Home > Uncategorized > Capitalism’s deniers

Capitalism’s deniers

from Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan

A new, capitalism-denying book is on the shelves, and it makes a stunning discovery: ‘Capitalism without competition is not capitalism’!

Distortions: Capitalism Denied

Capitalist crisis, like climate change, tends to breed ‘capitalism deniers’. The problem, argue the deniers, lies not in capitalism but in its ‘distortions’. In its pure form, they maintain, capitalism is the best of all possible worlds. But to the deniers’ chagrin, contemporary capitalism is no longer pristine. Unlike its original, once-upon-a-time version, its current one is subject to distorting ‘imperfections’, ‘shocks’ and ‘exogenous’ events. And it is these aberrations – rather than capitalism itself – that should be blamed for the system’s misfortunes.

The Death of Competition

According to Tepper and Hearn’s The Myth of Capitalism (2019), growing economic malaise and the coming economic crisis are the result not of too much capitalism, but of too little.

The main culprit, they argue, is the ‘death of competition’, which they view as a mortal threat to their beloved social order. According to their book’s inside flap, 

Capitalism is the greatest economic system in history. It has lifted people from poverty and created widespread wealth for billions of people. Unfortunately, the so-called capitalism that exists in today’s United States is the antithesis of a competitive marketplace. Monopolies and oligopolies dominate the economy, with a few winners and millions of losers. The Myth of Capitalism explains how we got to this state and clearly points the way back to open markets that work for everyone. Capitalism without competition is not capitalism, but in industry after industry, competition is dying.

‘Without competition’, they warn, ‘everyone suffers’:

Giant corporations squeeze workers’ wages. Companies grow fat with record profits, sending trillions to the wealthiest. Unjust inequality rises. Dominant monopolies choke startups and manipulate markets to their advantage. Voters feel that markets are rigged, and populist politicians triumph.

But it doesn’t have to be this way:

A truly competitive system prevents unjust inequality, averts price gouging, fosters economic growth, and encourages startups.

In other words, all we need to do is reboot the system back to its pristine state of perfect competition and bliss will be upon us all. The solution seems so obvious that even the cautious Economist of London joined the competitive bandwagon, cheerleading the forthcoming capitalist revival under the fail-proof banner of ‘The Next Capitalist Revolution’ (Anonymous 2018a, 2018b).

Pure Capitalism?

But then, why concentrate only on dwindling competition?  What about irrational agents and disequilibrium, large governments and public institutions, ideologies and religion, war and violence, paper money and fictitious credit, incomplete information and an unknowable future, to name a few of the system’s many ‘distortions’? Aren’t these distortions equally destructive of ‘true’ capitalism? And since these distortions have been blamed for plaguing capitalism from its very once-upon-a-time beginning, maybe there was never such a thing as ‘pure capitalism’ to start with?

Indeed, what if purely competitive capitalism is simply a smokescreen for hiding the inherent realities of power? After all, it is not for nothing that John D. Rockefeller insisted that his best investment ever was the $45 million he donated to rebuild the Baptist University of Chicago – an investment whose principal return was an elegant neoclassical dogma that ignored corporate giants like his Standard Oil of New Jersey and made dominant owners like himself perfectly invisible. Could it be that capitalism, from its very inception and by historical necessity, developed not as a competitive mode of production and consumption, but as a complex mode of power?

Spreading Fake News

A few years ago, we had a tongue-in-cheek exchange (Bichler and Nitzan 2014) on this subject with Mr. X, an enlightened-investor-cum-capitalism-denier who blamed us for spreading fake news about the system’s true nature. According to Mr. X, it was easy to see that the world we lived in wasn’t capitalist at all, but statist.

His view, which we summarized in our exchange, is typical of many fellow deniers and therefore worthy of reiterating at some length:

Real capitalism has no distorting entities. It has no government, no central bank, no judicial system, no courts, no police and no jails. It has no army, no ideology, no public education or public transportation. It has no paper money, no enforced units of measure and probably no common language. It also has no corporate coalitions, labour unions and NGOs. And, as educators, it is our duty to present this true vision of capitalism to our students. Otherwise, they might end up confusing the world around them for reality.

The original state of nature. Now, once upon a time there existed a real, undistorted capitalist system as outlined above. In this true system, money was weighed in gold and the price of a commodity reflected its true value. Regrettably, though, true capitalism no longer exists. Somewhere along the way, and for totally exogenous reasons, it gave way to a distorted statist system. In this new system, money is monopolized by the government and private banks. Together, they create private credit out of thin air and then force the rest of us to use this credit as if it were ‘real money’.

Unlike true capitalism, distorted statism is manifestly unfair. Statism favours large corporations, which in turn influence governments and the banks to give them cheap credit – while at the same time screwing the ‘unconnected’ little guy. The situation is particularly bad during crises, when the banks don’t create enough credit for everyone. Now, to repeat, this setup has absolutely nothing to do with true capitalism. In fact, and here you might want to hold onto your seat, the executives and owners of firms that rely on the government – i.e., the S&P 500 that Mr. X tries so hard to outperform – are not capitalists at all!

So who are the real capitalists? If you haven’t guessed it by now, real capitalists are those who never accumulate. To be a real capitalist, you have to either lose money or break even with enough income to survive. You see, capitalism is just like nature: it thrives on growth as well as decomposition (a Marshallian metaphor that Chauncey Gardiner, the protagonist of Jerzy Kosinski’s 1971 book Being There, would merrily concur with). Moreover, many real capitalists are perfectly happy with a steady state (fixed profit?). The only reason they might seek growth (more profit?) is to offset the inflation created by the false system of private credit money. Remove the curse of false money (along with the other distortions), and capitalism would immediately converge to a stable metabolic equilibrium.

From: Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan, ‘The Enlightened Capitalist’, Philosophers for Change, May 6, (2014).

Holy Wars

Although it may sound funny, this really isn’t a laughing matter.

Capitalism’s deniers, like other religious fundamentalists, can be very dangerous. In its extreme form, fundamentalism is highly combative. It protests and condemns the corrupt apparatus of the ruling church, blames it for serving and collaborating with the political regime, curses it with extinction and sets up counter-organizations to wreck havoc, violently if necessary, in order to re-establish the true faith.

This is the path followed by the Wahabis, who together with the House of Saud imposed their cruel regime on Saudi Arabia; by Middle East Shiites, who have been fighting Sunnis (and each other); by fundamentalist Sunnis like Al-Qaeda and ISIS who have been combatting Shiites (and each other); and by government-sanctioned Jewish ‘settlers’ of the Rabbinate Church, who for the past half century have been waging a holy war against the rest of the world.

And the list doesn’t stop here. Other examples include fundamentalists like Mao Zedong, who unleashed the Cultural Revolution in China; Pol Pot, who eliminated millions in the Killing Fields of Cambodia; and the English Puritans, whose descendants founded American capitalism, drenched in the sweat and blood of Native Americans and African slaves.

So, when born-again free marketers begin to attack their own church (in this case, the big capitalists and their leading corporations) for serving and collaborating with the political regime (namely, the ‘policy makers’ and ‘regulators’ of the ‘state’), when they demand that their country be made ‘great again’ by restoring ‘free competition’, returning to the ‘gold standard’ and dismantling ‘regulation’, and when they begin setting up ‘tea parties’ to overthrow the anti-capitalist ‘deep state’, there is good reason to start worrying about peace on earth.

References

Anonymous. 2018a. An Age of Giants. The Economist, November 17, pp. 4.
Anonymous. 2018b. The Next Capitalist Revolution. The Economist, November 17, pp. 13.
Bichler, Shimshon, and Jonathan Nitzan. 2014. The Enlightened Capitalist. Philosophers for Change, May 6.
Tepper, Jonathan, and Denise Hearn. 2019. The Myth of Capitalism. Monopolies and the Death of Competition. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

  1. John Hermann
    January 7, 2019 at 1:14 pm

    Competition is poorly understood by many economists. Here is an extract from a paper written more than 25 years ago by postKeynesian Australian economist Dr Evan Jones:

    ” Two dominant versions [of competition] exist. Version one depends on large numbers of small firms inhibiting the accession of any to a position of market dominance. This is the stuff of the textbooks. Version two depends on all firms of whatever size and product fighting it out to the death (Social Darwinism). Its second version has much currency in right-wing think tanks.

    “The first version requires strong regulatory action for its success. The second insists that regulatory action is what inhibits the system from working. Public representations to the electorate of the advantages of competition mix these versions unashamedly. Both can’t be right. The details matter as to what a Trade Practices Commission might do or whether we have a Trade Practices Commission at all. “

    • Craig
      January 7, 2019 at 8:53 pm

      Competition and innovation are economic virtues and both need to be fostered. You can’t have two versions of “THE TRUTH”, but you can have an integration of ONLY the particles of truth in those “TRUTHS”. This thirdness greater oneness is wisdom and should be the mindset of every theorist left or right. The socialist variety need to re-visit Hegel’s dialectic and the capitalist, especially the rigid variety thereof, need to sit down, shut up and CONTEMPLATE the same.

