A capitalists freedom is your slavery

I wrote that capitalism is incompatible with freedom and democracy and I should explain myself because that is far too sweeping and is not necessarily true, but is true in the context of the Anglo/American free market model that dominates my poor benighted country. First, we must always bear in mind the social nature of the human being. This is important because the interactive and interdependent nature of human living means that freedom must never be regarded as an absolute. Human beings are regulatory beings who regulate their environment preventing each individual human doing exactly what they want. Next, the human being is a collective being who can only individuate themselves with reference to other human beings. Thus, individual freedom can only be discussed with reference to the greater social context and the interactive nature of human living, and all talk of free markets, the necessity for and the desirability of, is simply nonsense as there can be no such thing. As I have written before, the concept of a free market is an illusionary fraud and no serious economist or social scientist uses such language.

Now, we speak about capitalism as if it is a definable ‘thing’ that can be accurately described and categorised when it is, in reality, a generic term describing a diverse set of models that attempt to explain and describe human behaviour in the economic sphere. What I mean is that Britain, the USA, Germany, France etc. are all defined as capitalist societies when in fact their economic models are all quite different, in terms of tax arrangements, public sector activity, legal frameworks, the balance of powers between employer and employee etc. Capitalist societies are indeed much more free than authoritarian societies in both the political and civil spheres, but that is because the nature of supply and demand economics and the legal position of private property requires greater legal freedom of choice, movement, decision-making etc. However, once again, such freedoms are never absolute and are subject to the laws, norms, values and systems of justice prevailing in any given society. Thus, the very nature of capitalist economic behaviour, necessitates regulatory controls on that behaviour. An example is the regulation of monopoly activity. Interestingly, free market theory tells us that as the market is self-regulating, monopolies cannot happen, when in the real world, the freer any market is from regulation, the more likely it is that it will develop a monopoly. But the most important contradiction of capitalism is its exclusive nature.

Capitalism is exclusive, in that it excludes those with no capital and is inclusive only to the extent that you can play the game. I am not anti-capitalist because it is self-evident that a competitive market system has demonstrable benefits. It is entrepreneurial, inventive and very productive. It has raised our standard of living quite remarkably and has brought many people out of absolute poverty and degradation. But I also recognise that, if not regulated and monitored, it is extremely destructive and it is this destructive form of capitalism that is the dominant form in the west thanks to the Thatcher/Reagan consensus and the poisonous legacy of people like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand. As it operates from an exchange of goods and services, and is based on a money economy, if you have no goods and services to offer, or have no money, capitalism has no mechanisms at its disposal to include you. If you are sick, disabled, or circumstances have left you with no form of income, then you will simply perish unless human intervention in this market based economy rescues you and provides you with the means to participate in it. That is the role of the modern state, and why the neoliberal demands a minimal state. Thus, whilst capitalism on one hand demands freedom to pursue economic activity free from interference, it only works when it is regulated. Left to itself the so-called free market removes other freedoms, such as human rights which are seen as constraints on the freedom to make as much profit from your capital as you are able with no regard to other people.
All the founding fathers of economics, Adam Smith, David Hume, John Stuart Mill, Alfred Marshall etc. are all adamant that economics must be regarded as a whole society study and cannot function if only economic activity is considered, separated from the political and social context within which it is operating.

Democracy by its very nature is participatory and inclusive and makes demands (such as a genuine redistribution of resources and power), that constrain economic freedoms. As a result, the modern free market neoliberal model we are dominated by in the West despises democracy because it imposes restraints on economic activity and insists on forms of economic redistribution outwith the market, and so outwith the control of the capitalist class. That is the main complaint the neoliberal has about the EU, a political model that refuses to allow unrestricted market forces to operate, forces that demand the virtual slavery of workers and the pauperisation of the helpless who are seen as uneconomic. The Anglo/American economic model is dangerously exclusive, anti-social and anti-democratic, not only encouraging, but actively promoting obscene inequality, demonization of ‘non-economic actors’ as they like to label people who are unfortunate and disadvantaged, and ferociously elitist. What we have in the UK is a system dominated by a select elite that gives us a vote, calls it a democracy and then quite happily ignores the electorate for the next five years because it knows full well that a genuine democratic system would put most of them in jail.

This topic appears huge and complex, but at its fundamental level is actually quite simple. However, I accept that this post is already too long and I have probably raised more questions than I have provided explanation. To be continued, you have been warned.

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat