Is Capitalism Good?

It's now come out (via Sol Stern in City Journal, reprising his exposé of two years ago -- MUST READ) that while back in the '60s, Weather Undergrounder William Ayers only bombed buildings, now he blows minds.  That is to say, he's a prominent education professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago, who teaches budding K-12 teachers to “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation.”  Writes Stern:

One of Ayers’s major themes is that the American public school system is nothing but a reflection of capitalist hegemony. Thus, the mission of all progressive teachers is to take back the classrooms and turn them into laboratories of revolutionary change. [...]

(Screaming irony alert:  Ayers' dad was the CEO of Commonwealth Edison, Chicagoland's massive electric utility.  Dedicating your life to destroying the hand that fed you is, you see, the ultimate luxury.  It enfolds a certain hidden assumption that you're not going to succeed -- and that even if you did, you'd still be one of the Nomenklatura, so your quality of life would not suffer.  Quite the contrary.)

(More screaming irony:  Wikipedia, which I do not trust, reports that "Frank Clark, a registered Federal Lobbyist working on behalf of Commonwealth Edison, is registered with the Barack Obama campaign as a bundler."  Meanwhile, the ComEd website states that Frank M. Clark, who started out in ComEd's mailroom, has gone from being the company's first African American president to being its chairman and CEO.  Evidently this is the same Frank Clark, and Obama has done oblique legislative favors for ComEd.  Should be reassuring to those who fear that Obama hates capitalism -- unless, of course, he's one of those feeding-hand-biting favorite sons, too.)

But I digress.

Ayers’s influence on what is taught in the nation’s public schools is likely to grow in the future. Last month, he was elected vice president for curriculum of the 25,000-member American Educational Research Association (AERA), the nation’s largest organization of education-school professors and researchers. [...]

AERA already does a great deal to advance the social-justice teaching agenda in the nation’s schools and has established a Social Justice Division with its own executive director. With Bill Ayers now part of the organization’s national leadership, you can be sure that it will encourage even more funding and support for research on how teachers can promote left-wing ideology in the nation’s classrooms.

I find this extremely sinister (pun not intended, but welcomed), and it bears discussion, but it's not what I want to discuss, because its creepiness seems self-evident to me.  What I want to hold up side by side are the Weatherrads' insistence that CAPITALISM IS EVIL, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the conservative counterassertion that CAPITALISM IS GOOD.  Here's Dr. Sanity last year, newly linked by Sisu:

[S]ocialism's "social justice" advocates have taken over our k-12 education system and are determinedly undermining capitalism [...]

This is yet another example of a pervasive intellectual trend in the West to continually bash capitalism, private property, business, and free trade; while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of all of them. [Hear, hear to that last part.] [...]

One very harmful result of this sorry educational situation is that there are few people--even among those who stalwartly defend the free market, who understand and appreciate the essential morality of capitalism. [...]

Capitalism's incredible production of wealth is the economic side-effect that occurs when political freedom is present. It has been argued, and I agree, that both economic and political freedom are absolute prerequisites for moral behavior.

So my question is:  granted that capitalism is a tremendous engine of wealth and, for people of bold entrepreneurial temperament, of opportunity; is "the essential morality of capitalism" going too far?

Isn't it a little like saying "the essential morality of natural selection"?  It's so Calvinist:  success is somehow taken as proof of virtue, rather than simply as proof of triumphant adaptation.   You can think of capitalism as a particularly bracing kind of ecosystem that selects for a particular type of person.  Bold, headstrong, creative, autonomous, driving -- you'll be in your element, an eagle in Alaska.  If you're a softer sort, more introverted, less competitive (or competitive but losing the competition), you may feel yourself an endangered species.  Which is why artistic types have always been so susceptible to imagining a less rough-and-tumble Utopia for themselves (little realizing that if they think they're miserable under capitalism, wait'll they taste socialism -- they are the ones who end up in the insane asylums, concentration camps, and gulags for daring to "Think Different").

So obviously, I agree with Dr. Sanity up to a point.  But let's read more:

The moral case for capitalism is not taught in our schools, nor is it argued much in our culture. In fact it has been more or less universally accepted by the intellectual elites that systems such as communism and socialism are "morally superior" to capitalism (hence more "socially just")--even though in practice such systems have led to the death and enslavement of millions, and to those unlucky enough not to die from them, they have led to the most horrible shrinking and wasting of the human soul.

The truth is that neither socialism nor communism nor any kind of religious fundamentalism [emphasis added] is compatible with morality at all. [...]

Morality [...] must always be a matter of choice, not mandate. [...]

