Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: MoDo Explains It All…Or Some Of It…Well, None Of It, Really Previous entry: If You Knew Better, You’d Be Milbank

The Joys Of Extra Rentals

imageJonah Goldberg takes it into his hands to defend capitalism from its detractors using an argument never made before with such detail or care.  Now, a warning: given that this is Jonah Goldberg discussing a large-scale social, political and economic concept, he could very well be talking about photosynthesis.  Or Netflix.  Nobody ever really knows.

Capitalism is the greatest system ever created for alleviating general human misery, and yet it breeds ingratitude.

People ask, “Why is there poverty in the world?” It’s a silly question. Poverty is the default human condition. It is the factory preset of this mortal coil. As individuals and as a species, we are born naked and penniless, bereft of skills or possessions. Likewise, in his civilizational infancy man was poor, in every sense. He lived in ignorance, filth, hunger, and pain, and he died very young, either by violence or disease.

Actually, we’re generally born to parents who have some level of what the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls “shit”.  Said “shit” is used to care and feed us until such point as we are legally and biologically capable of supporting ourselves, or, in the case of some, given the means by our parents who happen to be big shots in conservative circles. 

Anyway, on to the real point of all this:

The interesting question isn’t “Why is there poverty?” It’s “Why is there wealth?” Or: “Why is there prosperity here but not there?”

At the end of the day, the first answer is capitalism, rightly understood. That is to say: free markets, private property, the spirit of entrepreneurialism and the conviction that the fruits of your labors are your own.

[...]

A recent World Bank study found that a nation’s wealth resides in its “intangible capital” — its laws, institutions, skills, smarts and cultural assumptions. “Natural capital” (minerals, croplands, etc.) and “produced capital” (factories, roads, and so on) account for less than a quarter of the planet’s wealth. In America, intangible capital — the stuff in our heads, our hearts, and our books — accounts for 82 percent of our wealth.

And here lies the problem with the argument - capitalism alone doesn’t make us prosperous as a whole, and it doesn’t make us free.  Slavery was a capitalist enterprise.  Wal-Mart is a capitalist enterprise.  Webvan was a capitalist enterprise.  Capitalism is great as an unfocused generator of wealth, which can benefit one or can benefit many, but what’s supposed to make us such a great engine of prosperity for all of our citizens (at least until Republicans try to tear it all down) is our democratically-led regulation of the marketplace.  We generate such wealth because we put inherent limits on the excesses of capitalism, ensuring that no one actor or set of actors becomes too strong or holds too much sway over other actors.  The current breakdown in the system comes in large part because we let creditors run amok, doling out poison-pill credit to lenders who, under no circumstances, should have received it.  We’ve seen it over and over and over again since the advent of Reaganism - the great oceanic oasis of capitalism, left unfettered, tends to fuck up our nice little system but good if nobody’s there to step in and say, “nuh-uh”. 

Of course, I must always remember that I’m talking to Jonah Goldberg, so my real response is this: the three-at-a-time unlimited rentals are your best bet, as long as you’re watching and returning them in a timely fashion.  That’s the detail and care that an argument should be made with.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Jesse Taylor on 09:30 AM • (43) Comments

Does Goldberg have an answer to the question of why is wealth more concentrated now than any time since the roaring 20’s? I think that is the issue people have. The middle class has be eroded over the last few decades and people aren’t happy about it.

Does he have an answer to the question of how fuedalism generated so much wealth? Were the nobility just smarter? Or were they just born into a better station in life where they would get the fruts of everyone’s labor? Government is supposed to even out the grave injustices of birth to create a more level playing field for all. That is how we became so prosperous.

Comment #1: penn  on  08/03  at  09:44 AM

Jonah Goldberg:

Please go take a couple or three anthropology courses before you start spouting off about poverty being the default condition of humanity.  Sociology and certain sorts of political science and history would probably substitute in a pinch.

