(no subject)
Anna M. Weichselbraun
Capitalism & Psychological Life
Prof. Laskawy
March 22, 2004
Capitalism Now!
If you’ve ever felt overwhelmed by the plethora of choices of milk at the grocery store, chances are you live in a capitalist society. It’s as obvious as the nose in your face. (Another hint that this is capitalism is the fact that Citibank is correct spelling according to Microsoft Word.) There is no question about accepting capitalism as the basis for our social structure. We just do. A while ago, people were still agonizing and arguing about capitalism as an economic system and its socio-political influences. (Imagine that!) They had not yet accepted what is obviously best for us. (Vitton bags for everyone!)
Smith believed that capitalism would benefit everyone simply by increasing the total wealth of a nation as the effect of individual self-interest. De Tocqueville on the other hand saw how well democracy and capitalism meshed together but carefully weighed its social effects. Marx saw capitalism as a system which reinforced the interests of the ruling class and inherently created inequality by the nature of its condition. The differences of their points of view can be understood historically in terms of the era they were writing in and their personal philosophical struggles with the paradigms of the time. Marx’s description of capitalism is the most flexible and therefore best applicable to today’s economic structures.
The Invisible Hand
Adam Smith argued for a free market capitalist economy with a division of labor which would effect greater productivity and greater productivity would lead to increased wealth for all. The system’s main thrust comes from the individual’s self-interest and inherent desire to exchange which at once makes everyone equal and therefore serves as a leveling ground in a democratic sense. Though all are equal, each man possesses different skills and by specializing will increase productivity for the whole system. Furthermore, Smith believed that political power threatens the natural activity of the economy and advocated a laissez-faire approach.
According to Smith, a capitalist system is most beneficial because it takes advantage of individual self-interest to ultimately better society as a whole. The individual
neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting
it…he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention…By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. (Wealth of Nations 485)
Smith embraced the recent idea that a private vice could be used for the public benefit. He was aware of the philosophical paradigm shift occurring before and during his lifetime which had transformed self-interest from a vice to a near virtue. In addition, being a “moral philosopher” it must have been relieving to conceptualize an idea which eliminated the concept of universal morality. It was no longer necessary. Self-interest would rule economy and society alike.
The physiocratic laissez-faire ideology found its comfy place in Smith’s theory of capitalism. Political power must be checked and kept away from the economic system which only functions without political interference. Also the concept of a tabula rasa was especially appealing and appropriate in the capitalist model. There was the chance to start again and eliminate the mistakes of the past such as the messy mercantilist system. By using the scientific method to draw conclusions about human nature and inevitabilities, Smith theorized that capitalism would better the condition of society.
Wanting More
Alexis de Tocqueville directly linked capitalism and democracy. He asserted that the equality of condition could be attained through democratic institutions which “are the cause…of the prodigious commercial activity of the inhabitants.” (Democracy in America 290) He noticed how enthusiastic Americans were about their concept of equality and how hopeful it made them about their respective futures. In combination with a market economy, Americans desired increasingly more because the possibility of attaining more seemed real. Tocqueville commented that “the same equality which allows every citizen to conceive these lofty hopes, renders all the citizens less able to realize them: it circumscribes their powers on every side, whilst it gives freer scope to their desires.” (Democracy in America 663)
Noticing that people continued to want increasingly more, Tocqueville asserted that this perpetual pursuit of pleasure leads to permanent dissatisfaction. The highly individual values created by a democratic market society led people to feel anxious and alone. As a possible remedy for this isolation from society, Tocqueville suggested civic associations which Americans seemed to form spontaneously. While acknowledging the benefits of a free market democracy, Tocqueville also warned of its latent social crises.
Having spent a generous amount of time in the United States, Tocqueville was culturally looking at its politico-economic system as a precedent for France. His position as an outsider observing the American market economy from a different historical and ideological perspective allowed him to form an illuminating critique. Tocqueville was no cheerleader of America’s system but insightfully described what he saw. Undoubtedly feeling the waves of social change in his own country, he warned of the “tyranny of the majority” created by a democratic market system which was altogether so easy in the US.
He astutely recognized the tendency for excess and opulence in the United States, perhaps because his people (not only stereotypically) cherish excellence and delicacy. “The reproach I address to the principle of equality, is not that it leads men away in the pursuit of forbidden enjoyments, but that it absorbs them wholly in quest of those which are allowed.” (Democracy in America 658) He explains that by only focusing on desires allowed by the structure, men are foregoing larger and greater goals of humanity. Tocqueville asserts that there is a world beyond material desires.
I’m so lonely, I wish I was the moon tonight
Marx places capitalism in a larger framework of economic development. It follows feudalism and begins with the rise of industrialization in Western society. Its basic assumption of the division of labor for higher productivity simultaneously creates a class system, and therefore class struggle, as well as effecting the worker’s alienation from the product and process of his labor.
As activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. (The German Ideology 53)
Marx breaks with the liberal tradition that assumes all men to be equal by pointing out the historical fact that men are not all equal, especially not as a product of capitalism.
