Amazing as always! It brought me right back to school-aged being taught the exact fallacy you pointed out in the beginning. I remember the feeling that arose then and it’s taken years to bring the feeling up to my brain to conceptualize. Your writing has helped liberate that feeling through knowledge. That’s a gift- thank you
I know it’s splitting hairs but where does capitalism start? A small business that employs one other person (plus a few freelancers) like me? I’m technically a capitalist (and have said so many times).
Well I’m more of a stockholm hostage to capitalism's system but I don’t see how ending my business and going to work for an another capitalist would help anyone least of all my employee and freelancers.
Or a corner store or a market stall that sells local food for a profit? Is that the same capitalism?
So I’m not cheerleader for capitalism, I’m just not going to lie to myself that I’m something I’m not. We are all in the mud til we figure out what comes next.
But it seems to me it’s corporatism and the corporatisation of our culture that is insidious.
Having said all that - Ryan asks the most vital question: Should the means of survival be withheld for the purpose of coercion?
No. This has no defense imo.
If this was solved would it still be capitalism? Tbh I don’t care but it’s a good rallying point that a lot of people will agree on and that’s important
PS I like the example of early capitalism that didn’t tolerate rentism (would like more info on that)
It looks like we broadly agree. To me a Capitalist one who has substantial capital - enough to produce enough continual value that others will work to gain access to it - so that is linked more to ownership of the means of production rather than a small business.
Having said that as the saying goes ‘there is no ethical consumerism under capitalism’. That doesn’t mean there isn’t more moral and less moral choices individually, and some that may definitely be definitely immoral. But it does mean we are all compromised by the system we are in and end up supporting it on some level just to survive.
A truly brilliant treatment of the subject matter. I would love to be able to role up this article like a newspaper one might use to disabuse a dog from jumping on the sofa and instead use it to hit on the head every mindless capitalist apologist.
Note: The link in your intro reloads this page, not the first article.
"This creates a false equivalency between the legitimate reward of genuine innovation and the uncritical acceptance that all wealth accumulation regardless of its source…"
Should "that" in the above sentence be "of"?
"Markets didn't exist before states and began primarily with the Greek state to supply goods to soldiers."
Markets in the sense of people manufacturing goods specifically for the purpose of selling them in quantity didn't exist before then, but many if not most "pre-civilization" cultures would hold mass meetings where excess goods were exchanged. That, too, is considered a form of marketing, IIRC.
Regarding a point you touched on around the binary arguments programmed into many minds that says if not capitalism then Stalinism, Marxism (however they have defined that in their head), bread lines, genocides or some other flavor of violent rule...Inevitably in these debates you'll get people claiming communism caused 100 million deaths, with a subtext to that implying if people try to create a world where more people share things then mass murder is going to happen. It's ultimately this excuse for greed like you have to put up with it or else something worse will happen.
This is of course all done while ignoring the death and suffering around commodification and capitalism, and how nearly every war and act of genocide has been done for economic reasons and basic imperialist expansion. Also ignored is that nearly every one of these so called communist countries used far more capitalist elements than they did anything resembling decentralized production using cooperative means involving mutual aid.
Furthermore, as we know here in America politicians use a lot of words, they say things like democracy, liberty and equality with max aplomb and then deliver something quite Orwellian. So when they are attributing 100 million deaths to socialism and communism they act like since Hitler and other despots used the word socialism therefore it's evil. When in fact he was using socialism as a term the way America uses its selling points. And any small amounts of real socialism used there has nothing to do with triggering rampant bigotry, genocide, or starting wars. Correlation does not equal causation.
Most of these discussions around the problems with commodification and capitalism the nuance is thrown out the window and instead we're left with forever refuting talking points usually stemming from McCarthyism in the 50s.
I'd also like to make the point that communism and socialism have been reactions to capitalism. They were appealing to people at different points in time because capitalism was so harsh. But these domination oriented systems of rule standard in western civilization will play off what is popular among the people, and again deliver a Orwellian version of what is promised.
Communism, socialism, and capitalism are chosen strategically by whoever wields power based on where a particular country is at in the global power structure. Collectively though every nation state run with a top down hierarchy amounts to a gaggle of opportunists, with very few exceptions over the years and will choose whatever wording or actions that most efficiently pacify the people while funneling money, resources, and power straight to the top of the hierarchy.
I completely agree with your analysis of how movements get co-opted. You've hit the nail on the head about how states, regardless of their proclaimed ideology, inevitably focus on power consolidation rather than the ideals they claim to represent.
Your point about the misrepresentation of communism and socialism is spot-on. The binary thinking that equates these concepts solely with authoritarian regimes completely misses their actual principles and ignores the violence perpetuated by capitalism throughout history.
Where I might differ slightly is that I still find value in the terms 'Socialism' and 'Communism' as positive frameworks (if by them we mean workers and people organising together, putting meeting needs first, without paywalls or hierarchy). I don't associate them primarily with the Soviet Union or other authoritarian states that appropriated the language while abandoning the substance. Instead, I see them as vital traditions that offer genuine alternatives to capitalist exploitation.
You're absolutely right that no government can truly achieve people-first, or even Socialist or Communist aims, as these ideals fundamentally oppose state control and champion worker autonomy and community self-organisation. Real liberation must come through decentralised, horizontal organisation rather than top-down power structures that inevitably reproduce the very problems they claim to solve.
Well I agree with you even on the point where you say we slightly differ, though the language has become poisoned in colloquial use and it depends on the implementation in terms of decentralization of power.
Amazing as always! It brought me right back to school-aged being taught the exact fallacy you pointed out in the beginning. I remember the feeling that arose then and it’s taken years to bring the feeling up to my brain to conceptualize. Your writing has helped liberate that feeling through knowledge. That’s a gift- thank you
This is a solid critique.