Seriously?  Unless you define poverty as “the lack of a big screen TV”, even Goldberg’s starting premise is bullshit.  There’s evidence that hunter-gatherers, horticulturalists and pastoralists, basically everybody before you get to the level of “civilization” and/or the nation state, was a hell of a lot better off than we’re all taught to assume in schools.  Of course you didn’t have a few people at the top who were lucky enough to be immensely wealthy—everybody had about the same access to extremely basic resources.  But people in general got their needs met in a much more satisfactory way, and archaeology shows that in general they were much healthier and lived much longer than one would imagine if the default condition of humanity before capitalism was poverty.

Comment #2: The Opoponax  on  08/03  at  11:02 AM

The version of capitalism that J Goldbug enshrines is the removal of all wealth from the working class by the capitalist class.  Those evil and poor and impoverished and furrin Europeans let the workers keep some of that wealth…goldern socialists…and that’s just sick and wrong.  They should follow the lead of the US and bestow golden parachutes on all executives for the great merit of being born correctly.  Dang Euros make them earn the wage and expect results.

Funny how many neocons are not-so-closeted…..ummm..aristocrat wannabes.  Their fave..talent, effort, education, credentials, experience, reputation, and adulthood all bow before fawning adulation of the Leader…Monica Goodling vs Valerie Plame.

Comment #3: Mold  on  08/03  at  11:05 AM

No no no.  Goldberg has an excellent point here.  The human being is an animal, and like all animals it survives best when set out alone beyond the reach of regulation or society to constrain it.  You can see this manifest in nature with more primative animals prosper by unshackling themselves from “socialist” tendencies. 

For instance, does the “alpha” dog travel in a pack?  No.  He travels alone and pulls himself up by his own bootstraps.

Does the meerkat travel in “gangs” or “clans” for survival, sharing food among its members and supporting the elderly while educating the young?  Of course not.  Baby meerkats are left in the wild by their parents to live or die by their own devices.

And you’ll notice how truly communal species - like the liberally hypothesized “ant” or “bee” - don’t exist in the real world and never could.  Why?  Because they wouldn’t be capitalists.

QED, bitches.

Comment #4: Zifnab  on  08/03  at  11:12 AM

In America, intangible capital — the stuff in our heads, our hearts, and our books — accounts for 82 percent of our wealth.

And for that reason we should stop funding public education in favor of charter McSchools, privatize libraries and internets, and get rid of all forms government provided health care.  Because, seriously, that’s 82% of the nation’s capital that major corporations don’t have an absolutely oligopoly on.  And we wants it.

Comment #5: Zifnab  on  08/03  at  11:16 AM

Here, in a paragraph (from Wikipedia), is just about everything Assload (or whatever it is people are calling Goldberg these days?) needs to know:

The basis of Sahlins’ argument is that hunter-gatherer societies are able to achieve affluence by desiring little and meeting those needs/desires with what is available to them. This he calls the “Zen road to affluence, which states that human material wants are finite and few, and technical means unchanging but on the whole adequate” (Sahlins, Original). This he compares to the western way towards affluence, which he terms as the “Galbraithean way” where “man’s wants are great, not to say infinite, whereas his means are limited…” and “the gap between means and ends can eventually be narrowed by industrial productivity” (Sahlins, Man, 86). Thus Sahlins argues that hunter-gatherer and western societies take separate roads to affluence, the former by desiring little, the latter by producing much (85).

Comment #6: The Opoponax  on  08/03  at  11:39 AM

Does Goldberg have an answer to the question of why is wealth more concentrated now than any time since the roaring 20’s? ...
penn on 08/03 at 04:44 AM

No, but Karl Marx does.

Capitalism does not create wealth. Human work creates wealth. Capitalism is a way of organizing that labor, and distributing its products.

I have to wonder how the hell Goldberg and mainstream capitalist apologist “economists” measure that “intangible capital.” That stuff is part of what I would call “culture.” Which includes but is not wholly comprised of material culture, which can be measured quantitatively. “Intangible” culture, however clearly it exists and is helpful in improving the efficiency of production of material culture, is not measurable by any consistent means I am aware of.

My guess is, he arrives at its “value” in a way parallel to the way Marx described how land, under capitalism, acquires its ficticious “value.” Value as Marx defined it (and in doing so, he was really refining and perfecting the definition his mainstream, academically respectable predecessors such as Smith and Ricardo were groping toward) is a measure of the necessary labor-time to produce the mass of material items under consideration. Land was never produced by any human being and so basically has no value, rationally speaking. But _access to land_ is something that can be controlled, and when society has evolved sufficiently to enable this control by wealthy elites, they can demand and expect to receive a toll for allowing others (or themselves) to carry out productive activities. Therefore under capitalism rent exists logically, and the price of land, its fictitious “value,” is derived by multiplying rent a particular piece of land can command by a factor representing prevailing rates of profit and periods of time in which payments give ownership—it is the capitalization of the revenue for owning land, payable at a given interest rate times say 20 or 30 years.

In the same way, Goldberg et al look at the disproportionate material global wealth that the elite nations of the world consume, in excess of their material production, and conclude that since of course we can’t possibly be plundering the Third World under the compulsion of a few centuries of naked global dominance, as us “ungrateful” progressives naively claim, we must therefore be giving value for the goods received. What is that value? Why, the generous rental of our superior “intangible capital” of course, the grandfatherly wisdom of our superior society benignly guiding those dusky half-devil, half-children down there! Given this assumption we can then readily calculate the value of this intangilbe capital! We’re all rich, I tell you, rich! And kindly too!

So, I ought to throw my copies of Capital in the trash, and feel good about all the capital I own as an American.

Unless of course I am just an ungrateful DFH, and a goddam Commie at that, in which case I personally am sadly lacking in intangible capital.

Well I guess so. But at least I have some culture. Including models of the global economy that actually predict what really happens and not some silly fantasy that never happens, despite the basically unshaken dominance of the elites Goldberg and company assure me are the real wizards.

Comment #7: Mark Foxwell  on  08/03  at  12:01 PM

Opoponax - there’s also a great argument to be made that our increased material affluence is largely a result of a castoff process that doesn’t actually make the underclass more prosperous.  They simply are allowed a consistently tenuous grasp on nicer stuff that will inevitably break down and need to be replaced.

We have a working and middle class that are essentially fed the disposable versions of the nice things that our upper class has, and pays the tax of disposability on those “luxuries”.  The reason that so many poor people have air conditioning?  They live in places that used to be considered “nice”, where air conditioning was a luxury, and now have only those places to choose from once the houses or areas have fallen into disfavor.

Comment #8: Jesse Taylor  on  08/03  at  12:07 PM

Delurking here to reiterate that it’s simply not true that humanity’s default condition is poverty. There’s tons of evidence that gather hunters lived quite nicely. Here’s a famous article by Jared Diamond:

http://delong.typepad.com/teaching_spring_2006/jared-diamond-1987-.html

Or, you could read The Food Crisis in Prehistory by Mark Nathan Cohen. Or anything by any number of anthropologists and archeologists.

Relurking now.

Comment #9: mg_65  on  08/03  at  12:23 PM

“But people in general got their needs met in a much more satisfactory way, and archaeology shows that in general they were much healthier and lived much longer than one would imagine if the default condition of humanity before capitalism was poverty. “

Errrr…..no.  I’ve seen enough pictures of people living w/o the benefit of modern stuff, who look eighty but are forty, to call complete and utter bullshit on this one.

Just one phrase should be enough: dental anesthesia.

I do think there’s a tendency to ignore the immense treasure and effort EXPENDED to create the infrastructure that we all enjoy.  For instance, water distribution systems; roads; the Internet.  A lot of progressives seem to feel all that would just magically BE there without a lot of money-grubbing egomaniacs to make it happen.  It REQUIRES money-grubbing egomaniacs (eg Steve Jobs) to MAKE these things happen.

Comment #10: Eric, Rejector of Memes  on  08/03  at  12:28 PM

Jonah’s entire argument is basically, “you poor people should stop whining and be thankful for what you have!” If his mother had told him this more often while he was growing up, he’d have probably turned out a lot better than he did, as well as understanding the limits of that argument.

Comment #11: Tyro  on  08/03  at  12:31 PM

Just more proof that the Great Briton of the Victorian Age, with its dog-eat-dog capitalism, rigid social hierarchy and Dickensian living conditions represents the Republican ideal.

