Capitalism & Anarchism

 Preamble

“Governments never learn. Only people learn.”

— Milton Friedman

rom the emergence of the first primitive hominy to the days of today, humankind has aspired for greatness. Since our earliest days in cold and dark caves, until the construction of high-rising skyscrapers in desert metropoles, we have aspired for ultimate achievements and the solution of the impossible. Whether we have thereby required the support of our fellow human beings or obtained victory all by ourselves, it was because of the Homo sapiens’ superiority over inferior beings, may they be bipedal with wings or quadrupedal capable of chasing prey at the velocity of sports cars. There are at least two things that will keep humankind ahead of all of them: Thumbs—and our brain. Some may argue, but it should be clear that it is the latter that had us stick out of the crowd of cohabitants on this marvellous blue marble. 

As a European, I am of course inclined to preferably speak of our European civilisations to which I have a closer bond and consequently acquiesced more knowledge I could argue to decently understand, not only narrowed to my German heritage, but also ranging beyond. It is well known that our own ancestors hailed originally from as far as the Altai Mountains East of Japan, in today’s Northern mainland China or the Mongolian steppe². No need for pedantry here, as one other point is of especial interest: That they went, as nomads, from the Far East across the whole tundra of Central Asia, across the Near East of what is today, inter alia, Iran, laying ground for what we know today is the Persian language. Certainly, our nomad ancestors brought us one thing that for sure prevailed until today and could be counted as one transcultural connexion not only in Continental Europe, the British Isles, Ireland, and the Near East: Language. The Proto-Indo-European Language is our all common predecessor, as distinguished as well may sound when we speak: The Slavic languages, the Celtic languages, the Germanic and the Romanic languages, even the Hellenic languages of Greek and Albanian. There is no need to batter about it, it’s a matter-of-fact. What else is a matter-of-fact is that it was languages, more technically the capability of such elaborate communications that paved the way for future civilisations and their infinite advancement, across medieval periods of the analogous coexistence of scientific vigour and religious appraisement of supernatural deities; from the era of Enlightenment and the exposure of said deities as a mere façade of blinding to subordinate the people, to have them subordinate themselves voluntarily to make them more susceptible to manipulation. There are some disputes over the role of religion in society, but we could quote Habermas over their role, to even extract some agreement for the general role of societies as we find them in our society today, without any cynicism or sideswipes against the Christian church or other monotheist religions. He wrote that

„Entsprechend verschiebt sich der Begriff des Kollektivbewußtseins. Während Durkheim unter Kollektivbewußstsein zunächst die Gesamtheit der gesellschaftlich imponierten Vorstellungen verstanden hatte, die von allen Mitgliedern der Gesellschaft geteilt werden, bezieht sich dieser Terminus im Zusammenhang der Analyse des Ritus weniger auf die Inhalte als vielmehr auf die Struktur einer über die gemeinsame Identifikation mit dem Heiligen hergestellte und erneuerte Identität der Gruppe. Die kollektive Identität bildet sich in Gestalt eines normativen Konsenses; dabei kann es sich freilich nicht um einen erzielten Konsens handeln, denn die Identität der Gruppenangehörigen stellt sich gleichursprünglich mit der Identität der Gruppe her.“³

The important terminology Habermas himself has emphasised in his original text is the “Collective Identity”, a common denominator amongst all people, a figurative umbrella under which the whole of a community assembles. The first one we find across the globe, with occasional exclusions, are nationalities: German, French, Chinese, Japanese, etc. All of them function as a point of reference for a certain person, as no-one of us can escape being born in a nation unless our biological mother found a point on any continent internationally declared a “No Man’s Land”, therefore affiliated to no nation, so that we were born as a stateless subject. Later in this text, we will mention at least one. But the point is: Unless we were born in such unclaimed specks of land or proactively rejected any nationality as ours, despite of what our ID said, we could identify with it, and therefore meet thousands, if not millions of our kin. Such denominators are important in the creation of a society as it supersedes the mere use of a society, namely to benefit the production of vital means like food and tools as well as luxury goods, commodities of convenience, like beds or garments, to only name the most basic ones imaginable. It can also bring distraction and a higher meaning in life—just think of all the old-school Nationalists who not only said that they were ready to die for their country but even did, on the battlefield, fighting back evil foes endangering one’s people’s well-being and safety.

