RE: Dos amig[ao]s

Dos amig[ao]s

> To me capitalism is the result/consequence/reflection of most people *not* trying, i.e. not trying to be more than self-centric/self-ish, necessarily increasing the odds of others - including the environment - being so-called left in the lurch.

> Blaming capitalism is akin blaming a shadow. The problem is in the mirror, not the window.

To be honest I think the above is extremely misanthropic, but I also think its worth proper consideration. To evaluate this, we have to consider a pretty important question that oldernow's post doesn't address. Does the nature of individuals shape society, or does the nature of society shape the individual?

This is a similar question to the old nature vs nurture debate. We can consider the two extremes of that debate. Either there is a fundamental, unalterable, nature in the hearts of people, or humans are born 'blank slates' and society dictates how they come to behave.

The former dooms us to eternal suffering. If most people are fundamentally bad, selfish, and immoral society can never improve. If this is the case, thinking about this at all is a waste of time. If you allow for some amount of the latter, then there is hope. Individuals can change their society, and this change will be reflected in more and more people.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. People have some inherent nature, but are largely shaped by the outside world. This middle path implies that there is a feedback loop between the individual and society; they shape each other. This is why individuals must critique the society they live in, and the modes of production that shape their social reality.

So far this has been a pretty metaphysical argument, but I think we can also look at things more materially.

Marx

It always seems strange to me how much we talk about capitalism without engaging with the thinker that gave us the term and the first real analysis of this emerging organization of production.

I think the part of Marxism that is most relevant here is that Marx sees communism not as a morally superior system to capitalism (although it's clear he personally believes that as well) but as the unavoidable resolution to capitalism's material contradictions. The evolution of history, as Marx sees it, leads inevitably to communism. Marx is a materialist, and sees historical evolution through the different modes of production as being driven by material forces. Marx studies this history of production by looking at historical examples. He looks at the transition from feudalism to capitalism to try to understand the inevitable transition from capitalism to whatever comes next. This part of Marxism, the study of the mechanics of history, is often overshadowed by its political dimensions, but I think it's useful to think about here.

Taking a hint from Marx, can we think about our question in the context of the historical shift from feudalism to capitalism. To me it seems plainly absurd to attribute this enormous shift in the way people live to a change in mindset of individuals. Did the kings and lords suddenly wake up one day and decide they would like to be capitalists instead? Did the peasants simply decide to move en masse to cities and become factory workers on a whim?

Practically any historical analysis, even from a non-Marxist perspective, looks at many material causes for this shift. A labor shortage caused by the Black Death tipped the balance of power in favor of laborers, allowing them more equitable employment and autonomy. This allowed for more revolt against the autocratic systems that had long dominated people's lives. The industrial revolution completely altered the social fabric of human society, making ways of living that were previously impossible the new norm. Material changes, the invention of new technologies, shifts in the balance of power, these things shape the landscape of what is possible for individuals.

These changes in the macrostructure of human society are reflected in the microstructure of individual beliefs. Most of us no longer believe in the divine right of kings. Most of us, even those with religious beliefs, lead much more secular lives. We feel much more separated from nature than we used to, we see things more often as mechanistic than magical. Material changes led to vast restructurings of society, which in turn restructured all of us.

It's tempting to think of the present as fundamentally different from the past, that we now live in some end of history, untethered from material reality and stuck in our present state forever. Looking at the past can help give us perspective on just how much change is possible.

The Point of Critiquing Capitalism

If you say that society is a reflection of the individual, I contend that it is at least equally true that the individual is a reflection of society. Furthermore, material conditions have a disproportionate effect on the structure of society. Perhaps the future then is in deliberately and consciously shaping our material conditions for the good of everyone, learning to use the feedback loop for good, addressing the shortcomings we see in those around us by making the world better for them as well as us. The first step in this process is critique. We must understand where we are to know where to go, and how to get there.