Machan's Musings - The New Republic's Anti-Capitalism?
by Tibor R. Machan
'The New Republic' is an enjoyable forum in which one can find pretty smart discussion of public philosophy and policy. This is especially true when it comes to the magazine’s book reviews. Now and then these offer some real lulus of intellectually acceptable nonsense.
In his review of 'Jesus in Beijing' (Regnery, 2004), Joshua Kurlantzick comes up with one of these good and hard. He tells the reader: "But capitalism is not a political ideology, and money offers no theories on the nature of man, nor thoughts on death, nor idea of how to organize a society." Come again?
One need not turn to Ayn Rand’s works to see how silly is this sentence—Karl Marx clearly disagreed, as would have Adam Smith or F. A. Hayek, as would Milton Friedman and a whole lot of others who either oppose or champion this, yes, political ideology or theory.
Of course, "money offers no theories," literally, any more than do clouds or atoms, but the existence of money is very much tied to a certain theory, just as the existence of atoms makes sense within the framework of a good theory. Money is tied to the theory of free exchange and the need for a common medium for it. Which itself is tied to other elements of theories, including about the nature of man, if one wishes to be accurate about such matters.
I often wonder why a prominent place such as 'The New Republic' will accept some silly remark like this; but then I suppose they don’t pay enough to reviewers to make demands on them to change what they submit—who knows? But this really takes the cake.
Capitalism has been a political ideology every since Marx decided to call the classical liberal, bourgeois economic system by that term and others have followed his lead, pro or con. (Indeed, in Marx its being an ideology was a crucial and telling point!) In Marx’s view, money, too, is embedded in a theory that sees human nature in a certain way—as, for example, vulnerable to alienation and exploitation. And, of course, capitalism very much implies ideas on how to organize society—with an infrastructure that includes the right to private property, free trade, the rule of law and other elements that are often the target of criticism of those with a different political ideologies.
Since this review was about a book on contemporary China, I thought perhaps the comment I found so unintelligent and uneducated was supposed to refer to how some people, say in the Chinese government, view capitalism. Perhaps Kurlantzick meant to say that to those folks capitalism comes without its customary philosophical ingredients. But that’s not what he said!
But assuming that’s what he meant, once those Chinese government officials remove the obstacles to capitalism, to the free circulation of money and goods, those philosophical elements that surround that system will make themselves felt. Under even a creeping capitalism, for example, people are more likely to be able to escape the regimentation of government; emerging capitalism, especially when foreign trade is involved, expands cultural horizons; the system also gravitates toward greater personal choice and choice in the sphere of politics—money can support political groups and that can have a serious impact.
Indeed, few if any human institutions come all alone into a society—marriage comes with baggage, as does education, trade, athletics, entertainment and so forth. All these arise as they do in light of certain facts about the world and human beings and how these all interconnect. If we get it wrong about all this, we mess the society up royally, which is just what is going on in many countries, including, in large measure, in the People’s Republic of China.
But all this is pretty simple—any educated person would have an inkling about it. So why then does a writer for an erudite magazine pretend otherwise?
I don’t read minds well, especially from afar, but I guess we have here another instance of someone trying to belittle capitalism, making it look like it’s just some kind of irrational, random, helter-skelter phenomenon no one should take terribly seriously. Sorry, it will not wash.
Discuss this Article (0 messages)
|