 

Speaking of well-being and safety, particularly the former, to eventually come up with the politics of resource management as well as societal administration it only takes a stone’s throw. With the establishment of civilisations also came the emergence of a new profession, namely that of the thinkers, described alternately as scholars, philosophers (preceded by the pre-Socratic sophists), intellectuals… There are many names to describe the caste of people whose main exercise was to think about metaphysical, philosophical, or political concepts, theses, and arguments. Many famous names come to mind: Spinoza, Aristotle, Hegel, etc. In the realms of this text, the political ones are of greatest import to the progress of the objective that bestowed it: To figure out why Capitalism is not as bad as it might seem to so many in these days. If one spent only a couple of hours on the internet, one could easily come across some especially fierce critique or downright vitriol against the concept that was pioneered by the likes of Adam Smith in terms of economics and, barely, by John Locke in terms of government and its necessary restrictions. They decry it as the root of all maladies that haunt our society in these days, at least in the Western World, which refers to (Western) Europe as well as the United States: Poverty in the lower classes, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 across the planet (due to globalism, one of the alleged core consequences of Neoliberal politics, about which we will speak later too), climate change (due to the incremental industrialisation, peaking in the heavy industry and coal plants, inter alia), the Holocaust […], etc. The list could likely go on forever if one didn’t show any scruple as to how to argue a certain addition to the list. Likewise, there are proportionately as many apologetics of the Capitalist theory and practice, even that of today, although it is far from perfect, or bearable without any critique whatsoever. And as the internet wills it, there is barely any sober, level-headed and respectful debate going on. Instead, the question of how far one should lean towards the left or the right side of the aisle, and whether one should embrace or demonise Capitalism or Socialism (without mentioning the subordinate remnants of either wing)… Political affiliations have become to many something like a clan affiliation, a school yard topic comparable to the music one liked, the series one currently watched (before the times of streaming services and the assembly-line production of series, many of which are pure rubbish intended to be watched completely in one sitting), etc. One could suspect that to some, it is not about the politics included in the question, but like a code expected to be hollered unto the guardsman on the Quivive in order to be granted access to the inner circle of a clique⁴. Therefrom, we could conclude the “We vs. Them”-thinking that has been existing since forever, since humans started to posse up against one another, reaching a meantime milestone during the Richard Nixon era, including Watergate and his coined terminology of the Silent Majority⁵. Without diving any further into it, one thing about this text should be made clear after having already stated that such a controversial and hotly debated topic—on the two topmost ideologies, heirs to a deep trove of ideals and reason to many divisions within our Western societies—: It is not going to be a page-turner rant about Socialism in our days, infiltrating governments pretending to be Social Democratic or Conservative—this is just not the case, despite so many condemnations from self-proclaimed Democrats or Republicans, depending on who is being addressed—or how Socialism, in accompaniment of Communism and its subdivisions, like Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, whatever Pol Pot stood for, Titoism, etc., had caused millions upon millions of deaths. If I were intended in ticking off some boxes on the very online debate about these two pillars of modern-day ideologies, I also had to include the claim that the death toll for Capitalism were still pending. But had I intended to write about this, I could have also spent my time with a more productive activity, like continuing to read. Yet this was not my intention, and so, I considered to return to a more sober, neutral and informed debate, with all the tranquillity that embodies a written text. As the saying goes: Paper doesn’t blush. (And although it is rather prone to yellow, the German idiom comes closer to what I mean: Papier ist geduldig – paper is patient) And so, these features should be equipped in drafting a sketched case for one of the likely most unjustifiably disgruntled and probably most misunderstood ideologies in the Western world, at least of today: Capitalism. 

But before we move on, we should ask ourselves one question, with reference to the latter statement: Is it true? Is Capitalism truly misunderstood, or is this a false projection derived from the especially younger Tweetniks who place hammer and sickle in their names, probably next to the Cuban flag while also justifying the annexation of Crimea or the Uygur deferment camps in the North-Western mainland Chinese of Xinjiang? This is hard to say as online debates are dominantly driven by aforementioned younger people, amongst them many USSR memorabilia-sporting wanna-be Socialists who would unscrupulously run over everybody pointing them out as uneducated in general as well as ideological history. Still, it would be a most stately tomfoolery to wait for the ship to capsize before measurements to prevent accidents at sea were considered and enacted. As independent, autonomous beings, it should not be only a duty but also common-sense to take preventative steps in assuring that any accidents were not going to happen in the first place. Society is worth it, no matter how obliviously low chances are that one’s personal attempts to contribute to society’s well-being in general were perceptibly effective. As John F. Kennedy, to include yet another former President of the United States in this preamble, is excessively quote, sometimes in jest, but more often in all seriousness: 

“And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country. 

“My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.” ⁶

The last few words, which I have underscored, are especially important as there can be no just society without the principle of protecting every individual’s freedom, even from its cohabitants, its fellow denizens, village dwellers and the likes. I have pointed out in one of my shorter writings⁷ that the Utopian society in my opinion consists of a manifold autonomous villages, towns and other dwellings, shaped in size and design just as its inhabitants desire it to be. Their very affiliation is independently chosen and so, they should all be free to leave them behind without any bureaucratic paperwork hindering them from seeking a new place of residence for themselves. Of course how this would be organised were up to the dwellers to decide, but in the end, the status quo cannot be in everybody’s, or anybody’s, liking. No-one should be kept hostage by his or her fellow people, nor should aspiring wanderers be held back from their destination, even if they may not yet know where it were going to lead them—even their own demise they have to choose for themselves, without anyone stopping them unless they could not be presumed capable of felling conscious, rational decisions. (Which would discriminate mentally disabled people as well as children and some elders, but finally for their own good) People leaving a community is by far no sign of a soon collapse of the whole, but only natural and showing that everything is working well and people are free to make their own decisions, even if it turns them away from their hometown. Likewise, a healthy, prosperous society makes it possible for its denizens to stand in crass contrast to one another without wishing for each other’s death. Our current society is such a schematic example: Many of the self-proclaimed Communists hail from the US and do not grow tired of condemning their country as governed by war criminals, one of them being the 44th POTUS Barack Obama. Still, they do not intend to move southwards to Cuba, which many of them seemingly praise for its Communist leadership instated by Fidel Castro. We could easily mention that Cuba were not ought to be idolised by Communists unless they wanted to pour water upon their critics’ mills, but be it as it should, they are free to hold those opinions in the Capitalist society, whereas the inverted model would not work as fine⁸. Again, I didn’t intend to spit upon Socialists and who they consider their darlings as well as their enemies, so we will cut it off abruptly at this point before I shall break with my aforementioned promises. Everything has been mentioned, so that I would like to close with yet another quote by Habermas: 

„Aus der globalen Vorstellung, daß kontingente Entscheidungen durch Präferenzen geregelt sind, ergeben sich keine Gesichtspunkte für eine Differenzierung zwischen motivationalen Antrieb zum Handeln, normativer Bindung des Handelns und Orientierung des Handelns an kulturellen Werten. Wiederum macht sich bemerkbar, daß ein Pendant zum Verständigungsmechanismus fehlt.“ ⁹

Obviously, one cannot only act in accordance to one’s personal preferences, or at least not exclusively as long as one lives in a society. This will also become one of our recurring red threads within text, not only due to but also because of the pandemic. Egoism, as Ms. Rand, who we will speak about in greater detail later in this text, may be a virtue to some, but it cannot be the guardian in the dark while we traverse through life with blinkers on like carrion horses. To live in a society is a treat, indisputably, but this treat comes with duties ahead, although no burdensome ones, if I may say so. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages by and large, and so, while we have to give it in from time to time, one major prerequisite needs to not be lost from one’s eyesight: That we usually have to communicate with one another in order to construct a functioning, prosperous society. It has already become a common litany to blame the internet and the advancing cutting-edge technology as the perpetrator that has corrupted our inter-human communication. An easy scapegoat to point out, no doubt, but it is also an easy way out to not turn to oneself and how one may have fallen comfortably for the benefits they—the internet and technology—bring. Communication can of course function across those two innovations, but they couldn’t replace the physical communication tête-à-tête. It also carried fewer risks of miscommunication, of equivocations and the likes. As a last reason for its superiority, it functions way faster and guarantees a certain dispatch at the receiving end. Communications is key in the foundation, establishment and maintenance of a civilised society, a principle beyond any ideological borderline. Hence the calmness and detailedness of a properly composed text as the medium of preference at least on my behalf. It should teach those a lesson who may choose the medium of the video-recorded soliloquy, which can only be applied with caution—the only individuals I have met so far having applied it to their (message’s) advantage were professors and other lecturers, but only because they had been trained in transmitting their message concisely, unequivocally and soberly. I for myself am a self-proclaimed scribe and therefore choose this medium, although I suspect many to already benefit from the time it takes to write down all their arguments they wish to make. Even a video would require the prior draft of what is going to be said unless one planned to step into the probable trap of creating a spontaneous rant. It is therefore also advised to read the complete text at least once, perhaps twice to not miss out any point due to the denseness and bare length. I admit that it may be occasionally hard to read, so I would like to ask you to bear with me—this topic is far from easy despite its appearance on the internet, where every Jack and Jill dedicates endless hours to its exercise. Just because laities are free to hold masses doesn’t mean that they could generally replace reverends or priests. This is not how it works, and this should be understood. I do not claim the title of a professional author—in the end, I have never been published, not even independently—, but I would claim for myself to write somewhat better than those who already despise the writing of a job application, let alone a term paper for their studies because of the mere exercise of text composition. Nevertheless, I am aware of my writing’s mediocrity, hence the previous apology for any hardship in the reading of this text. 

