Capitalism vs. Progressivism

[WI-Tom]

I meant to take this discussion to a new thread before it completely derailed Norman's thread on the future of the Republican party... Better late than never, I guess. There seemed to be multiple posters caught up in the digression, so maybe a dedicated thread would be worthwhile. Sorry to mutate your thread, Norman!

My argument: capitalism is inherently opposed, even antithetical, to progressivism.

Many responses to that claim seemed to go on the defensive and evasive, shifting the discussion to a different claim: that capitalism is the "best" cultural/economic system ever invented. On the basis, I think, that it has provided more material wealth to a greater number of people than any other system in history has accomplished.

That claim is debatable, and I'll get to it eventually...

But it's irrelevant to my original thesis that capitalism is inherently antithetical to progressivism, which makes no claim that progressivism is better. It's not a value judgment, any more than saying being "tall" is inherently antithetical to being "short."

More to come.

[elf]

You can't claim you're not comparing if you say if...than...

But I see Progressivism as a philosophy of what a social structure should be like and do, whereas I see captialism as a method of dealing with money.

So discussing the two in one breath makes no sense, since they don't have any characteristics in common.

[WI-Tom]

OK, one thing to consider is the labels:

"Capitalism" reflects a primary focus on economic concerns, particularly the central role of investment capital.

"Progressive" reflects a primary focus on progress--that is, movement toward a goal.

A small point, perhaps, but to me, illuminating.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

You can't claim you're not comparing if you say if...than...

But I see Progressivism as a philosophy of what a social structure should be like and do, whereas I see captialism as a method of dealing with money.

So discussing the two in one breath makes no sense, since they don't have any characteristics in common.

Well, first, I didn't say I'm not comparing them. Indeed, comparing them is the entire point of this thread. I said I was not making value judgments about them (yet). Just pointing out that they are not compatible with each other.

Second, I disagree. I think it's possible to compare the two as distinct--and antithetical--worldviews.

The very fact that "capitalism" directs our attention toward methods of dealing with money inevitably implies an ideology in which money, not progress toward equitable social structures, is the fundamental basis for decision-making and setting priorities.

Tom

[David G]

OK, one thing to consider is the labels:

"Capitalism" reflects a primary focus on economic concerns, particularly the central role of investment capital.

"Progressive" reflects a primary focus on progress--that is, movement toward a goal.

A small point, perhaps, but to me, illuminating.

Tom

To build on what Emily said - what 'economic system' would you say is more 'progressive' than 'capitalism'? Because, yes, until you start comparing like things... discussion will quickly get muddled.

[Paul Pless]

But I see Progressivism as a philosophy of what a social structure should be like and do. . .

and social structures, constructs if you will, have nothing to do with economies?

[robm]

The very fact that "capitalism" directs our attention toward methods of dealing with money inevitably implies an ideology in which money, not progress toward equitable social structures, is the fundamental basis for decision-making and setting priorities.

Kind of like the Bhutanese idea of maximising gross domestic happiness, instead of GDP?

[WI-Tom]

Now, let's examine some foundational assumptions.

Capitalism assumes that the most powerful incentives to change behavior on a societal scale are economic ones. For example: You want clean energy? Make it cheaper than fossil fuels, and it will happen. Fail to make it cheaper, and it won't happen.

It is, in other words, an inherently pessimistic worldview--pessimistic in the philosophical sense. Why? Because it does not seriously entertain the notion that human societies have the capacity to create broad change with purely moral or ethical incentives to do so.

Progressivism, on the other hand, does take seriously the notion that human societies have the capacity to create broad change without economic incentives to do so. That we might, as a society or culture, simple choose to prioritize morality and ethics over economics. It is an inherently optimistic worldview in its assumptions about human nature.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

To build on what Emily said - what 'economic system' would you say is more 'progressive' than 'capitalism'? Because, yes, until you start comparing like things... discussion will quickly get muddled.

Before I reply to this:

Have you posted a retraction of your false accusation that I was lying when I commented about rural electric cooperatives? Or are you not committed enough to the idea of "arguing better"?

Tom

[WI-Tom]

Kind of like the Bhutanese idea of maximising gross domestic happiness, instead of GDP?

Yes! A re-ordering of priorities along more progressive lines, for sure.

Tom

[David G]

Now, let's examine some foundational assumptions.

Capitalism assumes that the most powerful incentives to change behavior on a societal scale are economic ones. For example: You want clean energy? Make it cheaper than fossil fuels, and it will happen. Fail to make it cheaper, and it won't happen.