Marx rejects the Hegelian notion of Geist as the agent for historical change and philosophical paradigm shifts. He attributes the preeminence of a certain set of ideas, the ruling ideas or ideology at any particular historical moment, to the ruling class who are the owners of the means of production and in whose interest it is to socialize the ideological consciousness which will bring them the most wealth and power. The political system is merely a tool of the ruling class which reiterates their most beneficial ideology and economic system. Marx illustrates the ruling class’ capacity to define the ruling ideas as such, “the individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think.” (The German Ideology 64)
Marx breaks with the liberal tradition of equality by applying the scientific Enlightenment approach to history. He rejects the notion of a state of nature and instead studies history as a set of empirical facts (no doubt a product of the ruling classes) which quite obviously illustrates that man is not equal. Capitalism creates a set of conditions which effectively reduces labor to merely earning a wage.
By experiencing capitalism in a rather late stage in which the gap between the rich and the poor is becoming increasingly obvious, Marx is able to historically contextualize and evaluate the market society with a discerning eye. He is aware of a socialized consciousness and ruling class ideology which gives him a perspective Smith cannot attain simply because of historical process.
Contemporary Capitalism: Why Marx Got It Right
Marx’s perspective of Capitalism remains appropriate and legitimate until today. Enjoying the advantage of historical knowledge and its progress, Marx’s theory is most flexible and applicable to advanced capitalism as we know it.
Smith’s vision was largely an optimistic product of the recent liberal paradigm shift which justified capitalism by appropriating a historical vice, self-interest, as a public good. This theory had not been tested. Marx’s historically materialist approach and the advantage of coming later in time allowed him to describe how capitalism at an advanced stage was far from the system its idealistic creators envisioned. Not to mention that Marx’s notion of ideology easily refutes Smith’s vision of capitalism; Smith was already experiencing a proto-Capitalist market society and his consciousness had therefore, according to Marx, already been socialized by the ideology. The pursuit of wealth is only a product of self-interest in capitalist ideology.
Tocqueville began seeing a free market economy’s rather hazardous effects on the individual psyche and was able to view the pursuit of pleasure negatively because his ideology contrasted with that of greed and wanting more. The outsider may transcend another’s historical situation. Yet, he only described the social effects of a free market democracy within the confines of the individual. Marx explained the true product of the division of labor: class conflict, alienation, and inequality which are at once inevitable and denied within the Capitalist ideology and the false consciousness it perpetuates.
Capitalism & Psychological Life
Prof. Laskawy
March 22, 2004
Capitalism Now!
If you’ve ever felt overwhelmed by the plethora of choices of milk at the grocery store, chances are you live in a capitalist society. It’s as obvious as the nose in your face. (Another hint that this is capitalism is the fact that Citibank is correct spelling according to Microsoft Word.) There is no question about accepting capitalism as the basis for our social structure. We just do. A while ago, people were still agonizing and arguing about capitalism as an economic system and its socio-political influences. (Imagine that!) They had not yet accepted what is obviously best for us. (Vitton bags for everyone!)
Smith believed that capitalism would benefit everyone simply by increasing the total wealth of a nation as the effect of individual self-interest. De Tocqueville on the other hand saw how well democracy and capitalism meshed together but carefully weighed its social effects. Marx saw capitalism as a system which reinforced the interests of the ruling class and inherently created inequality by the nature of its condition. The differences of their points of view can be understood historically in terms of the era they were writing in and their personal philosophical struggles with the paradigms of the time. Marx’s description of capitalism is the most flexible and therefore best applicable to today’s economic structures.
The Invisible Hand
Adam Smith argued for a free market capitalist economy with a division of labor which would effect greater productivity and greater productivity would lead to increased wealth for all. The system’s main thrust comes from the individual’s self-interest and inherent desire to exchange which at once makes everyone equal and therefore serves as a leveling ground in a democratic sense. Though all are equal, each man possesses different skills and by specializing will increase productivity for the whole system. Furthermore, Smith believed that political power threatens the natural activity of the economy and advocated a laissez-faire approach.
According to Smith, a capitalist system is most beneficial because it takes advantage of individual self-interest to ultimately better society as a whole. The individual
neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting
it…he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention…By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. (Wealth of Nations 485)
Smith embraced the recent idea that a private vice could be used for the public benefit. He was aware of the philosophical paradigm shift occurring before and during his lifetime which had transformed self-interest from a vice to a near virtue. In addition, being a “moral philosopher” it must have been relieving to conceptualize an idea which eliminated the concept of universal morality. It was no longer necessary. Self-interest would rule economy and society alike.
The physiocratic laissez-faire ideology found its comfy place in Smith’s theory of capitalism. Political power must be checked and kept away from the economic system which only functions without political interference. Also the concept of a tabula rasa was especially appealing and appropriate in the capitalist model. There was the chance to start again and eliminate the mistakes of the past such as the messy mercantilist system. By using the scientific method to draw conclusions about human nature and inevitabilities, Smith theorized that capitalism would better the condition of society.
