Theory of Indivisibility: Current Complexities of Capitalism
This post corresponds with Episode 16 of my podcast Theory of Indivisibility, where I talk about the evolution of ownership. Be sure to check it out on Google Podcast, Apple Podcast, Spotify, or Stitcher!
I can truly see why so many people love capitalism and the opportunities that it provides. In my lifetime alone I’ve seen my generation grow up to live more affluently than our parent’s generation. I often marvel at how economically privileged my children and my peer’s children are in comparison to what we had access to growing up, low-income and working-class, in inner-city Philadelphia.
In an article titled “Capitalism is Good For The Poor” by Ball State University Professor Steven Horwitz, the benefits of capitalism are highlighted in great detail. Horwitz makes some great points as follows:
“Nothing has done more to lift humanity out of poverty than the market economy. The number of people worldwide living on less than about two dollars per day today is less than half of what it was in 1990.
For most of human history, we lived in a world of a few haves and lots of have-nots. That slowly began to change with the advent of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. As economic growth took off and spread throughout the population, it created our own world in the West in which there are a whole bunch of haves and a few have-more-and-betters.
For example, the percentage of American households below the poverty line who have basic appliances has grown steadily over the last few decades, with poor families in 2005 being more likely to own things like a clothes dryer, dishwasher, refrigerator, or air conditioner than the average household was in 1971. And consumer items that didn’t even exist back then, such as cell phones, were owned by half of poor households in 2005 and are owned by a substantial majority of them today.
Capitalism has also made poor people’s lives far better by reducing infant and child mortality rates, not to mention maternal death rates during childbirth, and by extending life expectancies by decades.
The competitive market process has also made education, art, and culture available to more and more people. Even the poorest of Americans, not to mention many of the global poor, have access through the Internet and TV to concerts, books, and works of art that were exclusively the province of the wealthy for centuries.
Think of it this way: the fabulously wealthy kings of old had servants attending to their every need, but an impacted tooth would likely kill them. The poor in largely capitalist countries have access to a quality of medical care and a variety and quality of food that the ancient kings could only dream of.
The reality is that the rich have always lived well historically, as for centuries they could commandeer human labor to attend to their every need. In a precapitalist world, the poor had no hope of upward mobility or of relief from the endless physical drudgery that barely kept them alive.
Today, the poor in capitalist countries live like kings, thanks mostly to the freeing of labor and the ability to accumulate capital that makes that labor more productive and enriches even the poorest.
These changes are not, as some would say, about technology. After all, the Soviets had great scientists but could not channel that knowledge into material comfort for their poor. And it’s not about natural resources, which is obvious today as resource-poor Hong Kong is among the richest countries in the world thanks to capitalism, while Venezuelan socialism has destroyed that resource-rich country.
Inventions only become innovations when the right institutions exist to make them improve the lives of the masses. That is what capitalism did and continues to do every single day. And that’s why capitalism has been so good for the poor.”
All of that sounds wonderful. It really does. I can see why so many people sing the praises of capitalism. And I’m sure as you were reading that, you may have thought, “Wow, yeah, capitalism really has helped humanity make some great strides.”
Before I learned Systems Thinking I was right there with Horwitz. But now as a Systems Thinker, I can see all of the ways that this article is incomplete.
Notice that I didn’t say “wrong”…
It’s not wrong because it is correct from a “linear thinking” perspective…which is the way we’ve all been socialized to think and understand problems.
In an article titled “Problem Solving Desparately Needs Systems Thinking” Sociologist, Sustainability Activist, and Educator, Leyla Acaraglu, provides the following insights…
“Through socialization (including our education system), we learn to break the world down into manageable chunks and see issues in isolation of their systemic roots. We’ve learned that the most effective way to solve a problem is to treat the symptoms, not the causes. That’s Linear thinking — the ‘A leads to B, and results in C’ perspective.
Yet, when we look at the world through a systems thinking lens, we see that everything is interconnected. Problems are connected to many other elements within dynamic systems. If we just treat one symptom, the flow of effects leads to burden-shifting and often to unintended consequences.
Here’s a simpler way to say it: problems never exist in isolation, they are always surrounded by other problems.”
So what burdens are shifted and what are the unintended consequences of capitalism that this article didn’t address?
To answer this question, I’m going to introduce a set of tools that Systems Thinkers use called Systems Archetypes.
As Leyla Acaraglu explains…
“Archetypes are recurring patterns of behavior that give insights into the structures that drive systems. They offer a way of deciphering systems dynamics across a diversity of disciplines, scenarios, or contexts. Think of these archetypes as the storylines of systems in the world. Just as you can identify the same formula for a romantic comedy or a thriller in a Hollywood film, these archetypes help systems thinkers see behaviors and flows in more concrete terms.”
