A critique on modern ideologies (Communism/Socialism/Capitalism)
When we make a brief review of history, we can notice that human behavior over the centuries, or millennia, has always been dominated by a set of particular beliefs, these beliefs are what justify the daily actions of society, and they are the ones that dictate the social objectives and the means to achieve them. The field of ideas inevitably ends up being the one that rules over matter.
Thus, in ancient Athens they were devoted to developing political thought, theater, arts, philosophy, science, architecture, and consequently, the Athenians were dedicated to the exercise of the intellect and gave special prominence to the development of culture. In Sparta on the other hand, a predominant importance was given to matters concerning military exercise, discipline, the optimal development of the body, and the total vocation of the individual towards society.
On the other hand, I am almost certain that this moment in history will be remembered as a period of development of the applied sciences, and how the technological changes introduced in this period of time shaped and created a very particular culture. The cinema, the discography, the radio, the TV, and later the computers and the Internet, which would allow a leap to the digitalization of all the above, without mentioning the new and improved methods of transportation, the home appliances, and in turn the mass production of all elements, would determine the way in which we conceive life today.
In the last 200 years man has managed to solve all material problems, but how suddenly has man been able to create this entire material advance that in the past had not been even imaginable?
If we take a look into the past we can foresee the modern material development as a direct consequence of the decay of faith and of Christian establishment, which was the dominant belief of the moment, together with the accumulation of capital that could be extracted mainly from colonialism, these two factors created very particular circumstances, mainly in the United Kingdom, a nation that could acquire a constant flow of capital from its colonies, and that thanks to the introduction of the "Paper Currency" the Banks could, through the loans based on the fractional reserve system, transfer the wealth to the entrepreneurs, who were in charge of directing the process of industrialization, and obtain for themselves the economic power that until then had the aristocrats.
Industrialization was possible thanks to the historical circumstances that occurred at that time; the unprecedented accumulation of capital in Europe, which had its peak with the price revolution; the fact that colonial disputes were more important than disputes within European territory; a much broader trade; and finally, discoveries such as the printing press and the steam engine, were in charge of accelerating the fall of the Ancien Régime and establishing the bases of the new model.
This change in the conception of social organization was incompatible with the model of feudal aristocracy known until then, mainly because labor was disputed, and consequently, the way in which society should be organized.
In the United Kingdom aristocrats were forced to give up their political and social privileges to preserve their position as landowners, this was an important step, the new political and social model no longer revolved around a vision based on a religious belief or some transcendental type, but they took a step back so that the production of goods and services and urbanization would become the predominant idea that would quickly take root in the new world view that people would have.
This is how society stopped organizing around a political, military and religious hierarchy, to move to an organizational model based solely on productive factors. Since then, the silhouette of modern society could be seen, where people organize themselves around a determined economic activity in order to satisfy their material needs. The vassal was replaced by the salaried worker, the feudal lord by the businessman, the space left by religion on economic and political issues is filled by ideology.
With the French Revolution and its consequent events, and with the Spanish American wars of independence that separated Spain from its colonies in America, giving instability to the crown, the new vision of the world promoted by the United Kingdom would expand to finally reach a dominance almost absolute in the West after the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy, the Russian tsarist monarchy, and the German imperial monarchy fell at the end of the First World War.
At this point of history is when everything begins to revolve around the economy, and therefore, is when economicism occurs, that is, the criterion that gives economic factors primacy over those of any other nature. People stopped discussing the values, traditions, and cultural beliefs of society, and the entire political and social debate began to revolve around ideas based exclusively on the organization and management of economic factors; communism, socialism, capitalism.
There are three ideologies, although different in their behavior, have a common goal; the organization of society around the means of production. Communism, socialism, and capitalism will be more efficient when it comes to producing goods and services, which they seek, insofar as people can detach themselves from any hint of morality. Because of that, Marx thought to abolish morality, religion and everything that he considered part of the superstructure.
Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.
Source: Marx, Karl; Engels, Friedrich. (1848). Manifesto of the Communist Party.
We must understand that morality keeps people under specific behavioral parameters, because if you believe that something is bad or unworthy, you will be abstain from doing so, for that reason, any properly economic system like the ones mentioned above, interprets the moral of the individual as a force that resists the total integration of productive factors. If you are not willing to take a specific job because you consider it unworthy, or because it is not for you, it is a problem.