It is, in other words, an inherently pessimistic worldview--pessimistic in the philosophical sense. Why? Because it does not seriously entertain the notion that human societies have the capacity to create broad change with purely moral or ethical incentives to do so.

Progressivism, on the other hand, does take seriously the notion that human societies have the capacity to create broad change without economic incentives to do so. That we might, as a society or culture, simple choose to prioritize morality and ethics over economics. It is an inherently optimistic worldview.

Tom

As I suspected. You are proposing a very narrow definition of 'capitalism'. And one I'd say is, at the root, incorrect.

Try this rather plain-vanilla take and see if you can do better. I'd pay particular attention to the critics/supporters paragraph -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

[LeeG]

OK, one thing to consider is the labels:

"Capitalism" reflects a primary focus on economic concerns, particularly the central role of investment capital.

"Progressive" reflects a primary focus on progress--that is, movement toward a goal.

A small point, perhaps, but to me, illuminating.

Tom

Like Emily said, apples and oranges

[David G]

Before I reply to this:

Have you posted a retraction of your false accusation that I was lying when I commented about rural electric cooperatives? Or are you not committed enough to the idea of "arguing better"?

Tom

Why are you asking me? Did you look?

[Too Little Time]

OK, one thing to consider is the labels:

"Capitalism" reflects a primary focus on economic concerns, particularly the central role of investment capital.

"Progressive" reflects a primary focus on progress--that is, movement toward a goal.

I think you are saying that capitalists will not invest capital to move the economy in the direction of a progressive goal.

If the progressive goal is to reduce inequality, that is an understandable position for capitalists to take.

(I prefer a definition of capitalism that includes human capital - physical ability, education and skills, as capital.)

[WI-Tom]

Now, another difference that sets capitalism and progressivism in opposition:

Capitalism is stubbornly anthropocentric. You don't have to read many of Keith Wilson's posts on the topic to see that when capitalism's defenders talk about capitalism being "good," they mean "good for humans." Typically, "good" is defined as increased human access to material goods. Along with the material goods come things like increased education, lower infant mortality, better health, longer life expectancies, etc., all of which are also "good"--for humans. The ecological costs of such "good" things is rarely part of the calculation.

Progressivism, on the other hand, is resolutely NOT anthropocentric. It is ecologically minded. It defines "good" not in purely human economic terms, but rather, as Aldo Leopold describes it in his essay "The Land Ethic," in terms of a larger community of which humans are but one part of the membership--a part no more essential than any other part. Here's Leopold:

"To sum up: a system of conservation based solely on economic self-interest is hopelessly lopsided. It tends to ignore, and thus eventually to eliminate, many elements in the land community that lack commercial value, but are (as far as we know) essential to its healthy functioning. It assumes, falsely, I think, that the economic parts of the biotic clock will function without the uneconomic parts."

Also of note is Leopold's critique of capitalism's assumption that economic incentives are the appropriate incentive for enabling change:

"When one of these non-economic categories is threatened, and if we happen to love it, we invent subterfuges to give it economic importance."

Which all adds up to a prescient analysis of the anthropocentric nature of capitalism:

"The land-relation is still strictly economic, entailing privileges but not obligations."

Tom

[WI-Tom]

Like Emily said, apples and oranges

Rather, worldview to worldview, ideology to ideology.

In fact, capitalism's refusal to acknowledge that it is, in fact, an ideology, is another feature that sets it in opposition to progressivism.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

As I suspected. You are proposing a very narrow definition of 'capitalism'. And one I'd say is, at the root, incorrect.

Try this rather plain-vanilla take and see if you can do better. I'd pay particular attention to the critics/supporters paragraph -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Before I reply to this:

Have you posted a retraction of your false accusation that I was lying when I commented about rural electric cooperatives? Or are you not committed enough to the idea of "arguing better"?

[WI-Tom]

Why are you asking me? Did you look?

Before I reply to this:

Have you posted a retraction of your false accusation that I was lying when I commented about rural electric cooperatives? And perhaps a sincere apology to go with it? Or are you not committed enough to the idea of "arguing better"?

[Chip-skiff]

My quibble is that while capitalism has existed and been practiced long enough to be pretty well-defined, progressivism is still rather vague.

It depends on who's defining progress. And that can cover a broad range of priorities that conflict with one another.

[David G]

Before I reply to this:

Have you posted a retraction of your false accusation that I was lying when I commented about rural electric cooperatives? Or are you not committed enough to the idea of "arguing better"?

Once you cinch up the bellyband on one of your hobbyhorses... you really DO have trouble following the discussion, and reading for comprehension.

