The basic assumption of laissez-faire capitalism is that human beings are rational agents acting in their own self-interest. This 18th century concept fails to consider subsequent discoveries in psychology and neuroscience. The truth is, human beings are not always rational and often the best we can manage is to act in our perceived self-interest. Besides, the concept of a completely free market is a myth. Markets concentrate wealth and wealth will always act to ensure its own growth, even if that means influencing government to act on its behalf within the market.
In the United States, discussions of this sort invariably bring up the specter of communism. People act as if there is only one alternative to free-market capitalism and that it was tried in the Soviet Union and failed spectacularly. The truth is, a centralized command economy as practiced by the USSR is only one alternative. Other alternatives include participatory economics, cooperative economics, workplace democracy, worker-ownership, and technocracy. The false choice between capitalism and communism obscures the true extent of possible economic systems and assumes a one-size-fits-all approach instead of far more effective mixed economic models.
The growing economic troubles in the United States should give us all pause about the system we take for granted. Instead of cynically accepting the status quo, we might take a more innovative approach and view our society as something perpetually improvable.
3 comments:
I think I, too, have been duped into the false dichotomy between capitalism and communism. Perhaps the powers that be have wanted us all to believe that there is no other alternative, figuring it's better to hold on to a system that empowers the super-rich (even if it can also cause their spectacular downfall) rather than risk exploring other options that might-- gasp!-- promote equity among different economic strata. Maybe this latest crisis will encourage the government to think outside the box, but I doubt it.
I don't know that the solution is going to come from government anyway, Justin. Or that it's even an intentional dupe. It seems to me that it's a systemic problem based partially on our cultural tendency to view everything as a spectrum between two poles when usually reality is more complicated.
i think you've stuck such a simple idea that it was too easily over-looked in your last statement; we will update our wardrobes each season to stay on top of fashion trends; we constantly trade-up our technology as minute-to-minute things become smaller, faster, and better; but when it comes to the larger scale, its almost too daunting so the idea is "if it isn't broke, don't fix it." the problem with that is once it inevitable does brake, its too difficult and expensive to fix. how wonderful to think that if we would simply evaluate and administer small changes on a consistent basis we could avoid the traps that are right now threatening our economy so drastically :(
Post a Comment