But as it was later explained by Antonio Gramsci, the superstructure, that is, the juridical, political, artistic, philosophical and religious forms, cannot be eliminated as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels proposed, but must be supplanted by others, for that reason Gramsci argued that Marxism was also a superstructure.
For communism to manifest in the way described by the Marxists, the people who make up society, mainly the proletarians, must first adopt communism as an idea that can supplant all the others, so decreeing state atheism as was made in the Soviet Union would not lead to any substantial change if people are not really atheists, which according to Marx means to discard the beliefs imposed by the previous ruling classes.
In this way, both communism and capitalism, in order to reach their productive excellence and fully develop fully, since they can not eliminate the beliefs that society possesses, must necessarily supplant them by their own set of ideas, which in practice they are nothing more than materialism, utilitarianism, scientism and economism.
People must be willing to carry out any economic activity as required by the dictatorship of the proletariat in communism, or the invisible hand of the consumer in capitalism. That is, the will of the individual must submit to the conditions presented by the economic factors.
In communism the individual must submit his will to the needs of himself, but not seen from an individual perspective, but seen as part of a collective, that is, the individual must have class consciousness.
In socialism, for its part, the individual must submit his will to the needs of the State, that is, to a group of people who govern with absolute power, but who govern with class consciousness.
And finally, in capitalism the individual must be willing to submit his will to what can give him more economic gain.
The individual put himself at the disposal of any of these doctrines assumes that the productive factors should work for the benefit of the entire group in a fair manner. This is how, although they vary in their ways and in their behavior, these three doctrines share a set of similar principles, which are utilitarianism, understood as the thought that considers the most useful is the best and, therefore, the value of behavior is determined by the practical nature of its results; materialism, understood both by the consideration that there is only matter and that reduces the spirit to a consequence of it or that it is simply non-existent, and as an attitude that gives excessive value to material things; scientism, understood as the tendency to give excessive value to scientific notions, especially to sciences based on the data of experience, considering that they are the only valid knowledge; and finally, economism, described as the philosophy that interprets the sum total of human life in terms of the production, acquisition and distribution of wealth.
The main problem with this group of beliefs is that they are materialistic ideologies, and as a consequence, they need propitious material conditions to be valid, which makes them very rigid and impractical, which is why those who profess it always find some valid reason why their ideology has failed to move from theory to practice, or for which it simply can not be implemented. If the material circumstances change, the ideology loses its pillars, and because the material conditions are in constant change, this type of materialistic ideologies will always be doomed to failure.
Marx argued that communism was the last of the revolutions, because it would be the moment when the broadest class of society would impose itself on the rest, to the point where society would be made up of a single and indivisible mass of proletarians, nevertheless, he admitted that first there must be certain material conditions, such as industrialization; without industry there are no proletarians, and therefore, there can not be a dictatorship of something that does not exist.
Therefore, if a society never industrializes, lacks the material possibility to do so, or if it transcends a post-industrial era, it would be nonsense to profess Marxism.
Just like Marxism, the rest of the material ideologies are equally unable to function, or condemned to expire.
On the other hand, most of these extraordinary ideologies that seek to reorganize society, don't transcend being, however brilliant the creator may be, a mere utopia formulated by the abstraction that some individual made of the world in his head, an entelechy, so it is likely that the propitious conditions imagined at a certain moment, never exist.
However, we are in the modern world, every day there are more people who abandon ideals, values, principles and change them by a material doctrine. They fight for impossible material conditions.
The new liberals don't defend the principles and the real pillars of liberalism, but defend a certain structure, something like the equivalent of worshiping a golden calf, idolize a specific legal form, and everything that is different is wrong under its vision, regardless of whether the conditions are ideal or not. A liberal must defend the idea of liberty, not a form of static and specific government, forms change, institutions change, circumstances change, but the ideal must persist.
Determine our values, those for which we are willing to give everything, even life, should be a priority, and once defined, we must proceed in accordance with them. Values and principles don't depend on material circumstances, they do not change unless we want them to be, this kind of ideas belong to the intelligible world, and as a result, they are immobile and immutable, we must decide if we will fight for them in the material world.
If a man's liberty depends on something foreign to him, as the different ideological theories I have mentioned above suggest, then the liberty does not really exist, and it is a mere illusion. And if within the values you defend is not liberty, then rectify, because to believe and defend something, you must first be free to do so. Liberty comes first, then comes the rest. Liberty does not depend on material conditions, it depends on our will to conquer it.
