British academic David Harvey lists typical explanations for capitalism’s crisis:
1. just human nature; greed
2. anglo-cultural origins
3. based on false theory; neoliberalism
4. institutional failure requires reconfiguration
5. failure of govt policy
1. just human nature; greed
2. anglo-cultural origins
3. based on false theory; neoliberalism
4. institutional failure requires reconfiguration
5. failure of govt policy
2. He claims these all have truth. Partly human nature, certain parts are nurtured by American/British cultural roots, it features a central theory which is flawed, and it’s now seeing widespread institutional failures with a lack of policy response.
3. He then offers his British Marxist perspective—it’s a problem of capital accumulation, and resultant excess power of finance capital which crowds out labor and other interests. He concludes we have to first admit this system “is crap,” then change our “mode of thinking.”
4. Well, along this “new thinking” line of thought, I’d add that we should logically look *outside* anglo-cultural thought (see #2 above). We can look at history, and other societies who are in real-time experimenting with new modes of thinking.
5. China has been working on cracking this capitalist problem for 100 years now. Why? Because this individual-first mode of thought, successful in many ways, is not compatible with group-first (Confucian) cultural roots.
6. From what I understand Beijing is moving away from the Anglosphere viewpoint that capitalism is an economic system, instead recategorizing it as simply one political interest—namely the interests of capital! Duh?
7. Whoh! This is so simple, and obvious, but this small shift in philosophy changes everything. Under this different way of thinking capital is just one political interest to be balanced in planning a functional society.
8. You wouldn’t cannibalize society itself just to pay off that special interest group, because that would be stupid. Right? But under neoliberalism you would, because “free markets” (the interests of capital) is THE entire rigid socioeconomic model which subordinates all else.
9. Since applicable systems are tied to deep cultural roots it doesn’t work to wholesale apply a foreign system in America, just like it didn’t work to apply neoliberalism in China. Still, it does seem like a good line of thought America could consider. 9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