Archetype 1: Limits to growth
An example of this archetype is market saturation and housing bubbles. Equally, this is about the limitations to success that we have. Nothing can grow forever; at some point, the system will fight back and intervene to regulate exponential growth. That’s when the bubble bursts.
Another example of this archetype can be seen in sports. When a team wins a championship, it is usually hard to maintain that level of success because the key players and coaches become more valuable and demand higher paying contracts. Often what happens is that it becomes impossible for teams to continue paying players at that higher rate, but other teams are able to pay that high amount, so both coaches and players end up leaving to get their big pay day.
Archetype 12: Growth Paradox
This is where growth in one location leads to a decline somewhere else. It’s a basic law of physics that every action has an equal or opposing reaction. We know we live on a planet with finite resources, and we see how the increase in wealth in one location will always come at the cost of wealth somewhere else.
This can be shifted by the more equitable distribution of assets. But in most socially constructed systems (what I call human-made systems), equity plays a smaller role to individual opportunity. So when we see this archetype playing out, we see that for anything to grow, something else must be taken away.
What comes to mind for you when you think about this Archetype?
I think about how Europeans and later Americans gained massive wealth by extracting wealth from Africa in the form of people during the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade and in the form of natural resources like rubber, timber, diamonds, and gold during colonization.
I also think about deforestation and the way that in order to satisfy constant growth like the building of new houses, and fuel consumerism (the need to have a constant flow of new clothes, new cars, new jewelry, new toys, and new gadgets) the continual destruction of natural habitats for wild animals and indigenous people across the globe is required. I also think about how constant growth and consumption is accelerating the extinction of thousands of plant and animal species.
Archetype 10: Shifting the burden
This common archetype shows up when good intentions lead to worse outcomes unless the system is understood and those outcomes are circumvented. If everything is interconnected and we live on a closed ecosystem, then when you make one decision (for example, creating a fast food industry and allow for aggressive advertising about the joys of eating Hamburgers, the burden of delivering that resource is shifted to another part of the system (in this case to the amazon rainforests who where a 5th of its forests have been cut down in the last 3 decades primarily to clear land for raising of cattle to meet the growing demand for beef). This is also defined as the law of unintended consequences of our actions — the accidental outcomes that occur in dynamic systems.
After looking at those three archetypes, we can see some of the negative consequences of linear thinking and of capitalism that weren’t addressed in the article by Horwitz. What I love about the 12 archetypes shared in Layla Acaraglu’s work is that they help me to see the patterns that continue to show up across different contexts within our social systems. Because of systems thinking, I can see the lack of holistic planning, lack of getting to the root cause of issues in band-aid solutions that don’t take the whole system into account. My hope is that through this work, more people will become aware of systems thinking and that will lead to a paradigm shift.
My biggest issue with the Steven Horwitz article is that it lacks chronological relativity and context. Horwitz compares present-day poverty with centuries-old wealth without addressing the key driver of oppression and that’s inequality. Yes, inequality looked different back then than it does now and the barriers to living well have changed…but the fact that inequality and barriers exist at all is the problem.
For some present-day context let’s take a look at a Pew Research Center report titled “Trends in Income and Wealth Inequality” released January 9, 2020…
“The period from 1983 to 2001 was relatively prosperous for families in all income tiers, but one of rising inequality. The median wealth of middle-income families increased from $102,000 in 1983 to $144,600 in 2001, a gain of 42%. The net worth of lower-income families increased from $12,300 in 1983 to $20,600 in 2001, up 67%. Even so, the gains for both lower- and middle-income families were outdistanced by upper-income families, whose median wealth increased by 85% over the same period, from $344,100 in 1983 to $636,000 in 2001.
The wealth gap between upper-income and lower- and middle-income families has grown wider this century. Upper-income families were the only income tier able to build on their wealth from 2001 to 2016, adding 33% at the median. On the other hand, middle-income families saw their median net worth shrink by 20% and lower-income families experienced a loss of 45%. As of 2016, upper-income families had 7.4 times as much wealth as middle-income families and 75 times as much wealth as lower-income families. These ratios are up from 3.4 and 28 in 1983, respectively.”