Image Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
I would disagree with this premise, as I would that capitalism is an 'ideology' (like communism etc).
Capitalism (as a principle) emerged as a dynamic long before humans had speech...
Capitalism is merely borrowing something off another person, and then returning what has been borrowed, with some 'extra' as a 'thank you'...
(in it's most fundamental form).
Submit implies some form of slavery...but this is incorrect .
It is a free will contract.
Good post and historical summation.
In capitalism, people organize themselves around the trade of goods and services. The competition generates a situation in which you can only work in a profitable economic activity, if it is not profitable, you cannot work on it. Assuming that today there could be a free market capitalism, which is not the case, competition and the division of labor would not leave much room for maneuver, people should be organized automatically in a way that generates greater economic profitability, so that both the individual and society would be working to obtain economic profitability, so it follows that the individual puts his will at the disposal of money.
Yes, that's the main reason why capitalism is much more efficient than socialism and communism when it comes to producing, people act voluntarily, but they must understand that people only act voluntarily because they want to make money, I'm sure that many current professions would not exist if people were not willing to do all kinds of activities for money.
In fact, this search for money is what makes capitalism work, Ludwig von Mises explained it, he said that communism and socialism would fail because there was no money in those systems, and without money, and without the need for companies to obtain profitability, the economic calculation would not be possible, which causes the socialist and communist system to fail.
Look at this, unemployment insurance allows people not to accept jobs they consider unworthy, someone with unemployment insurance would not accept a job they don't like, which is why people who criticize the subsidies are opposed to this type of practice, because it is shown by the data that people do not perform jobs that they consider unworthy unless they are very needy. In the purest capitalism, the subsidy does not exist, so you must accept any type of work, even so, people could refuse to perform a certain type of activity, since they can suppose something immoral for them, which is why I say that the most efficient capitalism needs to eliminate any kind of morality, so that people are willing to do the job demanded by market forces without any objection. Consequently, for the purest capitalism human morality is just as harmful as a state law, so it will seek to suppress it, and turn it into someone who pursues material and not moral objectives, which in any case is summarized in money.
I don't mean by this that the free market or capitalism is something negative, the problem is not the free market, the problem is to adopt this system as an ideology or supreme value, and not as an instrument to reach a higher moral objective than the simple production of goods and services.
Greetings, and thanks for your observation!
It cannot be free will as capitalism emerged before you and I were born. As you already mentioned. The contract was not signed by us personally. We can only renew the contract by a conscious will when we think it makes sense. This act of reflecting on where money comes from and what money actually is, can be a really long walk. It's a good point to start, though.
There are those who use the internet and then there are those that get used by the internet as a form of content and/or revenue. One can use capitalism as a function/tool and if that is done, what you are saying is true. But if a person becomes a slave to capitalism, then it's just utilitarianism and @vieira is right.
Austrians see capitalism as a means to an end. This is good. Keynesian see an end in itself. That's why the modern economy is so messed up. People are more interested in protecting the economy and less concerned about how the economy is going to save them. All good things are like nuclear energy. You can do things that were deemed impossible or mess up a little and go all Chernobyl.
I wrote a post on this same topic today.
I agree with your premise that many of the ideas that we have about the market stretch back through antiquity.
However there is also a distinct ideology called "Capitalism" that appeared in the mid 1800s.
The modern ideology of Capitalism is based on the modern logic of Hegel.
A few decades I went to search for the source of the modern ideology of called capitalism. When I realized who was the father of capitalism was, my understanding of modern history changed.
I sure would like just one year to be proven that there was not some war occurring. I couldn't find one year free of war in and 2500 year survey. Making the following Quote from your post bogus.
"This is how society stopped organizing around a political, military and religious hierarchy, to move to an organizational model based solely on productive factors."
In truth Capitalism has actually as a matter of fact never existed either. It is a lot like the concept of infinity. There is no place in history where someone has not claimed control, making the phrase "Free Market" one of those useless phrases that actually can be shown to have never existed.
Centralized control is the heart and soul of Feudalism. Centralized control can be shown to have existed all through history. People need to admit what the truth is and plan based on the truth. Otherwise your sweat equity doesn't produce anything of value to the laborer.
Nice thought porvoking post @vieira .
