Plumbing The Depths
Does Capitalism Really Work? Who For?
I recently finished my four part series on how plumbing might work in an Anarchist world.1 But what does plumbing or indeed any job have to do with Anarchy?
To an Anarchist all work under capitalism comes at an unacceptably high moral and human cost, because it involves coercion and exploitation, and is too great an imposition on people's freedom.
For all the words I spent trying to show that plumbing didn't need capitalism, an Anarchist doesn't need to prove that it can do everything first before opposing capitalism. Capitalism didn't have that burden before it started, and if it couldn't have provided plumbers capitalists would have still carried on regardless.
Capitalism didn't begin with philosophers sitting around debating and proposing it as the best solution. It began as feudalism was being undermined by merchants, and government began to become independent from monarchy, then people amassed sufficient capital to become wealthy from ownership, with the state protecting their physical and monetary property.
Capitalists didn't say, “we have worked out a great system, that will cover everything including plumbing.” Instead they said, “We want to own things and make money from that. Everything else will just have to fall in line, or if capitalism can’t make money from it people will just have to go without it.”
Yet some capitalists argue we have to prove how everything would work before ever being the chance to try it. They are expecting more of anarchism, than was ever expected of capitalists.
It is capitalismists2 and hierarchists (supporters of capitalism and states) who need to prove that some have a right to rule politically or economically over others first. Devoid of that it doesn't matter if their system produces better plumbers.
Anarchy is a political philosophy, capitalism is an economic philosophy. However, they both relate to power and who should have it. Anarchists say that power shouldn't be taken from the individual. Capitalismists say those with capital deserve their power because they have earnt it or inherited it legitimately. In this way it is quite similar to feudalism, with lords deserving their power because they are the sons of lords, or because they have been appointed lords by the king, and because the king is (self) appointed by god who can argue with that?
Anarchists believe that the cost of the hierarchy of state and capital power is too high, in terms of freedom and the violence that comes with enforcing such a system. Ultimately all of these debates come back to the question of justifying hierarchy. Is it ever morally right and absolutely necessary? If ruling over others is wrong then we have a reason to try to find other ways of organising society and maximising their freedom. It would be better to use a bucket for a toilet, than to sacrifice others freedom for the sake of our comforts.
But the capitalist focuses on the idea the capitalism works. But does it? And who for? Or does it get done in spite of capitalism rather than because of it? I believe that the human cost of this system makes life more difficult and less free for everyone, including the plumbers.
If capitalism is considered to be working then it is a very dysfunctional way of working. Lots of work gets done under dictatorships too, if you define that as working, but who wants to do any job under a dictatorship?
Capitalism works best for a few: those with the capital, which are a small group who profit from work they do not do, things they do not make, greater land and buildings than they could ever use personally, and a system that enforces this to keep people poor working for them.
But isn’t it an efficient system? Don’t we have more stuff?
Millions of plastic things we don’t need are made every day, that are choking the planet, getting into our guts and blood stream, forcing species to go extinct, and perhaps even humanity at this rate. That’s capitalist efficiency.
Capitalist efficiency does seem to mean more choices if you can afford them, but choice for the sake of competition can lead to lower quality (at least for those of us who can't afford to pay for higher quality), it can lead to a great amount of waste (especially in essentials like food, but also in the fuels used to produce, deliver and dispose of the waste), to the incentive to create markets through harming others (such as sugar being added to food to make it more addictive to create more sales, with all the health consequences associated with this), and to the poorest being paid less (and being actually slaves in mines even now) so companies can be more competitive.
Not being motivated by money, scarcity or coercion (so others can make money from you) will end a substantial part of the waste produced. Ridding the earth of capitalism will remove so much wasted work and useless things.
Capitalism came about because a few decided that they had to have the money, land, and control. Then people worked around this to keep needs met, then capitalists monetised those needs where possible, taking charge of their materials, or production, or distribution, or repackaging the means of their consumption. All of this comes at a high cost to the world and it’s workers.
Under capitalism the real cost of things is masked, this is called externalities. It means that for example a gallon of gas may cost $3.50, which may seem quite cheap, but the oil companies are subsidised to the tune of $7 trillion per year (internationally), which of course ultimately comes from the taxes of working people. This doesn't count the cost of health problems, the cost of infrastructure to support vehicles and industries that use petrol etc. This is just one example, farming subsidies is another, as is the inflation of currency value etc. Not all of these artificial costs have gone down either - housing, healthcare and education have all gone up substantially since the 1970s, while wages have gone down, and now few young workers can afford a home or retirement.
Without capitalism, replaced by co-operation, the bad things done because of money will go away, and the good things done within capitalism mostly happened in spite of capitalism and will carry on without it. Then a better world will be made for the many, not just a few.
I just added 8 new paragraphs to the articles, taken from a series of discussions I was having with someone on that subject, to try to make sure I didn't fail to address any capitalist objections.
Capitalismist [kap-i-tl-iz-mist] (noun): A person who supports or advocates for capitalism as an economic system or ideology without necessarily being directly engaged as a capitalist in its practice. As in, “As a Capitalismist without any capital, I aspire to be a billionaire, so oppose any income tax. Because I believe that taxing their income would be wrong, as it may affect me personally in the future if i ever become a capitalist.”