      Arrogance and rigidity have never been intellectual virtues, and historically, the various aspects of the unifying and integrative concept of the natural philosophical concept of grace are the route toward intellectual breakthrough.

      “I set before you life and death, Therefore, choose life.”

  2. Frank Salter
    January 7, 2019 at 3:03 pm

    Competition is vitally important but it is far more than on price alone. If it were so simple then slavery would be the predominant successful system and not the well paid jobs which are found within the most successful economies.

    The most effective competition arises from technical progress. This is demonstrated in all forms of manufacturing: for example computers, aeroplanes and their engines, TV’s and so on and so on.

  3. January 7, 2019 at 3:59 pm

    The idea that capitalism is a “natural state of affairs” allows financiers to treat their profiteering as natural also, when, of course, capitalism is man-made and can just as easily be un-made. The form of capitalism we have now tends to enrich a very small part of the public and if capitalists had their way there would be no public expenditures at all: money would go directly from labour’s work into the hands of the financiers without leaving anything for public purposes.

  4. Econoclast
    January 7, 2019 at 5:27 pm

    We need to know the background of authors such as Tepper and Hearn. Tepper is founder and Hearn former employee of Variant Perception, whose “Clients include some of the best known and most highly regarded hedge funds, banks, asset managers and family offices”, according to their website. Beware Wall Street’s philosophy of the power of capital.

  5. January 7, 2019 at 8:53 pm

    Competition alone has never produced success. There is always a semblance of cooperation. Humans seem to have trouble holding two ideas in their heads — in this instance competition and cooperation — at the same time. Every team sport has members cooperating with each other and the rule keepers. Even individual sports figures cooperate with each other in respecting the rules enforced fairly. Every medical and scientific advance is built on the work of others. Any success of competitive capitalism has been due to cooperative capitalism. One of the roles of government is to ensure a healthy balance between the two. Another is to correct when one or the other goes off the rails.

  6. January 7, 2019 at 10:42 pm

    It seems to me that the comments so far miss the gist of the article. Its key point is that the fundamentalists — along with many economists — treat capitalism as a competitive system BY DEFINITION, and therefore every power aspect of capitalism as NON CAPITALIST to start with. With this assumption, the notion that capitalism, like every other broad social system since antiquity, is a MODE OF POWER, becomes a logical impossibility.

    • Craig
      January 8, 2019 at 12:58 am

      Not my post. You ARE right that this was the point of the article. All I’ve ever done on here is suggest we come off regurgitating what has already become obvious to heterodox economists and get on with completing the Hegelian dialectic with the insight that the new paradigm is Abundantly Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting and that policies aligned with and crafted around the significances of the micro and macro-economically integrative point of retail sale are the means of making that new paradigm a temporal universe reality.

      • January 8, 2019 at 1:11 am

        To which heterodox economist the notion of “capitalism as a mode of power” has already become obvious?

        As far as I can tell, the very notion of an “economy” is already antithetical to that of a mode of power.

        But I’m willing to stand corrected.

      • Craig
        January 8, 2019 at 3:52 am

        My use of heterodox was meant to represent those economists who have at least turned the corner of capitalism (or socialism) as sole thesis, but again you’re right none of them on either side of that oppositional duality has successfully intellectually broken through to the synthesis/thirdness greater oneness that always characterizes a new paradigm….except me, with the profit making economic system of direct and reciprocal monetary distributism….and which with the pinnacle concept of wisdom is able to successfully integrate the two seemingly oppositional aspects of grace, namely benevolence and sovereignty/power.

      • January 8, 2019 at 4:22 am

        Much obliged.

  7. January 8, 2019 at 12:21 pm

    These “deniers” seem to be romanticising the artisan-bourgeois economy of the European renaissance. They’re nostalgic of a time when means of production were widely held in small owner-operated firms, and natural scaling constraints forced everyone to trade and make things for a living rather than nonopolize or collect rents. And I agree, that vision of an economy is better. We should steer towards it.

    As to what is and isn’t proper capitalism, it’s an ontological argument. Not much good comes out of these.

  8. Yok
    January 8, 2019 at 5:38 pm

    Yes for Mr Nitzan. Yes to the smokescreen. There have always been wealthy, powerful people who owned the means of production and turned people into employees, serfs and slaves. A more complex form of economy gets a more complex form of power.

  9. January 10, 2019 at 2:07 am

    Yes, usually the more violent form of power. And it is global.

  10. January 14, 2019 at 10:05 am

    I look at capitalism, reformed or original the same way I look at serial killers – wonderful but for all the people killed.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.