I wonder if Goldberg’s towering intellect admits that the reality of how bad that age was for most (almost all) people led directly to Karl Marx’s / Friedrich Engel’s formulation of socialism as a solution to the plague of capitalism as then practiced.

But I guess I’m probably asking too much.  Seeing the deep and tragic flaws of unregulated capitalism requires an understanding of history — a subject Goldberg has demonstrated complete ignorance of throughout his oeuvre, most recently in his <strike>book</strike> bound collection of fireplace tinder Libruls Are Fascists, Not Conservatives! Nah, nah, nah!...

Comment #12: MikeEss  on  08/03  at  12:44 PM

congrats, zifnab, you have achieved full incoherence.

Comment #13: chibi  on  08/03  at  01:07 PM

<blockquote> “But people in general got their needs met in a much more satisfactory way, and archaeology shows that in general they were much healthier and lived much longer than one would imagine if the default condition of humanity before capitalism was poverty. ”

Errrr…..no.  I’ve seen enough pictures of people living w/o the benefit of modern stuff, who look eighty but are forty, to call complete and utter bullshit on this one.

Just one phrase should be enough: dental anesthesia. <blockquote>

You’re both right!

The people you’ve seen in pictures, Eric, aren’t living in traditional hunter-gatherer societies of pre-history. They are living at the margins of our capitalist system, which is a completely different thing. That said, people in traditional hunter-gatherer societies certainly suffered from afflictions that are easily solved today.

Here’s my understanding of it: There is evidence that before agriculture, people ate a much greater variety of food and overall had better nutrition than at any time until the modern era with food preservation and transportation. Women also spaced their children more through a variety of means that were perhaps less effective/humane than modern birth control, but nonetheless kept population within a level that there was enough food. People suffered from fewer diseases because of their low population densities, but life certainly was often violent and harsh.

After agriculture, the total number of calories people could consume increased, but it was from fewer sources, so the suffered from more diseases of malnutrition. Also birth rates increased, meaning the increased food supply never quite kept up with increasing numbers of people.

Fast forward some 6,000-8,000 years to the modern era, people still engaged in traditional agriculture in some ways are getting the worst of both worlds right now. They suffer from all the diseases that developed as human populations got denser, without access to modern health care. They need cash to get access to the few modern things that are within their grasp - medicine for their kids, cooking oil, salt and sugar, school fees, clothes, a packet of cookies, etc. - but usually only one crop in their area is a cash crop and its price is completely controlled through some sort of mafia (for example, no means to transport their crop to market, so one guy with a truck sets the price and that’s that) and the energy put into producing their cash crop takes away from their ability to produce the variety of foods that their grandparents or great-grandparents would have grown. But they are within the cash economy enough that they cannot simply withdraw from it. And of course they are aware of modern things like television, cars, etc., and want those things and who can blame them?

As for Goldberg’s argument, it’s kind of interesting, in that context, that when the IMF gets involved in some country, they often pressure them to cut back on health care and education - precisely the investments that would help a country get more of that human capital. Our global capitalist system isn’t so much a free market as a mafia in which those who already got theirs try to stay on top.

Comment #14: chingona  on  08/03  at  01:10 PM

“But people in general got their needs met in a much more satisfactory way, and archaeology shows that in general they were much healthier and lived much longer than one would imagine if the default condition of humanity before capitalism was poverty. ”

Errrr…..no.  I’ve seen enough pictures of people living w/o the benefit of modern stuff, who look eighty but are forty, to call complete and utter bullshit on this one.

Actually, that statement was just refuting Goldberg’s assertion that “the default human condition is poverty”, not saying “everything was completely wonderful before modern times”. That’s not an either-or proposition: there’s a huge range of situations between those two poles.

Just one phrase should be enough: dental anesthesia.

True, for the rich—but what about all the people in the world who can’t afford dental care at all?

I do think there’s a tendency to ignore the immense treasure and effort EXPENDED to create the infrastructure that we all enjoy.  For instance, water distribution systems; roads; the Internet.  A lot of progressives seem to feel all that would just magically BE there without a lot of money-grubbing egomaniacs to make it happen.