I know it’s splitting hairs but where does capitalism start? A small business that employs one other person (plus a few freelancers) like me? I’m technically a capitalist (and have said so many times).
Well I’m more of a stockholm hostage to capitalism's system but I don’t see how ending my business and going to work for an another capitalist would help anyone least of all my employee and freelancers.
Or a corner store or a market stall that sells local food for a profit? Is that the same capitalism?
So I’m not cheerleader for capitalism, I’m just not going to lie to myself that I’m something I’m not. We are all in the mud til we figure out what comes next.
But it seems to me it’s corporatism and the corporatisation of our culture that is insidious.
Having said all that - Ryan asks the most vital question: Should the means of survival be withheld for the purpose of coercion?
No. This has no defense imo.
If this was solved would it still be capitalism? Tbh I don’t care but it’s a good rallying point that a lot of people will agree on and that’s important
PS I like the example of early capitalism that didn’t tolerate rentism (would like more info on that)
It looks like we broadly agree. To me a Capitalist one who has substantial capital - enough to produce enough continual value that others will work to gain access to it - so that is linked more to ownership of the means of production rather than a small business.
Having said that as the saying goes ‘there is no ethical consumerism under capitalism’. That doesn’t mean there isn’t more moral and less moral choices individually, and some that may definitely be definitely immoral. But it does mean we are all compromised by the system we are in and end up supporting it on some level just to survive.
Moron.
https://open.substack.com/pub/coreygordon/p/the-legacy-and-consequences-of-tina?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4nf1x6
A truly brilliant treatment of the subject matter. I would love to be able to role up this article like a newspaper one might use to disabuse a dog from jumping on the sofa and instead use it to hit on the head every mindless capitalist apologist.
Note: The link in your intro reloads this page, not the first article.
"This creates a false equivalency between the legitimate reward of genuine innovation and the uncritical acceptance that all wealth accumulation regardless of its source…"
Should "that" in the above sentence be "of"?
"Markets didn't exist before states and began primarily with the Greek state to supply goods to soldiers."
Markets in the sense of people manufacturing goods specifically for the purpose of selling them in quantity didn't exist before then, but many if not most "pre-civilization" cultures would hold mass meetings where excess goods were exchanged. That, too, is considered a form of marketing, IIRC.
Thanks for spotting those challenges and the suggested changes. The first couple mistakes are now fixed and I clarified the part about markets.
Been a professional editor for 40 years —I can't help myself. 😄
This is excellent. Thank you for sharing!
Wow, wow, wow. This was so good!
Another great piece. Well done.
Regarding a point you touched on around the binary arguments programmed into many minds that says if not capitalism then Stalinism, Marxism (however they have defined that in their head), bread lines, genocides or some other flavor of violent rule...Inevitably in these debates you'll get people claiming communism caused 100 million deaths, with a subtext to that implying if people try to create a world where more people share things then mass murder is going to happen. It's ultimately this excuse for greed like you have to put up with it or else something worse will happen.
This is of course all done while ignoring the death and suffering around commodification and capitalism, and how nearly every war and act of genocide has been done for economic reasons and basic imperialist expansion. Also ignored is that nearly every one of these so called communist countries used far more capitalist elements than they did anything resembling decentralized production using cooperative means involving mutual aid.
Furthermore, as we know here in America politicians use a lot of words, they say things like democracy, liberty and equality with max aplomb and then deliver something quite Orwellian. So when they are attributing 100 million deaths to socialism and communism they act like since Hitler and other despots used the word socialism therefore it's evil. When in fact he was using socialism as a term the way America uses its selling points. And any small amounts of real socialism used there has nothing to do with triggering rampant bigotry, genocide, or starting wars. Correlation does not equal causation.
Most of these discussions around the problems with commodification and capitalism the nuance is thrown out the window and instead we're left with forever refuting talking points usually stemming from McCarthyism in the 50s.
I'd also like to make the point that communism and socialism have been reactions to capitalism. They were appealing to people at different points in time because capitalism was so harsh. But these domination oriented systems of rule standard in western civilization will play off what is popular among the people, and again deliver a Orwellian version of what is promised.
Communism, socialism, and capitalism are chosen strategically by whoever wields power based on where a particular country is at in the global power structure. Collectively though every nation state run with a top down hierarchy amounts to a gaggle of opportunists, with very few exceptions over the years and will choose whatever wording or actions that most efficiently pacify the people while funneling money, resources, and power straight to the top of the hierarchy.
I completely agree with your analysis of how movements get co-opted. You've hit the nail on the head about how states, regardless of their proclaimed ideology, inevitably focus on power consolidation rather than the ideals they claim to represent.
Your point about the misrepresentation of communism and socialism is spot-on. The binary thinking that equates these concepts solely with authoritarian regimes completely misses their actual principles and ignores the violence perpetuated by capitalism throughout history.
Where I might differ slightly is that I still find value in the terms 'Socialism' and 'Communism' as positive frameworks (if by them we mean workers and people organising together, putting meeting needs first, without paywalls or hierarchy). I don't associate them primarily with the Soviet Union or other authoritarian states that appropriated the language while abandoning the substance. Instead, I see them as vital traditions that offer genuine alternatives to capitalist exploitation.
You're absolutely right that no government can truly achieve people-first, or even Socialist or Communist aims, as these ideals fundamentally oppose state control and champion worker autonomy and community self-organisation. Real liberation must come through decentralised, horizontal organisation rather than top-down power structures that inevitably reproduce the very problems they claim to solve.
Well I agree with you even on the point where you say we slightly differ, though the language has become poisoned in colloquial use and it depends on the implementation in terms of decentralization of power.