Indeed, but the fact that there has not been a free market in its purest and highest terms, does not mean that the rest of society does not revolve around economic issues, note that in past centuries, the rulers were military, political, or religious, or usually a union of the three in the monarch. In the past it was not possible, practical, or acceptable that a simple entrepreneur like Donald Trump could manage to govern a nation, much less if that nation is the first power in the world; the France that once ruled Louis XIV and Napoleon, today is ruled by an economist. Today's society revolves around the economy. People argue if a rise or fall in taxes is beneficial from a purely utilitarian and economic point of view, morality is relegated, the economy is the central issue.
Greetings, and thanks for your observation!
@commonlaw, I had and have the same thoughts on wars you do. Though I would like to add some things.
There is also no place in history where someone somewhere has not experienced freedom either. Places were thriving in time and space in the same way other places and people were suffering.
Take your family history for example?
My grand parents and parents suffered from war. I myself "profited" from it. The years after the second world war were years of rebuilding, re-newing and re-creating. Governments made new contracts with other governments and payed for some of the damages. Not only in money, also in respecting the history of those who went through the war.
I am 48 years old and I never suffered hunger, thirst, physical punishment through warlords and their helpers. I always had shelter and safety. I am not rich, not even wealthy.
After war, Germany built one of the most successful social security systems one can imagine.
Actually, the Germans unlearned to appreciate this. I observe this during the years I started to work as a social worker. The most unappreciative people are the natives I would say.
We are having full functioning streets, auditoriums, libraries, theaters, public places, shops, you name it.
But what a government and what companies feel not obliged to do is to provide us with ethics and morals as this exactly was something people willingly dropped as spiritual maturation should not come from authorities. Nevertheless, some form of accepted authority should indeed provide people with ethics. If it's not the government (only managing money but not attaching morals to the management) and not the celestial institutions the one and only moral agent left is the individual.
From what I see here is that many of my own folks really get hooked to complaining about almost everything.
The accomplishment of having divided the powers is often celebrated as success. But when the power itself is gone, what exactly will fill the gap?
So I turned towards studying Buddhism and the ethical history of religions and related topics. I must educate myself. This is time consuming but worth it.
In this highly individualized times one is challenged to become ones own agent. But preferably not being and feeling alone with that task.
That's also, why we are here, right?
Curated for #informationwar (by @commonlaw)
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 8,000 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord and chat with 200+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW!
Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call Pt 11
Ways you can help the @informationwar
Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 8,000 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord and chat with 250+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW, via the share button on your Steemit post!!!
Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Leadership/Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call
Ways you can help the @informationwar
Well stated as always. The trend of economism and judging things from a purely utilitarian and material existence has been slowly creeping and seems to be peaking the current moment.
My concern or question is what do we do about it? I believe speaking truth about this is subject is a great service and one that is neglected by free marketeers/anarcho-capitalists and other freedom-minded people. This is going to the root of the problem.
Indeed.
My opinion is that all the current structure will fall, civilization as we know it today will fall, when the values are lost, then everything falls. Here in Venezuela people lost their values and we became excessively materialistic, that's how the government gained a lot of power, giving away material goods, and granting economic advantages to whoever was willing to follow it, later the tyranny was irrevocable, the military were loyal to the government because the government paid well, without morals, there is nothing that prevents the military from following the orders of the tyrant, and when the tyrant has absolute power, he begins to govern for him, and to stay in power, and thus the whole society it collapses.
I continue to warn that this can happen to the West, if people lose morale, if they are not governed by an ethical principle, then the situation becomes favorable for a tyranny to arise, and civilization collapses, it is enough for it to happen in the United States, in Germany or in the United Kingdom. International trade makes them very dependent on each other, in addition, in the West it happens the same as in Latin America or in the Islamic world, that is, they are a geographical area that moves together, the predominant ideas in Germany are in turn the ideas predominant in the United States, the Western countries are very interconnected today, if one of the important countries sinks, it can drag the whole West with it.
The reason why in Venezuela we have not made a leap or an evolution, is because there is an outside world to which we are connected, people can say migrate to another country as they do now, or we can survive thanks to imports, but if the West falls, the world will be very different, first tyranny will come, but later the values will resurface, a restart of the cycle.
You are always welcome to join us and get more recognition for your posts. You can find more information about geopolis here or join our Discord server.
The best and most important part of the entire post. I also think this defines what it means to be human.
Values Maketh Man
Humanity is the only known life form capable of self-evolution and the ability to take the helm of our destiny. Biologically we are still pretty close to cave men or you can simply look at some tribe in Amazon and then look at the man on the moon. The gap, the difference is what makes us human. We are both the children and the fathers of inequity in animal kingdom.