But isn’t the immense treasure and effort much more easily expended by the state and not by individuals? Here I’m thinking of ancient Rome, the Great Wall of China, WWII, the WPA, and yes, the Internet—all of those were gov’t projects, not capitalist endeavors.

  It REQUIRES money-grubbing egomaniacs (eg Steve Jobs) to MAKE these things happen.

I agree with the egomaniacs part of your statement, but not the money-grubbing part. Money grubbers are generally averse to risking capital, and new technology and giant projects are the worst ROI for any capital investment. Entrepreneurs and egomaniacs aren’t really likely to be “money grubbing” per se, and history shows that genius really thrives when it has a sponsor and doesn’t have to rely on its own effort to make a living.

Comment #15: Dorothy  on  08/03  at  01:19 PM

the infrastructure that we all enjoy

Yeah, except most of the really valid examples of the affluence we associate with capitalist “civilization” aren’t available for all to enjoy. 

For instance your example of dental anaesthesia.  Great masses of the US population (including wide swathes of the middle and upper-working classes) have no access to any sort of dental care at all.  And that’s America, supposedly the most broadly affluent society on the planet. 

Not to mention of course that one of the biggest indicators that people outside of “civilization” are/have been healthier than us affluent capitalists is that they tend to have far better teeth.  You didn’t need much dentistry when you lived mainly on wild vegetable food sources with the occasional infusion of lean meat and no refined sugars and starches to speak of.

Ancient hunter-gatherers didn’t need roads or irrigation—those are the territory of nation-state level societies where people are sedentary via agriculture.  This is kind of the point that Sahlins and the vast majority of anthropologists and archaeologists who study less complex societies are making.  The hunter-gatherers need less and thus are able to be more affluent through less actual work.  I like the internet just fine, but it’s not a survival need (or even something we need to maintain comfort or happiness).  I would happily trade the internet for the ability to have all my economic needs met without having to be a wage slave.  Not to mention, of course, that the vast majority of people living under capitalism don’t have access to the internet anyway, so your point is moot.

I would also argue that anyone who thinks, “ohnoes, wrinkles!” and assumes a hellish existence is probably too stupid to participate in this conversation.

Comment #16: The Opoponax  on  08/03  at  01:43 PM

What chingona says is my understanding of it at all. Right now for a lot of people it’s the worst of all worlds.

That said, the entire economic structure exist because of a few social understandings that we’ve made within the last 200 years or so. These understandings are quickly breaking down, and thus you see the real economic problems of the last few years.

In order to sell something, you need someone to be able to buy it. In that way, the understanding was that you pay your workers enough to be able to do that, and all the other companies would do the same…it was a sort of cross-pollination that made everybody better off.

What happened is that some companies realized that they could start doing less, and be better off for it, in the short term. But they thought that everybody else wouldn’t blink, and just continue what they were doing. So they moved production overseas, replaced high-pay employees with low pay employees, etc. But in order to compete, not just in the actual business market, but in the Wall Street based perception market, everybody had to do the same…and more. To try and get ahead.

There are still things holding it up. For example, the idea that an educated person is “worth more” than an uneducated person. Or that a manager is super special and deserves more money. Etc. That still ensures that the money finds it’s way into the economy some what. However, I’m seeing rumblings that those understandings may not last much longer either. If you take an engineer, would he rather be an engineer or flip burgers? Chances are it’s the former. So why do you need to pay him more? The idea is to reward them for their training, so others do the same in the future. Again, it’s the sort of economic cross-pollination that’s quickly falling out of favor. So what they do now is send those jobs overseas or something.

I think the manager thing will always be around, it’s a matter of not shitting in your own backyard. The managers who make the decisions will always need to prove that their field is valuable. But that said, a lot of managerial work can and is replaced by spreadsheets in this day and age.

Long-story short, the problem is that supply-siders drank too much of their own kool-aid. The reality is that nothing gets done unless there’s potential demand for it.

Comment #17: Karmakin  on  08/03  at  02:01 PM

The current breakdown in the system comes in large part because we let creditors run amok, doling out poison-pill credit to lenders who, under no circumstances, should have received it.