Still I hope that you will be able to enjoy at least some of the parts of this text, even the arduously long footnotes that seldom reach the length of separate chapters. Those are still necessary for the forthcoming progress of chapters to come and will occasionally be referenced so that it is suggested to read them too. It is recommended to finish not only a sentence but also a paragraph before starting to read the footnote. It is moreover recommended to take notes—not only for the footnotes, but also for the text. This may help to scrutinise information provided in both the main text and the footnotes, as well as keeping track of what is being stated respectively. Otherwise one may get lost within the thick web of the meandering scribble. Some might irk at the sheer mass of referential works cited in the footnotes, as if every single statement required justification for its existence, as if it didn’t speak for itself automatically; it could lead as far as to quote Diogenes Laërtius, who said that “One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings”, but as we live in postmodern times—and hereby, the only useful thought from this otherwise hideous school of thought has been mentioned, so that we can tick it off once and for all—, there can be no longer any original thoughts that haven’t already been introduced by someone else. It is on us to scrutinise the available material and see what can be won therefrom. This is what my work is about: To present one way to interpret the given material, with as much publicly accessible sources as possible. Just check out the footnotes, there are plenty of them for everyone.

Without any further ado and any more warnings that may frighten you, dear reader, away from my recorded gobbledygook, I wish you all the best in your life and during the reading of this text. In case you wish you share either your opinion, your constructive feedback, death wishes or any other vitriol, feel free to contact me via the following means of communication: 

    • Email: Ollyffer@googlemail.com

    • Telegram: @Ollyfer

    • Twitter: @OliverBOfficial

You can contact me in English, German, French, Spanish, Polish, Czech.

Thanks a lot!

Read the full text under the following link: ›Google Drive‹ (Frontispiece + 873 Pages)

Footnotes

1. Milton Friedman (1980). A statement recorded in no text. In: Green, Jonathon (1986). The Cynic’s Lexicon. New York: St Martin’s Press. Page 77.

2. Robbeets, M., Bouckaert, R., Conte, M. et al. Triangulation supports agricultural spread of the Transeurasian languages. Nature 599, 616–621 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04108-8

3. Habermas, Jürgen (2016). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Band 2: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. Seite 85. Emphases mine, plain print indicates his emphases. Sic era scriptum.

4. « Qui vive? » — « C’est facile – le roi ! » — « Ça c’est faux ! Il s’appelle Charles Marx. Et maintenant, disparais avant que je te tuerai! »

5. A moniker for Richard Nixon’s 1969 Vietnam War Speech, which can be read here: https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/2018-08/silentmajority_transcript.pdf (PDF, 47 KB)

6. Quote derived from Kennedy’s inaugural address, emphasis mine. The transcript can be opened from a drop-down menu, it is furthermore available in 14 different translations: https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches/inaugural-address

7. I was speaking of my text “De Mundo pro Omniem”, which you can find under the following link: https://politique-rationale.blogspot.com/2019/12/free-world-for-everyone.html#more | This text will be mentioned again on page 08 and 248, in case you should forget to note it down and don’t want to return to the preamble at a later point in the text. 

8. Lanza, Edison (31 de diciembre de 2018). Informe Especial sobre la Situación de la Libertad de Expresión en Cuba. Relatoría Especial para la libertad de Expresión de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Organization of American States: http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/expresion/docs/informes/Cuba-es.pdf (OAS) (PDF, 2,55 MB)

9. Jürgen Habermas (2016), page 337. Emphasis his. Sic era scriptum.