Did Capitalism Fail?

The first question is: What is it?

Most people on the subject seem mostly unaware of wise definitions of both capitalism and human nature. This makes it hard to understand or discuss the failure of it.

I have divided capitalism into two categories. 1. protected, free capital-driven business and 2. indifference to need.

"Capital-driven economy" means that businesses and individuals have as their ultimate goal, capital. Their goal is to amass wealth. In pure capitalism this is both free and protected. This means that anyone who does the work can participate in the system following the same rules. The rules are the same as they would be anywhere, don't manipulate and don't steal. Corporations can make money by selling their products or they can manipulate with fees and tricks. The latter is what we have now because it is easier and works better with an uncritical consumer base. What this definition means is that entities can choose to make money by selling products or legitimate services or they can choose to do it by lying. To accomplish the former, this process must not only be open to anyone willing to do the work, but it must be protected against entities that want to cheat and steal. The tricky part is when government intervenes and attempts to fix the former from the latter. In addition, consumers don't always want help and the criminals exist both in business and politics. But that is enough for a definition.

Indifference means that profit-driven, capital-driven systems must have profit and capital as their end goal. Their primary goal must be gain. If sympathy interferes with this goal, the priority changes. If a company's goal is to make money, but to stay in business it must donate all its profits, the model cannot continue. What is interesting here is that there is a question of how the sympathy rules arise. Who makes them? In our hybrid capitalist system, at least fifty years ago, there were unwritten rules that protected capitalism from this priority problem. But as we moved into the twenty-first century it appears that the rules have changed. What is it that has assaulted capitalism, even in its hybrid state? The answer: Social/moral language. We have discussed how on a fundamental level social rules develop that might be called shared psychology. These rules have a greater effect on social behavior than laws. If an individual feels like he is being punished from the outside by social rules or from the inside by guilt he will change. The expectations we borrow from our social system is something we hold in much greater esteem than the laws we reluctantly follow. The criminal has no regard for specific laws, but he still has his "code." Most people don't even know what it means to philosophically uphold the idea of law, as Socrates did, yet they rant and rave as contrived social language police. The social moral fabric for herd people IS their identity. Laws are merely something they follow so that they don't have to pay a fine.

It just so happens that we live in a culture that values sacrifice over gain. If you are confused about what this means read anything Rand writes, fiction or non-fiction. She is repetitive, so you don't have to worry about missing it. Even if you don't like her (even though that dislike probably comes from the CML system itself) it will highlight what it means to be pressured by a system of guilt and perceived psycho-social restrictions. It is a great picture of what our "good" really means. Rand's world is a modern fictional portrayal of Nietzsche's horrific prognostication: That the weak will take over paint their version of "truth" onto the real world. They do this not out of desire for work and profit, but out of guilt and laziness. If you don't believe me that this is what he meant, then sit your lazy ass down and read the Genealogy.

In our current pro-sacrifice culture we have a hard time discussing pure capitalism, let alone the part of capitalism that we call "indifferent." Without going into the negative effect of this clash of ideologies and priorities, we can at least understand what it would look like to be a true capitalist.

Right, but did it fail?

In order to continue a discussion of whether or not it failed, one has to clearly lay out this definition dialectically. Now that we have an idea of what it is, though, we have to keep asking if it failed. It is pretty easy to just say "yes" and move on. Because that is the truth. However, one cannot help but wonder why.

The answer to that is complicated and multi-faceted. But let's look at the list.

1. Humans have changed to respond even less effectively to a free market economy.

2. Humans have changed and lost autonomous thinking in regards to corruption in the system.

3. Corporations have adapted to these changes.

4. No nation-state has attempted pure capitalism because it has never been effective enough to warrant that.

5. As humans degenerate intellectually, or their degenerate nature becomes more visible, we move as a global culture farther away from pure capitalism.

6. Over-population requires more government intervention

7. Declining environmental conditions require larger government and intervention.

8. As government grows, economies become harder to manage, and a free, non-corrupted economic state becomes impossible.

9. The fundamental, almost dangerously philosophical, premise that sacrificial guilt is the proper state of man's psychology and that individuated strength is improper has brought culture to its knees.