Jesse:
I think you’ve got your creditors and your lenders reversed. It was the lenders doling out the credit, not the creditors.

Comment #18: flory  on  08/03  at  02:29 PM

Ah, political economy, so dear to what is left of my academic heart.

There are of course different approaches to measuring wealth. We could be subjective, measuring the ease with which specific, culturally defined, goals can be met. We could be emprically materialistic, measuring the sheer mass of stuff available to each person, or with a bit more sophistication dividing that per capita mass by the amount of work each person has to do to sustain their supply of consumables. We can (and should) consider sustainability of each possible social system that could yield a given quantity for consumption—its degree of dependence on non-renewable resources; its tendency to pose insurmountable conundrums over time. And of course we should consider the distribution of that wealth as a part of judging the social structure necessary for that system. Does the system for instance tend to create rivalry, hatred, fear, as part of its operations, and what are the costs of that, what are the impacts on sustainability, etc?

I actually agree with at least part of what everyone is saying here. I mostly agree with the consensus and think Eric is on the whole wrong, at least insofar as he doesn’t consider the downside of capitalism and assumes that only capitalism can yield the upsides. But I surely agree, whether we like it or not, the human population that exists on this planet now cannot possibly survive as gatherer-hunters, and has every right, in view of the fact that we cannot offer the kinds of “Zen” benefits to Earth’s billions that such a way of living offered our ancestors, to demand a higher material standard in compensation for the extra difficulties the average person must put up with.

Even if there were a massive dieback to pre-agricultural population levels, the world left for the survivors would not be the same one our ancestors found. It would be strewn with rotting human corpses first of all, and with the decaying, generally poisonous, remnants of our technology, and vastly depleted and disrupted.  (This assumes most of us go quietly and don’t fire off our huge stockpiles of weapons in panic.)

For me the significance of our not-so-nasty-brutish-and-short evolutionary heritage is that it makes nonsense of the claims that “human nature” is necessarily greedy and selfish. A good society would be one that harmonized with our best tendencies and it is encouraging to me that we didn’t evolve from a bunch of rapacious Klingons. But such a society today would have to be some kind of high-tech, globally integrated economy with much cooperation of specialists.

I think it can and hopefully will be done, and will diverge more and more from the “ideals” of capitalism our ruling intelligensia like to pound into us.

But we have to work with what we’ve got, and capitalism is one of those things. It has many shortcomings and transcending them will mean moving away from it, but it is a very robust way of organizing complex human labor—with consequences.

Comment #19: Mark Foxwell  on  08/03  at  02:45 PM

(continued)

One is that polarization of wealth penn mentioned, that was my takeoff for my previous rant. Wealth, defined as the mobilized product of human work in a society, is power, and capitalism tends (for reasons Marx explored exhaustively in several volumes!) to concentrate that power. Even as the mass of stuff available to the average person increases, the amount strategically concentrated in wealthy hands increases relatively more, and this corresponds to concentration of political power.

In these conditions, working people have no choice but to seek to increase, or at least maintain, their share of exponentially rising production which results from their own rising productivity, which is enabled by their ever-more-elaborate organization by capitalists. Thus, we all are on a treadmill of exponentially increasing demands on global resources by an exponentially growing population; to offset these trends by increasingly clever and more efficient strategies is like emptying the ocean with a teaspoon. Clearly terrible crises loom.

Goldberg and his lot seek to tell the working people of the world to STFU; if we did, our standards of living would surely deteriorate but the impact of our society on the ecology would continue worsen anyway. All the evidence of history suggests that if we working people do accept immiseration of ever-contracting living standards and rising work demands, as would happen if we stopped being such uppity “ingrates,” we would reproduce even more and fall to a lower cultural standard, while our “betters” would merely consume the vast potential product of our labor all the more, and then, when the crises hit, stand back in their upholstered, guarded bunkers and watch us all get mowed down, by starvation, pollution, rising seas, lack of drinkable water, and their own gunfire.

The world may come to such an ugly pass; in fact for millions it has been there for generations. But it won’t go as “smoothly” and quietly as Goldberg et al hope it will.

