Discover more from Polemics
What We Can Learn From Capitalism
Can capitalism exist without profit?
Capitalism is not as bad as you think it is.
It’s not satan or an original sin human beings have in themselves. No. far from it.
Capitalism is just an irrational system. And the reason why it’s irrational is that the means of production is based upon profit. That’s what capitalism is in a nutshell. It isn’t an oligarchic system out to get us or a bunch of ignorant and uneducated people. And it certainly isn’t free markets or any concept of liberty or “freedom.” No. Capitalism is an economic system where profits are in command. That simple.
With that being said, think about The Ship of Theseus paradox. Is it the same ship if we replace the wood planks with steel planks? Or would it be called something else? If we took out the operation of profit from capitalism as an economic system, is it still capitalism? Can capitalism exist without profit?
That sounds like a conundrum too. But also realize that there is a misconception of what exactly capitalism is according to normal people and radical liberals. Normal people think capitalism is a system intertwined with American philosophy, liberalism, and individual rights. Oddly enough, liberals and subcultural leftists tend to think capitalism is bad not because profits are in command, but because it has something to do with racism, sexism, and inequality. That means liberals would be okay with a system that favors profit, as long as welfare is given to everyone, and nobody has to compete. Ironically, capitalism at a high stage of production can produce that reality, as automated luxury communism.
According to the normal person and the “woke” liberal, capitalism itself, …as long as it’s not “racist” and gives out universal basic income, benefits everyone. This statement alone will drive them crazy because capitalism cannot benefit anyone. It’s more cruder than saying “Voldemort.” Deep down inside, they know that capitalism provides the future that America is headed towards, considering all the constant talk of “reparations” and that super profit margins are becoming so high, that the entire elite class might as well buy out all housing and let everyone relax. We all become disabled, and can’t play the game of capitalism anymore (that is, paid out by the winners). We are already told to stay inside our pods if there is a deadly disease outside and consume whatever we find on YouTube or Twitter. That’s the endgame. Everyone is pacified. Silicon Valley needs it.
I’m trying hard to resist that reality. However, so-called “anti-capitalists” make it embarrassing to even talk about capitalism. Normally I would associate myself with anyone who calls themselves an anti-capitalist, but as noted before, the subculture and fashion around anti-capitalism feeds into American liberalism and the UBI state. This isn’t about sincere anti-capitalism, but some kind of transition towards egalitarian transhumanism and irrational behavior. If Goths were the subculture fashion choice of the 90s, perhaps being “anti-capitalist” is the latest fashion statement of 2023.
Once capitalism is eradicated, (which is a good thing), a new economic system will emerge. But the normal person and the radical liberal see capitalism’s replacement as nothing more than a change in ethics, or of policy, instead of a transformation of production. Many don’t realize that anti-capitalism has a history with fascism and racial nationalism, the very systems that leftists often tell themselves before bed, “Fascism is just capitalism in decay.” Right?
Many third positionists want to replace capitalism with many alternative systems against Americanism, liberalism, and egalitarianism. These are values that normal people and radical liberals hold dear to their hearts. That’s where you get a scene of “synthetic leftists,” or a group of subcultural hipsters, who use anti-capitalist rhetoric to push global capitalism and liberalism together as a hybrid system. Capitalism needs an additional explanation than just being an economic system where profits are in command.
Capitalism is also an economic system that enforces democracy, egalitarianism, individualism, liberalism, identity politics, and transhumanism when profit is the center of the means of production. Profit created these values. Therefore, those who call themselves “anti-capitalist,” but also advocate any of these values, are proponents of capitalism. Capitalism is the economic system of liberalism, and anyone advocating liberalism is an advocate of capitalism.
And thus being against capitalism also means being against liberalism. The so-called subcultural “anti-capitalist” can’t comprehend their self-destruction.
This brings into question the counter-economic system, socialism, and its many variants. What happens if someone were to ever be a “nationalist” and a “socialist?” There once was a party in Germany that tried to combine both traits and was widely successful. They were called the “national socialists,” and to this day, Americans, leftists, socialists, and many on the right, hate to be categorized with them because of their genocidal and totalitarian tendencies. But is “nationalism” or “socialism” really evil? No. Nationalism and socialism are making a return to political philosophy, and hypothetically, modern China could be facetiously called a “national socialist” government rather than a communist one.
Again, no one said private ownership was “capitalist,” and private ownership is practiced even under communist and fascist systems. To be anti-private-ownership does not mean being anti-capitalist.
So what can we learn from capitalism then, if China practices a “socialist market economy” and partakes in private ownership?