In essence, capitalism is actually good for the soul. It is the only system where the soul and the self can flourish, where individuals have a right to their own life and liberty, and can make the specific choices in the pursuit [of] their own particular happiness. 

Ah, this is the libertarian brand of conservatism, and we can already see the straining seams between it and the religious/social brand of conservatism, which worries so much about people's penchant for abusing freedom and choice, and certain of their weaker brethren.  In fact, in many insufficiently examined ways, Christianity and capitalism -- both so characteristic of the United States -- are at odds.  Nonetheless, they have shacked up and produced a disreputable offspring, the "prosperity gospel."  Papa Capitalism rewards the bastard, Mama Church calls it heretical, and still they don't split up.  Shameless offspring notwithstanding, their yoking of opposites may be necessary in the American mix to guard against the excesses of both.  "The pursuit of happiness" would otherwise not be conducive to "family values," unless people had a very far-sighted conception of their own happiness; and the excesses of other-cheek-turning would not be conducive to worldly success or a vigorous self-defense. 

I digress again.  It's late and I'm losing my focus.  What I wanted to say is that I don't think capitalism is intrinsically "good" or "moral" any more than, say, nuclear energy is.  In itself it's morally neutral, a power source that can be used and/or abused.  The very fact that even a libertarian like Dr. Sanity admits we need laws to limit people's freedom to do harm -- and even more than that, the fact that government has to intervene to keep the cornucopia pumping by bailing out a Bear Stearns from the consequences of its hypercapitalism -- all goes to show that capitalism may well be necessary, but it's not sufficient.  Declaring it intrinsically virtuous is a bold move, but wrong.

On the contrary, people need another, prior source of morality in order to handle the freedom of capitalism responsibly, and not go off the deep end of corruption, ruthlessness, and greed.  "The pursuit of their own particular happiness" isn't morality -- which is based in concern for others "as thyself" -- it's utilitarianism.  Capitalism doesn't restrict choice, and that's good, but it sometimes rewards immoral, amoral, or just plain trashy choices.

As a god, I guess you'd say, it's an idol.

UPDATE:  Thinking about the law of consequences, an analogy from physics comes to mind.  Individuals are subject to Newtonian morality:  what goes up must come down, what goes around comes around, if you live beyond your means you lose your home.  On the vast scale of corporations and the subatomic scale of finance, this no longer applies.  Space is warped and time annihilated in a way that renders classical morality unrecognizable.   Living beyond your means  and the infinite deferral of consequences are what keeps the economic universe infintely expanding for all.  So let no one say a corporation is a person.  A quasar, perhaps, with a ledger of quarks.

Comments

[Clark]

Capitalism, like any human creation is not perfect. It is just the most efficient economic system we have found so far. When it is worshiped, as it has been by the successful or hopeful or merely Republican in our society and allowed to go unregulated, bad things have happened. Still no so bad as in a Soviet style command economy.

Moderation is a good thing, that's why we have labor, product safety and environmental regulation, just like we have traffic laws.

[amba]

Purest common sense, Clark.

[Sissy Willis]

Thank you for a most thought-provoking essay.

I guess where you come down on whether capitalism is moral or not depends upon how you interpret the assertion that morality is "based in concern for others 'as thyself.'" Adam Smith's invisible hand comes to mind.

In response to your assertion that sometimes "government has to intervene to keep the cornucopia pumping by bailing out a Bear Stearns from the consequences of its hypercapitalism," I offer the thoughts of -- in self-described former "brain-dead liberal" David Mamet's words, "our greatest contemporary philosopher" -- Thomas Sowell:

"More fundamentally, markets readjust themselves for a reason. That reason is that people pay a price for their misjudgments and mistakes. Government interventions are usually based on trying to stop them from having to pay that price. People who went way out on a limb to buy a house that they could not afford are now being pictured as victims of a heartless market or deceptive lenders.

"Not only a fit subject, but the only subject of drama"

[Pastor_Jeff]

I think the argument for the morality of capitalism begs the question. What moral values are most important? Equality of opportunity? Equality of outcomes? Self-determination? Care for the environment? Care for others?

To oversimplify things, capitalism works because it's based on self-interest, or greed. It frees people to pursue their own interests and goals. For that to work, people's needs and interests have to being mutually reinforcing, so that trade is a win-win scenario -- until one partner becomes too powerful and games the system. That's why we need regulation and protections.

Interestingly, the economic model of the Old Testament community was not pure capitalism, but a capitalist/socialist mix with protections for the poor, the alien, and the powerless, limits on profit-taking, and the redistribution of wealth. As an experiment in religious-based economics, it was well-designed, but as best we can tell from history, it seems never to have been fully carried out because greed killed off the socialist elements.