To come to a better place than that, we probably need to accept that forms of capitalism will be with us still for the forseeable future, but to have no compunctions about modifying them for the general good without fear of blaspheming against Smith, Friedman, and Goldberg. We surely must at some point adopt a different standard of our well-being than how many tons of stuff we own, and make sure that the ruling elites don’t control more than the general mass of people can guide collectively. We must stop crediting wealth with virtue as such and consider that we are all in it together.

This points to me to a high-tech version of the gatherer-hunter mindset, and not that of agricultural-era empire-builders.

If evolutionary psychology—valid EvoPsych, not the ideological stuff we deride here—has any significance, it shouldn’t be that hard to do, if we bear in mind that the irrationalities we deal with today arose rationally from a series of social systems that were cruel but robust, that are only going to be superseded because we have no choice left. Probably our ancestral mindsets are pretty much irrelevant now, but at least we shouldn’t assume they are dead against us today.

Comment #20: Mark Foxwell  on  08/03  at  02:46 PM

But I surely agree, whether we like it or not, the human population that exists on this planet now cannot possibly survive as gatherer-hunters, and has every right, in view of the fact that we cannot offer the kinds of “Zen” benefits to Earth’s billions that such a way of living offered our ancestors, to demand a higher material standard in compensation for the extra difficulties the average person must put up with.

To be very clear, I don’t think that we ought to be striving to “revert” to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.  All I’m really saying is that Goldberg’s basic premise, that life before capitalism was of necessity nasty, brutish, and short, and that capitalism has made everyone demonstrably more affluent, can be easily disproved with an Anthropology 101 textbook.  It’s simply not true, unless you create some ridiculous definition of “affluent” wherein the fact that someone living in a favela could theoretically have an iPod or a cell phone means that capitalism is better than other systems.

Comment #21: The Opoponax  on  08/03  at  03:03 PM

Interesting how people like George Bush and Jonah Goldberg, who owe everything they are to being born to (and coddled by) rich, well-connected parents, are so thoroughly convinced that they rose to prominence by their own superiority.  Jonah’s baseline theory seems to be “if people only invested the several million dollars their parents gave them at birth wisely, there would be no poverty.” 

It would be so soul-satisfying to see some of these clowns lose everything, and have to really make it on their own.  Imagine Jonah, for example, trying to get a job based on his skills rather than his Mom’s power.

Comment #22: RepubAnon  on  08/03  at  03:48 PM

“Imagine Jonah, for example, trying to get a job based on his skills rather than his Mom’s power.”

Hey!  It’s not Jonah fault if people can’t see he’s the product of superior breeding and education.  If life was really fair, he’d be a high-ranking official in government somewhere . . . like Hermann Göring!

Oh sorry, I take that back.  Göring was talented enough to have been a WWI flying ace with 22 confirmed kills…

...Jonah Goldberg is talented enough to…

...well, I’m sure we can come up with something that fits Jonah’s unique talents…

Royal Taster for George Bush?...

Comment #23: MikeEss  on  08/03  at  04:27 PM

Who was it that said: The problem with capitalism is capitalists - they get greedy ?

Comment #24: Warren  on  08/03  at  05:42 PM

Someone who was wrong, actually. The problem with capitalism is that capitalists have to get greedy—and keep getting greedier. Competition, you know. The ones who don’t go under.

Comment #25: Mark Foxwell  on  08/03  at  06:12 PM

Why, the generous rental of our superior “intangible capital” of course, the grandfatherly wisdom of our superior society benignly guiding those dusky half-devil, half-children down there! Given this assumption we can then readily calculate the value of this intangilbe capital! We’re all rich, I tell you, rich! And kindly too!

Shorter this: Kippling’s “The White Man’s Burden”
“the blame of those ye better, the hate of those ye guard.”

I wonder if Goldberg has ever read it and did it speak to him at all?

Comment #26: Dan  on  08/03  at  06:16 PM

How many hunter gatherer societies lugged operating theatres around with them?

The question of whether I’d be “better off” in a hunter gatherer society is moot - I would have been dead before my first birthday.  How many people here would have died before adulthood?

