Re:Crypto, the Left and Technofeudalism
by PaulDavisThe1st on Saturday April 23, 2022 @10:00AM
(#31134344)
You're really doing not much more than a correlation equals causation thing. The rise of capitalism in certain countries has occured during an increase in the enjoyment of some specific kinds of liberty. But was that caused by capitalism, or was it caused by the parallel adoption of classical liberal political thought (which by itself has nothing to say about capitalism)? Was it caused by the rise of empire and the exploitation of natural resources across large parts of the world, exploitation that is not in any real sense dependent upon capitalism itself? Was it caused by scientific and medical advances that could conceivably have occured in different economic and political systems?
And then ... what are we to make of the freedoms that capitalism does not enhance? Current capitalist societies do a (historically) good job on what has been called "freedom to", but a fairly poor job on "freedom from". There is a coherent philosophical argument that the latter are at least as important as the former, in part because you cannot exercise the "freedom to <X>" if you are forced to trade your own labor in order to live, or because you are sick with no means of accessing health care. Capitalist societies certainly do very well at ensuring that those who control capital enjoy freedom; it's not so clear that they are anywhere nearly as accomplished at ensuring and amplifying the freedom(s) of those who do not.
There's no question that capitalism has proven very effective at driving the discovery and adoption of highly efficient means of production. This has created a world of material comforts that has never been seen before, accessible in most senses to all but the absolute poorest in capitalist countries. The problem is that while material comforts may be a wonderful thing, and perhaps even in some senses a necessary component of freedom, they are also insufficient.
Dismissing human striving for something better has rarely been productive in the long run. Yes, we know that the experiments during the 20th century in the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Mao's China, and elsewhere should make us very cautious about any similar proposals. But to act as if this (both capitalism, and those particular sorts of responses to it) are the only options, as though this is just the best we can do and there will never be anything better ... this is just uselessly pessimistic and almost certainly wrong.
And then ... what are we to make of the freedoms that capitalism does not enhance? Current capitalist societies do a (historically) good job on what has been called "freedom to", but a fairly poor job on "freedom from". There is a coherent philosophical argument that the latter are at least as important as the former, in part because you cannot exercise the "freedom to <X>" if you are forced to trade your own labor in order to live, or because you are sick with no means of accessing health care. Capitalist societies certainly do very well at ensuring that those who control capital enjoy freedom; it's not so clear that they are anywhere nearly as accomplished at ensuring and amplifying the freedom(s) of those who do not.
There's no question that capitalism has proven very effective at driving the discovery and adoption of highly efficient means of production. This has created a world of material comforts that has never been seen before, accessible in most senses to all but the absolute poorest in capitalist countries. The problem is that while material comforts may be a wonderful thing, and perhaps even in some senses a necessary component of freedom, they are also insufficient.
Dismissing human striving for something better has rarely been productive in the long run. Yes, we know that the experiments during the 20th century in the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Mao's China, and elsewhere should make us very cautious about any similar proposals. But to act as if this (both capitalism, and those particular sorts of responses to it) are the only options, as though this is just the best we can do and there will never be anything better ... this is just uselessly pessimistic and almost certainly wrong.