All economic systems are about wealth and growing wealth to benefit society. Being anti-capitalist does not mean tearing down those in power out of envy and making living standards unbearable. That’s an anarchist concern. I agree the elite are evil and should be taken out of power, of course. But not because they have wealth, but because they are bad role models, and willing to kill everyone during the Trolley problem. Fashionable “anti-capitalism” dresses itself up as, “hate those in power, so as long as they give us what we want.” That’s democracy, and that’s exactly what the American elite wants from it’s test-subject citizens.
Instead of having this concern about capitalism being evil, think about what it has contributed to human society. It seems like every single liberal tends to discuss capitalism as a discussion about good vs. evil rather than a reality about a rational science. If a mentally retarded person can’t pay rent or can’t find a job, that isn’t “capitalism” cursing them. There’s more to it than that. And no, I am not advocating liberal individualism in this example either. Capitalism does NOT care about your feelings. It exists in the air just like oxygen. It’s rather a figment of our imagination.
For example, think about the liberal rebuttal, “What has slavery and feudalism contributed then?” Well, a lot. Slavery built the Egyptian pyramids, and feudalism organized civilization. They were irrational, but they were created out of circumstance. These systems were not enforced by diabolic evil people whose intent was to cause pain but around resources and the irrational cultural behavior that followed in that zeitgeist. This is an argument about ethics, and this is what liberals don’t understand about economic systems. These systems became obsolete as time progressed. But what about capitalism? The issue is understanding its full potential and its limits. What are the problems? Why is it collapsing? How do we enforce it? And who and what benefits from it? Answer: it’s not hyperaware evil people. Capitalism will become obsolete once these questions are addressed.
We then must ask if capitalism is okay to practice in certain societies. And the answer is, yes, it’s ok to practice capitalism in small human societies; that is, with a population of less than 2 million people.
Capitalism strives in Hawaii and Iceland for that population reason alone. Profit correlates to the welfare of the people, and not isolated strangers. Worker cooperatives and family businesses create a fair capitalism that benefits entire racial groups, island nations, and families that care about each member rather than irrational choices around profit. That’s why capitalism cannot work in larger countries with greater land mass or a population over 2 million. The larger the land, the more isolated the player becomes. This is likely the reason why the elites practice Malthusianism, to control the population from not breaking the limits of capitalism. It makes perfect sense.
Capitalism is a bad system. But it’s not as bad as we think it is. So as long as profit benefits the welfare of society, or the people as a whole, it’s a good thing. Again, this isn’t to say people are right all the time. A paternal system, or a religious political vanguard, is required to act upon the people’s desires in their best interest. Anarchists and libertarians will scream about how beautiful being an individual egoist is (as much as I am an advocate of Max Stirner myself), but the sad truth is that most people are fucking stupid and need to be led with paternal ethics. However, those who are proponents of capitalism tend to only defend it on the basis that they have a secure job, or, as Vladimir Lenin would say, “the aristocracy of labor.”
Somebody has to build a bridge to Staten Island and Manhattan. Somebody has to lead the construction of the Bering Strait. Somebody has to build that rocket to Mars and colonize the planet. And trust me, humanity will be colonizing Mars, and won’t give a fuck if the action is racist or not.
Growth is what moves humanity forward, not stagnation and laziness. Profit does a poor job with growth. It creates poverty because it centralizes wealth to the privatized winners who only care about getting a ride to Jeffery Epstein’s island. Socialism could be described as an economic system where the people command the economy. We must question if capitalism can do the same, or utterly continue to fail doing what the people want to do.
Like in the board game Gearworld: The Borderlands, there is no currency, but the constant bartering and trading of resources among players. What players get in return is subjective to their taste of what “profit” is. And if they can’t get the resources they want, they go to war for it. It’s also exactly what Lenin was arguing for in his book Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Imperialism is the act of war upon a nation to grab resources that can make with profit. Therefore, profit only comes through war. And Gearworld demonstrates this perfectly in gameplay.
I suggest playing a few rounds of Gearworld to understand how capitalism works. What do we get in return as “profit,” and does it even benefit us as individuals or as a whole of society? Does “profit” even exist in Gearworld? Sure, I can trade scrap for a gold resource, but does it mean that both parties profit, or is it subjective reasoning? What we barter in real life has no connection to benefiting society.
What we can learn from capitalism is that we get something in return for the resources we own or the trade we can offer. But what is exactly “value” here? John Smith needed a house, food, and resources to provide for his wife and children. He can’t rely on a steady income if every attempt at his so-called “work” is about making a profit each time. Why can’t we have an economic system that is about growth and feeding our communities?
Profit sure won’t do this. What does capitalism become when you take profit away from it?