Comment #27: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/03  at  06:22 PM

>>But isn’t the immense treasure and effort much more easily expended by the state and not by individuals?

As a left anarchist (anarcho-communist, to be exact), I would say ‘Yes’ to that if by State you are actually saying ‘Society’ or ‘Community’ or ‘Human Cooperation’. The state is a particular form of organisation which in general serves only to benefit the few at the top, and if you read history aright I would say that capitalism is by definition something that could only arise due to the help of statism.

Comment #28: BlackBloc  on  08/03  at  06:24 PM

BlackBloc, the state of ancient Rome did huge building projects including roads and aqueducts. And those were done to benefit mainly those at the top. Nevertheless, the roads were so well made, they were a main path for travel long after Rome fell. Likewise, the Internet wasn’t designed by people who said, “Hey! Let’s keep elderly and disabled people from feeling cut-off from the outer world!” The lack of intent doesn’t mean the benefit doesn’t exist.

Comment #29: Samantha Vimes  on  08/03  at  09:03 PM

Happy-happy just-so stories about how wonderful and awesome things were back in the day should be disregareded.

moving from a balanced diet of dirt, bugs, warthog rectum, and starvation, to an unbalanced diet of primary staple (rice, corn, pabst blue ribbon), mcnuggets, and starvation- was a good thing.

standing food supply means standing population growth. Shit, for the first 200,000 years of our species survival, the total population was less than the Big 10 schools put together.

Comment #30: Indy  on  08/03  at  09:15 PM

Look, no one here is arguing that we should return to hunter-gatherer existence. All we’re arguing is that it’s more complicated than saying life was a bunch of half-starving wretches scratching at the dirt until wonderful capitalism saved everybody. There have been lots of improvements. There are some ways in which we’ve gone backwards. I’m not actually convinced that we can have the improvements without some of the downsides - I think everything involves trade-offs - but that doesn’t mean I can’t acknowledge that it’s complex. For example, Indy uses our tremendous population growth as evidence that modernity is better. Yet our overuse of resources is undermining everything we’ve achieved. See? Complex.

Comment #31: chingona  on  08/03  at  10:02 PM

Personally, when I get the munchies, I like being able to call for a pizza rather than having to go out and rustle up some berries. If that makes me a decadent modern creature, so be it.

Comment #32: Bitter Scribe  on  08/03  at  10:52 PM

moving from a balanced diet of dirt, bugs, warthog rectum, and starvation, to an unbalanced diet of primary staple (rice, corn, pabst blue ribbon), mcnuggets, and starvation- was a good thing.

Pretty much the entire social sciences world would beg to differ.  Obviously Chingona is right that a great many things that sedentary civilization has brought have been good things which have enriched us and saved many lives.

But, no, actually, pre-civilization peoples were almost certainly not a bunch of dirt-eating half-starved wretches You can discover this in any anthropology textbook written in the last 40 years.  Shit, you can discover this by leaving suburbia for a few hours.  There are still a great many food sources that can be and/or usually are gathered, or which noticeably grow wild.  People still hunt.  There’s a guy here in New York who’s made a career out of taking people on wild food source tours of Central Park.  And last I heard, boar rectum wasn’t on the menu.

Comment #33: The Opoponax  on  08/04  at  01:03 PM

The question of whether I’d be “better off” in a hunter gatherer society is moot - I would have been dead before my first birthday.  How many people here would have died before adulthood?

However, the medical advances you allude to may not be the fruit of capitalism per se. One can acknowledge that civilisation brings many benefits without having to either (a) pretend that pre-civilisation human life was far worse than it actually was, or (b) asserting that all the benefits of civilisation are excursively the result of a particular mode of economic organisation, and could never have been developed otherwise - especially a mode of economic organisation that has only been in vogue for the last 400 years or so…

Also:

In America, intangible capital — the stuff in our heads, our hearts, and our books — accounts for 82 percent of our wealth.

WTF? I am totally misunderstanding something here, or does that not make any sense at all?

Comment #34: Dunc  on  08/04  at  03:14 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.