Again... see my #13.

[WI-Tom]

My quibble is that while capitalism has existed and been practiced long enough to be pretty well-defined, progressivism is still rather vague.

It depends on who's defining progress. And that can cover a broad range of priorities that conflict with one another.

Oh, certainly. There is no one "correct" vision of what it means to be progressive. But I don't think its quite as ill-defined as your post might imply.

I think there is an overwhelming consensus about what "progress" means to progressives generally, though certainly specifics vary quite a bit. Here are some of the values I'd argue are broadly shared:

1. A fundamentally optimistic view of humanity as having the capacity to create social change motivated by ethical and moral considerations, not merely economic ones.

2. Movement toward increased equity in all areas (race, gender, sexual orientation, age, ability, economic opportunity, wealth, income, ecology (both human and non-human), etc.

3. Opposition to excessive consumption, and skepticism of material wealth as necessarily "good."

4. Opposition to an extractive relationship with land and water.

Are there disagreements about particulars? Sure. But no one thinks of "progress toward a more white-dominated, male-dominated society" as being "progressive" in context, though it is obviously "progress" of a sort. Just in the wrong direction to fit the category of "progressivism."

Tom

[WI-Tom]

Once you cinch up the bellyband on one of your hobbyhorses... you really DO have trouble following the discussion, and reading for comprehension.

Again... see my #13.

You are obtuse in the extreme. To be blunt:

I have absolutely no interest in interacting with you on this forum until you post a clear, non-evasive retraction of your baseless claim that I was lying. And then a clear, direct statement of apology for accusing me of dishonest intent. You have yet to do either one.

For bonus points, try to do both without resorting to qualifying your statement with rationalizations intended to defend your behavior and weasel out of accountability.

So, either show that you really are interested in learning how to "argue better" or stop wasting my time. I'll have nothing more to do with you, ever, until you own up to making false claims about me and my intentions.

Tom

[Glen Longino]

I've got to watch this...
...popcorn anyone?
Mezcal?

[David G]

I've got to watch this...
...popcorn anyone?
Mezcal?

No joy, Glen. Because one of the tactics WI-Tom typically employs is 'reframing the issue'... there's no point trying to engage with him in collegial fashion.

Already he has insisted on comparing a values system (progressivism) with an economic system (capitalism)... and allows for no other construction. AND he has, by his own sloppiness, prompted a correction from me. He acknowledges the sloppiness, but now insists that my own acknowledgement that his clarified version is correct... is not sufficient.

So I'm afraid I'll have to live with his "no interest in interacting with you". Because he's right. He doesn't have that interest. Not just for the excuse he cited, but because it would involve me insisting once again on the sort of intellectual rigor that eludes him once he goes off.

I'll just lob grenades over the transom as I'm motivated by faulty logic, data, rhetoric, and grammar <G>

[oznabrag]

Burning down the barn to get rid of the rats.

[WI-Tom]

I think you are saying that capitalists will not invest capital to move the economy in the direction of a progressive goal.

If the progressive goal is to reduce inequality, that is an understandable position for capitalists to take.

(I prefer a definition of capitalism that includes human capital - physical ability, education and skills, as capital.)

Yes, that's an interesting point. And while there are certainly individual capitalists that have done much to advance progressive goals--the Gates Foundation work to eliminate polio, for example--the system itself is set up to encourage opposition to equity.

Tom

[Art Haberland]

I am going to say that Capitalism can be both or neither. It depends on if it tethered to Progressive values or regressive ones. In the end, Capitalism is based on making money. When paired with Progressive values, it pushes society forwards in an attempt to open new markets and goods. When tethered to a regressive society, it will hold everything back as it milks that society for everything it has. Left by itself, capitalism will consume everything around and then eat itself.

[Chip-skiff]

I don't mind watching a fight. But it seems like a waste of time and energy, given the number of points on which you agree.

Still, if you're having a good time, go for it.



Given the central position of capitalism in world values and practices, I'd say the best we can hope for is that it becomes more aligned with progressive values.

Whether by the individual initiative of the wealthiest people (e.g. Bill & Melinda Gates, McKenzie Scott, and others who see their success as a chance to do good for others) or the well-merited guilt from prospering through exploitation and political manipulation, or from fear of being dispossessed by violent revolution, if more of us can learn to do the right thing it can have an aggregate effect on the course of society.

