Like many Americans, I was born into capitalism, even before I was born. The mechanisms of such an economic theory were entrenched so deeply into the American way of life–well, what is it they say about a fish having no concept of “wet”, since the water is everywhere?
Like a fish in water, I never questioned capitalism because there was nothing to question, nobody to question. Hardly anyone even said the word capitalism–just reiterated capitalistic type wisdom as in hard work pays off or when the gold falls, reach for a bucket, not a thimble! I was brought up with the notion that in America, you and only you can determine your own outcome. That you must believe in yourself before anyone, and if you put your hands together in a fury and light your brain afire long enough to get good at something, your talent, hard work, dedication, or all three will pay off, or be rewarded by somebody who thinks you are worth taking a chance on.
And this made sense, and still does. There is, in some ways of talking about capitalism, that appeal to the way certain people think. Particularly those who believe most problems are created and solved by the individual, not the collective. That in the capitalist system, personal action, personal risk, and initiative are rewarded.
These concepts are not only useful, but required for any individual interested in pursuing their destiny to its fullest. Too, there is also the understanding that under capitalism, there is the pursuit of capital, that is wealth, and no amount of wealth is disallowed. And for me, even this made some sense; I slightly wince at the idea of a power so great, it can take away your money, simply based on the fact that they believe you have too much of it. The concept here is not just the justified and encouraged individual pursuit of infinite wealth, but too, that nobody’s wealth will cause you to be poor. The rich do not affect the poor, but rather, only poor choices affect the poor.
This too, is certain to be true for many cases. But even those fish who grew up in the waters of capitalism are starting to wonder—can it be true for everyone? Can it be true forever? Is it still true, today?
When many economists rail on about capitalism, we are often gifted a modifier. Late-stage capitalism suggests a pessimistic evolution that time has wrought upon the free markets of post WWII optimism.
Croney capitalism suggests secret handshakes behind closed doors, ensuring the cycle of opportunity is bestowed only to members of a big club. Runaway capitalism suggests the whole thing has run off the rails—and its priorities no longer serve the greater good, as it once did.
And modifiers of this sort are aplenty—too many of them to list here. But they certainly make sense to study and reference, as they describe the facets in which capitalism has either been modified or evolved. Simply referring to capitalism in the nude is to dismiss change—the only constant we are said to ever know.
While I empathized, initially, with the protection of unlimited personal wealth, I cannot be entirely sure, anymore, that is has no effect on those who are underneath the weight of its densely concentrated power. Slowly, and then all at once, the term millionaire has dissolved from our discourse. In the world of today, we aren’t interested in your pitiful millions; let us know when that word starts with a B, bucko! And these billionaires—they aren’t slowing down but speeding up.
Considering all that I shortly laid out above, I have made an effort to show this is not a screed about people having more than they need, or why can’t Jeff Bezos just buy all the homeless decent housing—these are not serious solutions. And while I don’t believe that the “greed is good” of Gecko fame is all that great, I don’t believe that people should only be relegated to what they need. These are sands in which hard lines are tough to draw.
However, instead of looking at capitalism through the heinous and distasteful actions of its most public mascots, it may be more useful for an analysis to view it as that water I mentioned—something that is all around, all consuming. I am not interested in whether it creates billionaires, but in the atmospheric, attitudinal degree that it affects everyday living among large swaths of people who no longer have a shared vision, shared tastes, or a shared optimism. The fish are beginning to realize the water is tainted—that the system is either rigged or broken.
It is of my opinion that the worst thing that capitalism has promoted (enter your modifier here), is not necessarily extreme wealth, or extreme poverty (as it has done a good bit of lifting of that all in all), but rather—mediocrity.
Yes, if profit is your god, greed your muse, influence and agenda your drug, your best bet in many cases is to produce mediocrity. I believe this to be the case when surveying the vast cultural landscape, which is more like an abyss in which the current modes of much financially successful art, music, literature, and film are created to cast the widest net, to the lowest common denominator, to the most unwitting of people. In all categories of brow, mediocrity is certainly the largest.
It is no wonder that much of our culture is grounded in Hollywood remakes, remixes, and otherwise carbon copy productions to satisfy and continue the zombification of a populace that requires constant easy-to-digest cultural candy to distract them from the fact that wages have stagnated, and everything else is going up, up, up.
And with distraction, if you know something to have worked before, best bet is try again—after waiting just long enough to remind them of what they just forgot. If people are feeling stranded, bemused, befuddled, and fearful of their future, perhaps one strategy is to give them a taste of their past. From the cinema to the dinner table, much of what is aspired to is only what can be gotten away with—because whatever sells is king, and aspiring to greatness is not as profitable as hocking mediocrity. By doing this, we encourage the lowly state of human aspiration.
Sometime ago, in another essay, I related the idea that the least meaningful word one can use today is the word obvious. So siloed off into our own cultural corners, and with no shared vision or understanding of value, it is not clear that anything is ever to be obvious to everyone. Similarly, there is very little one can be absolute about, as well. We live in a world forever doused in grey.
I thought I was a free-speech absolutist, but I don’t endorse doxxing nor threats of violence in the morning’s mailbox. As for capitalism, I cannot be absolute about it either. It may have once erected great sweeping skylines with ingenious, inspired architecture; catapulted many, many millions out of poverty and destitution, and once delivered on its promise to reward hard work and personal initiative, but there is a stagnation in those waters of promise. Promises require a bit of optimism in my opinion. What good is a promise when so few believe it anymore?
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 | A guest post by
|
Great subject for discussion. What's lost in our drive to acquire and amass some amount of wealth is our collective purpose in doing so. Once upon a time, the wealth owners found prosperity in lifting others out of extreme poverty and improving our overall health and standard of living after WW2. Most people were the recipients of a better life and security for future generations. But at some point (early 80s?), the wealthy got scared. Too many people were prospering and upsetting their balance of power. So they set wealth traps. Since then, the wealthy have found prosperity in keeping people in poverty and extracting from the overall health and well-being of others, giving the masses just enough rope to hang themselves. The pity is we are still letting the ultra wealthy lead us into the gallows with distractions, false ideologies, and empty promises. It's time we figured out our purpose for being here on this earth and collectively define what true wealth really means.
For a piece on capitalism, it isn't really defined anywhere, besides that it has something to do with individual pursuits. If you look at the most profitable pursuits, those are usury and scams, rather than selling a legitimate product or service. The people getting their hands dirty, investing their years and their bodies into the back-breaking labor to make those glittering skyscrapers as well as the food, clothes, and more are not lifted out of poverty. These people stay living on the edge of or in poverty because capitalism rewards any pursuit of capital you can get away with, especially by taking advantage of others, especially poor people whose only capital is their labor power, or government resources by being supposedly "too big to fail" so they get unlimited bailouts and ridiculous contracts. People who already have the kind of capital simply put that into a pursuit are mostly protected from failure, but the employees are not. There are no golden parachutes for working class employees. Also, Bill Gates isn't out ploughing the land of which he is one of the biggest owners in the U.S. The old libertarian principle of individual ownership only includes what you can cultivate, not all that you would need an army of other people to take care of for you. When the wealthy get too rich, they tend to become lords and purchase the government as well, which is what has happened. The rest of us end up without the freedom to individual pursuits because we don't have the capital for teams of lawyers and lobbyists, private security, etc. We can do better than technofeudalism in my opinion.