[Peter Hoh]

I'm fine with capitalism, but crony capitalism should be fought, tooth and nail.

As to Ayers having influence on the educational system, I can think of no better way to discredit an idea than having it promulgated in the schools of education.

[Sissy Willis]

Wicked witty update, but I would have put it this way:

Living beyond your means and the infinite deferral of consequences are what keeps Big Government infinitely expanding.

[wj]

Capitalism has demonstrated, pretty convincingly, that it is the most effective way to lift people out of poverty by improving the state of the economy overall. Certainly it is a large step ahead of socialism, which has demonstrated, equally convincingly, that it reduces wealth (except, perhaps, for the special, well-connected, few) and increases poverty.

What a delightful irony, then, that the self-proclaimed champions of the poor on the left devote so much time to denouncing capitalism. It would be one thing if they objected to capitalism because there was an alternative which provided more good for the poor. But from what I have seen, the evil of capitalism is a core principle for them, not merely a result of a principled advocacy for the poor.

I realize that lots of people hold beliefs which are, when examined, mutually contradictory. But the help-the-poor/bash-capitalism one is particularly telling. If I had much faith in psychological analysis (which I don't) it would be tempting to see both positions as symptoms of self-loathing: hatred of the wealth that they grew up with combined with hatred of the system which generated that wealth for them.

Because, you will notice, the vast majority of radical leftists are people who were not born poor. They were born into families which were not only upper middle class or better, but who had been so for more than a single generation. (See Ayers, above.) Because parents or grandlarents who had actually been poor themselves would have smacked them good for spouting such nonsense? I wonder.

[RW Rogers]

the self-proclaimed champions of the poor on the left devote so much time to denouncing capitalism do so because, when the revolution comes, they are convinced that they will be in charge of everyone and everything, as the proper leaders who know what the masses need better than the masses do. No one is an individual, just a part of a mass (except of course the beloved leaders).

What's the Matter with Kansas? is a good example of this kind of thinking. It seems to me that Ezra Klein fits this mold. Maybe Glenn Greenwald as well.

[wj]

The other interesting characteristic of the far left is that, while some few of them seem to become moderates as they get older (and spend more time having to deal with reality), many more of them seem to shift from far left to far right. Without ever hitting moderate betweentimes. (I suspect the same thing happens in the opposite direction. I just haven't been aware of it.)

Perhaps it is the certainty of extremism that attracts them, more than the particular positions and issues of the moment....

[Maxwell James]

Capitalism is good in the way that wind is good. It is an amoral natural force, but one that can be put to good use with the proper structures.

Nonetheless, it may still shred those structures to pieces now and again.

[Ron]

I wonder the degree to which socialism descends from feudalism, at least psychologically.

A person who doesn't want to compete in the capitalist way might be willing to exchange labor -- and freedom -- for a degree of protection, and is willing to be "owned" by someone who is a "better."

[amba]

Interesting! In Russia it was certainly from serfdom to serfdom.

[realpc]

It doesn't matter if people like capitalism or not. Hating capitalism is like hating nature -- pointless.

People who hate capitalism are usually academic types with too much faith in human intelligence. They look at all the apparent disorder and unfairness and it's "obvious" they could do a better job.

It's like the biologists who say living things are poorly designed and full of unnecessary junk. The assumption is they could do a better job than evolution, or god, has done.

It's the same with economics. Capitalism, or something similar, is the inevitable result when you get rid of the aristocracy. There is no other way to have a meritocracy, or for people to control their own lives.

Leftists are just people who are unable to see the fact that society is something we are part of, not something we create. No matter how many grand plans are tried and fail miserably, they're always drawing up a new one. Check out parecon if you want to see how bizarre and twisted the leftist obsession can grow.

[Outis]

Capitalism is a tool. It has all the moral good and evil of a hammer or a screwdriver.

As with all tools, what matters is "How is it to be used?" It's been said that to a man possessing only a hammer every problem appears to be a nail. Similarly for those that worship capitalism: Every problem can be defined as a market. Each view is myopic.

[political forum]

I think that if Ayers wants to write a book about how teachers should be teaching liberal propaganda, then that's his right. However, I disapprove of him acting in any official capacity as a professor teaching these things. I think that he should not be allowed to teach that kind of curriculum at prestigious schools like U of Chicago, not unless they are willing to allow the same kind of curriculum to be taught to the benefit of conservatism.

-Ted

[amba]

I think he's actually at U of Illinois' Chicago campus? is that right? Anyway, it's one of the most prestigious schools of ed.

Maybe besides separation of church and state we need separation of classroom and party, or ideology. Or an equal-time doctrine like the FCC's.