pull down to refresh
First title was "The Imperial Logic of Capital Accumulation" then changed. Fully agree "The Transition to a Post-imperialist Economy" would have been much better alternative, thanks for the suggestion.
We need more capitalism in localized societies where there is a strong sense of community and volunteerism.
Great summary
It's pretty much when you devolve to using the words "capital accumulation" that you lose me.
This doesn't mean anything, is not a respectable/actual concept. e.g., here most recently
#1550646
Ok, let's take some time and review some of your pushback criticism, because it's clear to me you've been well-eductrinated to dismiss it, I'll give you that.
I read your Keynes piece. Interesting post. But here's what you argue: capital doesn't accumulate automatically because it requires investment, risk, providing value. You're right. And that's exactly the point. Whoever controls capital gets to direct where production goes. Yes? That's not a bug in the system, that's how power has been designed to works at world scale. That's the feature.
You even acknowledge Marx was "right-ish" about alienation. You acknowledge inequality has grown. You quote Keynes saying we'd value "ends above means and prefer the good to the useful" and then note we didn't choose that. We chose more stuff. But who chose? And for whose benefit?
Surplus flows from periphery to core are measurable in trade data, balance of payments, and FDI flows. US pharma charges $300 for insulin that costs $3 to produce. That surplus flows from diabetic consumers to shareholders. Do you think it is a fair game? Scale that to a world system, and you have the structure we're discussing and the alternative we are trying to imagine.
Is your objection about you finding the language uncomfortable after writing 2000 words on the topic? My man, that's not a critique of the concept.
If you have a specific objection, engage with the provided literature. Dismissing it without reading it isn't a counterargument. I'm not here to convince you or argue with you, rather, to give people who are already questioning a clearer framework.
Whoever controls capital gets to direct where production goes. Yes? That's not a bug in the system, that's how power has been designed to works at world scale.
Correct, but that's not power. Understand what it means to generate positive returns year in and year out; it means you're adding value to others. Consumers, Mises pointed out long ago, are the ultimate captains of the capitalist boat.
You even acknowledge Marx was "right-ish" about alienation. You acknowledge inequality has grown
...because in our great, capitalist-infused abundance we now have the unprecedented trouble of deciding what to do and how to spend our time/work for meaning.
Inequality has shrunk, globally speaking; and it's an irrelevant metric anyway.
...as is "periphery and core." Humans make decisions, entites like "nation-states" (or collection of them, referred to as "periphery") don't.
...and consumers capture the vast majorities (90+%) of the gains from innovation and progress. The Besos and Musks gain a paltry bit, multiplied by mass-market billions.
If you have a specific objection, engage with the provided literature. Dismissing it without reading it isn't a counterargument.
Dude, there's plenty of things for you to read if you actually want to learn or engage with these topics — rather than spewing nonsense into the internet void.
I've written some posts on SN. Books that thoughtfully engage with these ideas include:
- Hülsmann's Abundance (#860406)
- McCloskey's Bourgeoisis series (#1534753), part 1 for the ethics; part 2 for the economics.
- Johan Norberg's The Capitalist Manifesto #969787, #607347
- Mises' Anticapitalist Mentality from half a century ago is seriously underrated
Maybe, just maybe, consider that you fell down a dark, intellectual hole that doesn't apply to the world and doesn't serve you. Some of the resources above can help you climb out of said hole.
TL;DR, this is what I mean. People with Marxist/anti-capitalist mindsets are just hopelessly mistaken -- factually and ethically -- about absolutely everything. It's despicable.
I understand your criticism, and I think the title doesn't quite convey that idea. "Post-imperialist" would be a better fit, I believe, since the capitalism in the examples below isn't practiced in its purest form. Individuals often leverage their human or material capital to engage with others, seeking more capital, in localized societies free from state intervention (little villages, neighborhoods, friends and family). whereas on a larger scale, regulation stifles capitalism within this usurious, imperialist system. We need more capitalism in localized societies where there is a strong sense of community and volunteerism.