💵 Capitalism: a Force for Good? - Abundance or Equality?

So long as men remained content with their rustic huts, so long as they were satisfied with clothes made of the skins of animals and sewn together with thorns and fish-bones, adorned themselves only with feathers and shells, and continued to paint their bodies different colours, to improve and beautify their bows and arrows and to make with sharp-edged stones fishing boats or clumsy musical instruments; in a word, so long as they undertook only what a single person could accomplish, and confined themselves to such arts as did not require the joint labour of several hands, they lived free, healthy, honest and happy lives, so long as their nature allowed, and as they continued to enjoy the pleasures of mutual and independent intercourse. But from the moment one man began to stand in need of the help of another; from the moment it appeared advantageous to any one man to have enough provisions for two, equality disappeared, property was introduced, work became indispensable, and vast forests became smiling fields, which man had to water with the sweat of his brow, and where slavery and misery were soon seen to germinate and grow up with the crops

- Discourse On The Origin of Inequality, Rousseau

For my part, I thank Nature sage,
That she has placed me in this age:
Religionists may rail in vain;
I own, I like this age profane;
I love the pleasures of a court;
I love the arts of every sort;
Magnificence, fine buildings, strike me;
In this, each man of sense is like me.
I have, I own, a worldly mind,
That’s pleased abundance here to find;
Abundance, mother of all arts,
Which with new wants new joys imparts
The treasures of the earth and main,
With all the creatures they contain:
These, luxury and pleasures raise;
This iron age brings happy days.

- The Worldling, Voltaire

The purpose of this article is to reveal the driving force of capitalism and thereby its drawbacks; to decipher whether or not the ecomonic growth of a nation - its accumulation of wealth and escalating technological innovation - proves to be a net good for its citizens. Supplementary to this, I will briefly explore an equality-based alternative to capitalism in light of Rousseau's critique.

If you are only here for the title, skip to Abundance or Inequality?

Rousseau on The Dangers of Capitalism

Before the bustle of capitalism, the West was largely under the feudal system. As such, questions regarding a persons' status and place in society were predestined based on family history. Either you were a peasant, a noble, or royalty.

However, there were those who desired wealth and comfort - and these we can call merchants. The merchants were frowned upon by society, because he earned more money than was necessary to maintain a standard, basic life. It was the pursuit of wealth as an end in itself that was scorned upon by society, because it threatened to distract one from his salvation. As the bible says: "..you cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24).

Rousseau aswell, seeing the new prioritisation of wealth and material comfort amongst entire nations, believed it to soften and weaken its citizens, and to lead us to forget about our higher, moral purpose.

Now, let us discuss the primary aim of capitalism: it is to increase the overall wealth of a nation, and also to allow for everyone the freedom to pursue wealth. Amazingly, it has fulfilled this aim and has shown itself to improve the life quality of even the poorest. More people than ever in history are now able to acquire for themselves sustenance and shelter, and are encouraged to become useful agents for society. And what wonders capitalism has engendered! In only 200 years (since the 19th century), an average worker can fly across the entire world, use a phone, accumulate money to buy things he will never need and perhaps never use - this man would seem a king to people only 200 years ago! Through capitalism, most people are clean, rich, and are priveleged to worry about petty things like buying the right office chair for a desk, or buying another phone, amongst other even more vain examples.

However, Rousseau pointedly argues that the citizens of a nation will suffer from this abundance in wealth: they will become soft and more materialistic. Just like Medusa's head snakes, the satisfying of one needless desire will only spark a new one in its place; a new desire calls for the wheel of innovation, which spurrs the arts and sciences, and this wheel turns again indefinetely.

When the wheel has spun countless times, and more desires have been created than could ever be satisfied, Rousseau argues that we will have then become too soft and sedated to live a meaningful, virtuous life. This hypothesis has proven true by only witnessing most peoples' disinterest in political affairs, and making a positive difference to their nation. The overwhelming majority of citizens willingly sacrifice their political freedom and their self-possession for a luxurious, comfortable, material life. "So long as I get my wages and get what I want", basically every middle-class person says, "what do I care what happens to everything and everyone else?"

Voltaire on Capitalism

Voltaire sought to defend our new age of consumption by envisaging a newer, 'higher' civilisation. Before capitalism, the Christian world was preoccupied with miracles, the power of faith, and God's saving grace; in the pagan world, political ideas of manliness and warfare were the primary facets of life. But, as Voltaire points out, the development of the arts and sciences introduced gentler forms of association within society. The imagination of citizens could be filled with the wonders of natural science, novels, secular histories - and most prominent of all, ideas of technological innovation and improvement. Voltaire sought to shift attention away from the intensity of the Civic and Christian traditions, and to focus it on improving our quality of life.

Another way which he defended the age of consumption was by relativising the so called lavish, excessive luxury which Rousseau (for example) criticised. In his Philosophical Dictionary he gives the humorous example of the invention of scissors. At the time of its invention, the surrounding contemporaries would have scorned it, and thought the idea of trimming ones hair on the nose or head or face as a demonic marring of the Creators work. But now we see it as completely normal and even a necessary tool in our daily life. And this would apply to so many other things that we view as a normal consumable or tool.

Abundance or Equality?

We must notice that Capitalism thrives off the development of the arts and sciences, and this necessarily breeds inequality. Some minds are better than others, thus some get more recognition than others, more wealth, more luxury, a 'better life'. And everyone strives to be the person with more fame and wealth. And what is more, is that the fostering of the arts and sciences require great expenditure and labour to support it. To bring a new Kitkat flavour into existence, there is a whole hierarchichal structure behind the entire process: people who work in the ideation and solution sector, that is, those who are excelling in the arts and sciences, will get paid more than mere truck drivers and quality control workers.

Rousseau argues that as capitalism evolves, so too will our desire for recognition from others. So very much of how we live our lives is in the way of making it distinguiable from others, and not in actually becoming who we want to be. To paint a striking image, Rousseau depicts us as trapped by chains that are ornamented and beautified by flowers. We are so besotted by all the pleasures offered to us, that we have come to trade our original, true purpose for one which society dictates is appropriate for us to pursue. In a sense, we have become "happy slaves", unaware and so powerfully mesmerised by thoughts of wealth, renown and pleasure, that we are not even slightly discomforted by our inability to resist any of it and live authentically with purpose.

Thus, in a profound sense the inequality brought through capitalism is not the real problem, but that through capitalism it has become glaringly, painfully obvious. It becomes the sole focus - and this is the real pitfall of capitalism. What does it matter if we become rich, if we pursue it only for the recognition of others?

What if Rousseau is right? Would not reverting back to the old Civic and Christian traditions morally benefit the citizens of the nation? What if the emphasis was not on improving material comfort, but on living a meaningful life where money was the means to an end and not an end in itself?

The reason why nothing is changing is because we are all sedated and dazed with all the buying opportunities offered us, that to take up our political freedom and wield it seems not only unnecessary but also something we have no desire for.

What is left for all of us is to think about these three questions:

1. How much of the money we labour for, and orient our lives in pursuit of, is pure selfishness? (This includes labouring for one's family. There is nothing special or magnanimous in the act.)
2. Are we recieving money for doing something that is beneficial for society, not merely on the material level of adding capital value, but rather in a way that is edifying?
3. Would we give up all vain pleasures afforded to us through capitalism if it meant we could pursue a goal that is meaningul to us? (And this does not include getting rich. Money is not an end in itself.)

These three questions will make us realise and understand so much of why we are resistant to accept something like a pure socialist society. But as to why capitalism is so successful in engendering even peace amongst nations when there would otherwise be war - that is for another post.

Footnotes

[1] These descriptions are based off Voltaire's poem, 'The Worldling'.