Libertarians & Marxism

 

Πηγή :Stumbling and Mumbling

 

Bryan Caplan says:

The view that money has a major effect on happiness is ideologically convenient for me. But it goes against first-hand experience, the wisdom of the ages, and the rightly interpreted empirical evidence. So to hell with ideological convenience.

I find this admirable, but puzzling. A libertarian surely doesn't need a view on which goods (other than freedom) makes us happy. All he needs is a framework in which people are free to pursue whatever ends we want - whether those ends be money or whatever. As Robert Nozick wrote:

Utopia will consist of utopias, of many different and divergent communities in which people lead different kinds of lives under different institutions.

I fear, though, that there's a reason why libertarians might find it convenient to think that money makes us happy. It's because actually-existing capitalism does not give us Nozick's Utopia, which means there's a tension between supporting liberty and supporting capitalism. If, however, you think that money gives us happiness, then this tension weakens.

Here's what I mean. Capitalism has totalitarian tendencies, in the sense that it squeezes out (other) utopias. For example:

- Most of don't have outside options; we can't live off our savings or inheritances or on our smallholding. We are therefore compelled by circumstance to enter into capitalist relations to earn our living. This curtails our freedom to pursue other lifestyles, such as a love of arts and music or caring for others.

- Capitalism requires a big and cheap labour supply. It is therefore antagonistic to policies which might give us real freedom to opt out of the labour force, such as a basic income.

- Capitalist employment relations can be oppressive and alienating.

- As Richard Sennett has suggested, flexible capitalism can undermine stable communities.

- Capitalism contains a deskilling process not only in the workplace, but also in leisure skills; commodification tends to crowd out traditional skills such as music and cookery.

- Capitalism prioritizes the goods of effectiveness (money and power) over those of excellence. This creates a society of "trampling, crushing, elbowing, and treading on each other's heels", which many of us would prefer not to live in.

These tendencies are awkward for a right-libertarian wanting to defend actually-existing capitalism. So, what can he do? One line of attack is to say - with much justification - that capitalism has provided more freedom (both formal and substantial) for more people than any hitherto-existing form of society. But this runs into the Marxian objection that a post-capitalist society could do even better.

This leaves Bryan's instinctive answer. If you believe that money makes us happy, then you can argue that, in depriving us of alternative lifestyles but delivering the physical goods, capitalism isn't really imposing much of a loss upon us, because it's giving us what makes us happy, what we'd choose anyway.

There is, though, a third option here. It's to recognize that capitalism and real freedom aren't wholly compatible, and to look for economic institutions - of which a basic income is one - which better promote freedom. Libertarianism and Marxism have much in common.

Είναι ο παρεοκρατικός Καπιταλισμός το μέλλον του Καπιταλισμού

Στο τυπικό left liberal blog stumbling and mumbling δημοσιεύθηκε ένα ενδιαφέρον κείμενο του διαχειριστή Chris Dilow, το οποίο υποστηρίζει πως ο παρεοκρατικός (crony) ή συντεχνιακός καπιταλισμός είναι η μόνη  μορφή στο μέλλλον.
Ακολουθεί ενδιαφέρων διάλογος εδώ

Crony capitalism - the only capitalism

Supporters of free markets seem to be increasingly vocal in their opposition to corporatism or crony capitalism. Whilst I wholly welcome this, I fear that the demand for a proper free market economy without cronyism or special favours is as unachievably utopian as the wildest leftist fantasy.

I say this because of the first premise of free market economics - that incentives matter. Politicians want money, business wants influence and favours. Both sides therefore have powerful incentives to trade - to give us cronyism.

Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if there were, as Sandel and Walzer have argued, moral limits upon markets - an agreement that there should be some things, such as political power, that money shouldn't buy.But this ethical demand runs into the fact pointed out by Marx - that the logic of capitalism is commodification, the extension of the cash nexus:

The bourgeoisie...has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”...It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade.

There's another reason why crony capitalism will always exist. As Arnold Kling says, there will always seem to be a good argument for regulation. And thanks to regulatory capture, an inevitable by-product of this will be that regulation will favour big business; this fact is now so obvious that it even Liberal Conspiracy and a Very British Dude agree upon it. The only way to avoid cronyism is to avoid regulation - and nobody wants this.

There's a third point, which I think is under-appreciated. To survive - let alone thrive - in a proper market economy requires great entrepreneurial skill, to be flexible, efficient and genuinely "customer-focused". But these skills are very scarce. In a true market economy, therefore, not only would entire industries such as banks and arms companies not exist in their current forms, but nor would many firms, such as G4S, A4E or Atos. State support for business is necessary to sustain demand for the vast supply of incompetents and fraudsters.A free market economy would be one in which many people are unemployable.

Crony capitalism, then, is the only feasible form of capitalism.