[David G]

I am going to say that Capitalism can be both or neither. It depends on if it tethered to Progressive values or regressive ones. In the end, Capitalism is based on making money. When paired with Progressive values, it pushes society forwards in an attempt to open new markets and goods. When tethered to a regressive society, it will hold everything back as it milks that society for everything it has. Left by itself, capitalism will consume everything around and then eat itself.

Art - that's about right. Capitalism isn't inherently 'anti-progressive'... but it has some tendencies. Once again... from back in 2007, I think ---

Originally Posted by IanMcColgin Atits best, conservatism as shown by a line of American conservativesfrom George Washington through Senator Taft embody the wonderous ifboring virtue of rectitude. Unfortunatly, this is a tough virtue tomaintain, quickly becoming the judgemental hipocracy we see in thehateful talking heads who so devalue meaning that they demonize theword "liberal" and don't live up to any of the virtuesfound in the dictionary definition of conservative. They are notconservative in the positive sense but rather are only defenders ofpower and wealth.


Mr.McColgin,

I've come late to this thread, but I have to sayI think you have touched on the core phenomenon. One of the long termpatterns inherent in our system of market capitalism (combined withdemocratic elections) is an ongoing pendulum swing between theextremes of laissez-faire capitalism on one hand, andScandinavian-style "market socialism" on the other.

Fulldisclosure: I'm non-doctrinaire, but tend to lean toward theprogressive side. However, my undergraduate work was in economicsw/graduate work in economic history & economic development.

Toelaborate: market capitalism is a very efficient system for fosteringinnovation, accumulating capital, and developing economies. Thispowerful engine is driven by a particular side of human nature: theceaseless dynamo of human need and human greed. Don't think I'mcondemning. I'm not. For the most part market capitalism does a greatjob of channeling this drive into productive avenues.

However,it is also true that - left unchecked - market capitalism has somebuilt-in destructive tendencies. Historically, the continued accrualof more & more capital & power into fewer & fewer handshas led to an inefficient functioningof the economy. More speculative bubbles. More oscillations. Eventualinstability. One example is the Great Depression. Hoover was anabsolute True Believer in the notion that "The business ofAmerica is business". He thought the rich getting richer and thepoor getting poorer was good for the country. He was not the onlyone. The process began before him. He was just the Final Fool beforethe fall in that particular episode of the drama.

Whatfollowed the Great Depression was a rapid swing of the pendulum tothe far end of the spectrum. Roosevelt instituted Social Security;Unemployment Insurance; WPA programs; and a bevy of other programswhich were the antithesis of Hoover's approach. 'Socialism', all ofit. (or what we sometimes erroneously call socialism, and is moreaccurately called 'social democracy' or 'communitarian') Don't thinkI'm condemning. It worked, and it has a place in our society. We area far more stable economy now - with these programs in place - thanwe were before.

I could go on and on with the variations, ramifications,and permutations of the pattern. Also about the dangers if thependulum swings too far (we're close right now) toward laissez-faire(think Weimar Germany and Adolph Hitler). Instead, I'll sum up bysaying it is not - as Keith so wisely notes - a case of "us vs.them". It is a case of recognizing where we are in the pendulumswing, and accepting whatever corrections are in order... even ifthat leads away from your particular ideological island.

Rightnow, as I mentioned, we've swung a good long way toward uncheckedcapitalism. It's time for a correction. Conservatives should not howlat the prospect. They should welcome it as a normal, desirable,adjustment (think "market correction" if it makes you feelbetter). Liberals should not think that the answer is to swing to theother end of the spectrum and stay there. That place has its ownproblems, dangers, and inefficiencies.

So - it's time forall of us (you too Milo<G>)to embrace a bit of "socialism" and step back a bit fromthe dog-eat-dog wing of capitalism. We will possibly over-correct(this system is a positive feedback loop, and they have thattendency). Then it will be time for all of us to embrace a littlemore market control. "To everything, Turn turn turn, There is aseason, Turn turn turn..."

I hope this rant has beenuseful to someone, and not simply a bit of blather that only aneconomist could put up with.


"When thereis an accumulation of money and power into fewer and fewer hands,people with the mentality of gangsters come to the fore. Power tendsto corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- LordActon <Keep in mind that he's British, and a historian, and hesaid this in 1877. This is not the first time the pattern has playedout>

[WI-Tom]

I am going to say that Capitalism can be both or neither. It depends on if it tethered to Progressive values or regressive ones. In the end, Capitalism is based on making money. When paired with Progressive values, it pushes society forwards in an attempt to open new markets and goods. When tethered to a regressive society, it will hold everything back as it milks that society for everything it has. Left by itself, capitalism will consume everything around and then eat itself.

