of free markets. I find this not particularly useful, and it results in just a comparison of any real life country to an ideal platonic state of "free market" with some arbitrary cut off point. Is Sweden a "free market", is American health care in a "free market"? Are 1800s England and Germany or modern Saudi Arabia capitalist to a libertarian? Is anything?

This is a fair criticism. I suppose my definition of capitalism, at least in this essay, is intrinsic with modern, global democracy. I think you touch on that here:

Defending liberalism allows you to defend a capitalist relationship without prioritising it or centering it over all other potential forms of human relations.

My essay would have been better served had I made this correlation clear.

a prescription of liberalism much more effectively than "capitalism."

This would definitely provide better optics. I find it irritating that people who decry capitalism, however, only define it by its opposition and not by its real-life economic and trade systems. Capitalism = bad; the less capitalist it is, the more it is good. See also: neoliberalism, lol.

Wrapping it up in a bow and labeling it as economic liberalism is probably the best rehabilitation we have, and I guess in the age of populism we can't afford the luxury of calling things what they are.

5.

All economic systems lead to unregulated economies, that's my corollary and I'm sticking to it. Someone (or small group) ends up capturing the bulk of the economic value disproportionately (under that system's rules) and continues to add to their position, at the expense of everyone else. That said, capitalism is still wildly better than alternate forms of resource allocation and planning.

[I replied:]

Yeah, definitely.

I think this must be answered with legislation.

6.

Nice post! I would have enjoyed a mention of market failures. It’s not a coincidence that the industries that most people “hate” are those that are highly susceptible to market failures. Healthcare, education, housing, infrastructure, and financial services are key examples.

Economists are the first to admit that markets are imperfect and will create suboptimal outcomes in many cases. In healthcare you have information asymmetries, education creates massive positive externalities but is funded through poor mechanisms, and housing markets are plagued by speculation and supply constraints.

We know that humans are greedy and models predict that we’d see the outcomes we have today. Distinguishing between the overall benefits of a capitalist market economy and the negative consequences of unaddressed market failures is difficult, and a lack of political willingness to address the latter means they become conflated with the former. Unfortunately it’s a very human reaction to want to destroy the system when it’s only some parts that are broken.

Overall I like this post a lot.

[I replied:]

I don't have much to add. I feel like this analysis is beyond my scope of understanding, but it touches on a lot of what underpins my beliefs, which I'm incapable of properly illustrating.

Flair checks out.

Is there any books or sources you'd suggest to study up more?¹

7.

Every once in a while, that “Grown in Georgia, packaged in Thailand” image comes around and everyone accidentally admits that they don’t really understand how a globalized free economy works. I think you stated well why, but I think you missed something else. It’s exceptionally hard to fully grasp just how interconnected our world is, and I don’t think a lot of people put mental energy into really letting that idea sink in. (Emphasis mine)

[I replied:]

That's a really good point! I sort of take that for granted in my own worldview just because of how much I've thought about this stuff. I tried offering the Friedman quote as a way to illustrate this point, but you're right in that most people don't comprehend the larger implications of it.

✘ Posted on — 01/02/25
✘ Last modified — 6 months, 4 weeks ago
✘ Link — https://blog.xavierhm.com/re-on-the-oversimplification-of-anti-capitalist-critiques

Footnotes

#blog #discussion #economics #essay #politics