Wanting More
Alexis de Tocqueville directly linked capitalism and democracy. He asserted that the equality of condition could be attained through democratic institutions which “are the cause…of the prodigious commercial activity of the inhabitants.” (Democracy in America 290) He noticed how enthusiastic Americans were about their concept of equality and how hopeful it made them about their respective futures. In combination with a market economy, Americans desired increasingly more because the possibility of attaining more seemed real. Tocqueville commented that “the same equality which allows every citizen to conceive these lofty hopes, renders all the citizens less able to realize them: it circumscribes their powers on every side, whilst it gives freer scope to their desires.” (Democracy in America 663)
Noticing that people continued to want increasingly more, Tocqueville asserted that this perpetual pursuit of pleasure leads to permanent dissatisfaction. The highly individual values created by a democratic market society led people to feel anxious and alone. As a possible remedy for this isolation from society, Tocqueville suggested civic associations which Americans seemed to form spontaneously. While acknowledging the benefits of a free market democracy, Tocqueville also warned of its latent social crises.
Having spent a generous amount of time in the United States, Tocqueville was culturally looking at its politico-economic system as a precedent for France. His position as an outsider observing the American market economy from a different historical and ideological perspective allowed him to form an illuminating critique. Tocqueville was no cheerleader of America’s system but insightfully described what he saw. Undoubtedly feeling the waves of social change in his own country, he warned of the “tyranny of the majority” created by a democratic market system which was altogether so easy in the US.
He astutely recognized the tendency for excess and opulence in the United States, perhaps because his people (not only stereotypically) cherish excellence and delicacy. “The reproach I address to the principle of equality, is not that it leads men away in the pursuit of forbidden enjoyments, but that it absorbs them wholly in quest of those which are allowed.” (Democracy in America 658) He explains that by only focusing on desires allowed by the structure, men are foregoing larger and greater goals of humanity. Tocqueville asserts that there is a world beyond material desires.
I’m so lonely, I wish I was the moon tonight
Marx places capitalism in a larger framework of economic development. It follows feudalism and begins with the rise of industrialization in Western society. Its basic assumption of the division of labor for higher productivity simultaneously creates a class system, and therefore class struggle, as well as effecting the worker’s alienation from the product and process of his labor.
As activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. (The German Ideology 53)
Marx breaks with the liberal tradition that assumes all men to be equal by pointing out the historical fact that men are not all equal, especially not as a product of capitalism.
Marx rejects the Hegelian notion of Geist as the agent for historical change and philosophical paradigm shifts. He attributes the preeminence of a certain set of ideas, the ruling ideas or ideology at any particular historical moment, to the ruling class who are the owners of the means of production and in whose interest it is to socialize the ideological consciousness which will bring them the most wealth and power. The political system is merely a tool of the ruling class which reiterates their most beneficial ideology and economic system. Marx illustrates the ruling class’ capacity to define the ruling ideas as such, “the individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think.” (The German Ideology 64)
Marx breaks with the liberal tradition of equality by applying the scientific Enlightenment approach to history. He rejects the notion of a state of nature and instead studies history as a set of empirical facts (no doubt a product of the ruling classes) which quite obviously illustrates that man is not equal. Capitalism creates a set of conditions which effectively reduces labor to merely earning a wage.
By experiencing capitalism in a rather late stage in which the gap between the rich and the poor is becoming increasingly obvious, Marx is able to historically contextualize and evaluate the market society with a discerning eye. He is aware of a socialized consciousness and ruling class ideology which gives him a perspective Smith cannot attain simply because of historical process.
Contemporary Capitalism: Why Marx Got It Right
Marx’s perspective of Capitalism remains appropriate and legitimate until today. Enjoying the advantage of historical knowledge and its progress, Marx’s theory is most flexible and applicable to advanced capitalism as we know it.
Smith’s vision was largely an optimistic product of the recent liberal paradigm shift which justified capitalism by appropriating a historical vice, self-interest, as a public good. This theory had not been tested. Marx’s historically materialist approach and the advantage of coming later in time allowed him to describe how capitalism at an advanced stage was far from the system its idealistic creators envisioned. Not to mention that Marx’s notion of ideology easily refutes Smith’s vision of capitalism; Smith was already experiencing a proto-Capitalist market society and his consciousness had therefore, according to Marx, already been socialized by the ideology. The pursuit of wealth is only a product of self-interest in capitalist ideology.
Tocqueville began seeing a free market economy’s rather hazardous effects on the individual psyche and was able to view the pursuit of pleasure negatively because his ideology contrasted with that of greed and wanting more. The outsider may transcend another’s historical situation. Yet, he only described the social effects of a free market democracy within the confines of the individual. Marx explained the true product of the division of labor: class conflict, alienation, and inequality which are at once inevitable and denied within the Capitalist ideology and the false consciousness it perpetuates.