This is exactly what Aldo Leopold was talking about in "The Land Ethic"--our tendency to attempt to harness the pursuit of profit for progressive ends. "The Land Ethic" again:

"When one of these non-economic categories is threatened, and if we happen to love it, we invent subterfuges to give it economic importance."

For Leopold, and for me, this reliance on economic incentives is an error. Leopold:

"The fallacy the economic determinists have tied around our collective neck, and which we now need to cast off, is the belief that economics determines all land use. This is simply not true."

Note the implicit optimism of such a stance--the belief that what we do as a society, and as individuals, can be--and indeed, often is--motivated by concerns unrelated to economics. Leopold goes on to describe how to make the shift from economic incentives to ethical and moral ones:

"Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and esthetically right as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."

And:

"The method of operation [he means how a land ethic would be developed and maintained] is the same for any ethic: social approbation for right actions: disapproval for wrong actions."

"Right" and "wrong," not economics, must be the foundation of decision-making, in other words; and they are defined in relation to the biotic community. Why is this point crucial to understanding progressivism's inherent opposition to capitalism?

Because to harness the pursuit of profit to serve "progressive" goals is to reinforce the pursuit of profit as the prime motivator for human action. And while using economic incentives can promote ecological gains in the short term (stopping a strip mine because it will have a negative effect on the local tourism industry, for example), ultimately it perpetuates our obsession with profit as the primary human concern, and prevents the formation of a true progressive ethic based on moral and ethical considerations.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

I am going to say that Capitalism can be both or neither. It depends on if it tethered to Progressive values or regressive ones. In the end, Capitalism is based on making money. When paired with Progressive values, it pushes society forwards in an attempt to open new markets and goods. When tethered to a regressive society, it will hold everything back as it milks that society for everything it has. Left by itself, capitalism will consume everything around and then eat itself.

It's interesting to see you post that bolded bit as a potential defense of capitalism. I'd argue that "new markets" and "new goods" only exacerbate the problem by promoting increased consumption of finite resources, and fostering an extractive relationship with the biotic community.

Aldo Leopold one more time for tonight:

“But wherever the truth may lie, this much is crystal-clear: our bigger-and-better society is now like a hypochondriac, so obsessed with its own economic health as to have lost the capacity to remain healthy. . . . Nothing could be more salutary at this stage than a little healthy contempt for a plethora of material blessings."

Tom

[George.]

Deep down, those who hate capitalism hate humanity. They wish humans had a "better" nature. They can't face up to the fact that we are what we are.

Individually, people can be very moral. Collectively, the herd can moved towards societal goals through either greed or fear. Capitalist systems use greed. The alternative is to use fear, as anti-capitalists since Stalin have shown. Given this dismal choice, I'd say greed is the moral alternative.

[oznabrag]

Deep down, those who hate capitalism hate humanity. They wish humans had a "better" nature. They can't face up to the fact that we are what we are.

Individually, people can be very moral. Collectively, the herd can moved towards societal goals through either greed or fear. Capitalist systems use greed. The alternative is to use fear, as anti-capitalists since Stalin have shown. Given this dismal choice, I'd say greed is the moral alternative.

You really are a sad little man, aren't you?

[Durnik]

Deep down, those who hate capitalism hate humanity. They wish humans had a "better" nature. They can't face up to the fact that we are what we are.

Individually, people can be very moral. Collectively, the herd can moved towards societal goals through either greed or fear. Capitalist systems use greed. The alternative is to use fear, as anti-capitalists since Stalin have shown. Given this dismal choice, I'd say greed is the moral alternative.

Greed/selfishness being subsets of human, altruism/cooperation being others, , you'd be as wrong to say those who hate socialism/cooperation hate humanity. NTM, capitalism leverages fear too. FWIW, materialism is more the issue - no matter how it's supported.

and for some of the rest of you, it's pretty obvious from responses that you're not reading what Wi-Tom is writing. And that's (sorta) bizarre as he is being quite clear. Of course he points out in there that people 'create defenses against..', soooo...

[oznabrag]

Greed/selfishness being subsets of human, altruism/cooperation being others, , you'd be as wrong to say those who hate socialism/cooperation hate humanity. NTM, capitalism leverages fear too. FWIW, materialism is more the issue - no matter how it's supported.

and for some of the rest of you, it's pretty obvious from responses that you're not reading what Wi-Tom is writing. And that's (sorta) bizarre as he is being quite clear. Of course he points out in there that people 'create defenses against..', soooo...

If only humanity were as smart as Tom.