What stands out to me the most from reading those numbers is this: during the time of kings and queens, absolute monarchies, the inequality of that era resulted in the oppression of common people (peasants). Comparing what poverty is today and what it was back then isn’t fair. We need to look at it in the context of what’s happening today. What we see based on the data from the Pew Research article is not only does inequality still exist between the poor and the wealthy, but it is still growing at a faster pace. It is difficult for me to understand how people who praise capitalism can’t see the ways that capitalism continues to widen the wealth gap, and widen the gap of oppression and inequality. Just because poor people live “better” now than poor people in the past, that statement has to be looked at in the context of the present-day realities around us.
This reminds me of another Systems Archetype called “seeking the wrong goal” (Archetype 6).
This occurs when a goal is set that we know is a band-aid solution to the bigger issue at hand. The wrong goal makes us feel like we are achieving something when really, this behavior is masking something else. This reinforces superficial actions in the system that can, in some cases, perpetuate the problem that the goals are trying to resolve (i.e trying to eliminate inequality and oppression within the system of capitalism, which succeeds at consistently raising the bottom level of poverty, while also perpetuating inequality and oppression).
So while, yes, in my lifetime alone I have seen visual examples of upward mobility and access to relative wealth and success for the people around me and the communities I’ve lived in. I’ve also seen signs of poverty and despair increase as well. For example, all throughout the metro Atlanta region, you’ll find armed security guards or police on duty at schools, restaurants, gas stations, and grocery stores. I’ve seen an increase in homelessness and panhandling as well. All things I didn’t see when I was a child to the degree that I see them now.
In episode 12 of my podcast, I further defined my Theory of Indivisibility by introducing what I call a “Framework For Social Innovation”. This included two charts: The DNA of Divisiveness and The DNA of Indivisibility.
I posit that if any social system has elements from the DNA of Divisiveness chart, then that system will inevitably produce the inequality and oppression, which leads to all of the societal dysfunction that we currently accept as normal.
Let’s take a closer look at the DNA of Divisiveness chart. It includes the tools, communication framework, & outcomes of divisive social systems. Take a moment to think about or write down the connections between capitalism and the DNA of divisiveness that come up in your own mind.
The DNA of Divisiveness
Tools
Power-Over systems use the following tools to maintain power-over and control of people:
Fear, Scarcity, Dependency, Standardization, Moral Judgement, Competition, Laws, Conditional Love, Lying, Exclusiveness, Social Norms, The Illusion of Freedom, Intolerance, Mistrust of Human Nature, Self-Oppression (i.e. “born sinners”)
Communication Framework
The communication framework of Power-Over systems is debate. Characteristics of debate include:
Only one side wins, insults, us versus them language, blame, shame, winning is more important than learning.
Outcomes
Persistent use of the tools of divisiveness leads to:
Incremental, hard-fought, and slow progress towards healthy functional social norms amidst perpetual divisiveness war, crime, violence, poverty, pollution, homelessness, hunger, mental illness, and dysfunctional relationships.
As I think about the connections I can make between capitalism and the tools of divisiveness, immediately what comes to mind is fear, scarcity, and competition. When I think about the outcomes of divisiveness in terms of capitalism, I think about crime, violence, poverty, pollution, homelessness, hunger, mental illness, and dysfunctional relationships.
Capitalism and the divisiveness it leads to is a result of centuries of linear thinking. The good news is that there are people who have been brainstorming and experimenting with solutions rooted in Systems Thinking for several decades now. We’ll learn about some of those solutions in my next post.
Until next time,
I love y’all, Peace
Dr. Sundiata Soon-Jahta
2023. Podcast brought into written form by Ray Lightheart
_________________________________________________________________
Resources
Articles:
Capitalism Is Good For The Poor
Problem Solving Desperately Needs Systems Thinking
Tools for Systems Thinkers: The 12 Recurring Systems Archetypes
Humans Are Speeding Extinction and Altering the Natural World at an ‘Unprecedented’ Pace
Beef Production Is Killing The Amazon Rainforest
Trends In Income & Wealth Inequality
Charts:
The DNA of Divisiveness
Tools: Power Over Systems use these tools to maintain power-over and control of people.
Fear, Scarcity, Dependency, Standardization, Moral Judgement, Competition, Laws, Conditional Love, Lying, Exclusiveness, Social Norms, The Illusion of Freedom, Intolerance, Mistrust of Human Nature, Self-Oppression (born sinners).
Language: The communication framework of Power-Over systems is Debate.
Characteristics of Debate: Only one side wins, insults, us vs them language, blame, & shame.
Outcomes: Incremental hard-fought and slow progress towards healthy functional social norms amidst perpetual divisiveness (Classism,racism,xenophobia,party politics,etc) war, crime, violence, poverty, pollution, homelessness, hunger, mental illness, and dysfunctional relationships.
