New Pantheon (06) — Capital
The Church of Capitalism isn’t good, actually.
[Letter #017]
Good morning, son.
Your mother and I have officially locked in your name. Once you’re born and here with us, we’ll give it to you. We’re quite excited. We decided not to name you after your mother’s father after all, opting instead to give that one to your brother (if such a person ever materializes), but she suggested that I name you after my dad. I’m honestly not really sure why that hadn’t occurred to me before, and I agreed, of course. I really hope you enjoy your name as much as we do. It means a great deal to me.
This is a letter that I’ve been putting off for weeks, and it’s not because I’m not interested in the subject. It’s that this one is just so massive, so complicated, and so honestly controversial that it’s impossible to say one lonesome word about it without ruffling someone’s feathers. That last bit alone should tell you that this involves religion. Nothing in all of human existence gets people riled up quite as well as “truths” that they hold with religious fervor. I am, of course, returning to our new pantheon with another entry.
The subject of today’s letter is a god who influences every aspect of every interaction on every part of the planet. He’s the deity with the power to raise trillion-dollar corporations and destroy entire nations. He’s been with us far longer than his current name suggests, and he’s just such an unwieldy topic for discussion that I’ve been uncomfortable even starting on this piece. Even so, we would have to discuss him eventually anyway. Might as well get him out of the way now.
He is Capital.
It might actually be more accurate to refer to him as “Coercive Economic and Political System,” as he was born long before capitalism existed, but that’s a mouthful. “Capital” is a far catchier name. He has had many names and worn many faces throughout the whole run of human civilization though, each with its own pathological sycophants, which is why I say that he’s much older than capitalism itself. But, it’s always the same game. Each of his variations have slightly different rules, yes, but the results are always the same. If you take any of his iterations and boil it down to its most basic elements, what you’re left with is a systemic power structure where some people are forced to do things by (and for the benefit of) other people.
In terms of the pantheon, Capital is the son of Money, who is himself the son of Hierarchy. Capital works tirelessly with Ransom, his aunt, in order to keep the people incentivized and with Governance, his uncle, to keep everything lawful and orderly. Of course, what’s lawful is not necessarily what’s right, and that’s what he counts on. Capital just sets up the rules by which his father, Money, can concentrate wealth among the most faithful.
To begin with, I have to throw this disclaimer out there. I am absolutely not an economist. I’m not an academic either. I do the best I can to keep up with the texts of people who are, but I want to make it clear that I definitely do not have the analytical mind to write something like Marx did. Not that I would have to, I suppose, since he’s already done such a good job with the three massive tomes on Capital anyway. Do what you can with what you have, right?
As of this writing, I don’t have copies of his Das Kapital on my shelves, but it’s possible that I may find some before you’re old enough to understand them anyway. I have plenty of other sources on the subject though, so be sure to read up. I’ve been collecting as much as I can for your future education.
No, what I’m concerned with isn’t the ins and outs of Wall Street or banking, nor am I concerned with the technical lingo of an Economics major (numbers in such abstract consideration make me dizzy anyway). My thoughts focus on what is essentially the religion of Capital. Like the rest of the gods in this pantheon, you can rest assured that none of his followers would actually admit to being among the faithful. They’re good Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, Satanists, or whatever. Their faiths all warn against the love of money and that they should do for others as they would have done unto them. Yadda-yadda, etc. Except for the atheists, of course. They claim that there are no gods, and then proceed to worship at the altar of at least one within this pantheon.
Just get into a deep conversation with any of the followers of Capital on the subject of economics, business, money, etc. Watch how fast they develop really strong opinions — tenets of faith, one might call them. This church has had many, many mantras, and the faithful will spout them by rote: “Buy low and sell high,” “Make your money work for you,” “Pull yourself up by your bootstraps,” “A rising tide lifts all boats,” “Get paid what your worth.” In the temples, they speak almost entirely in this language of economy.
One fun exercise that I’ve enjoyed over the years has been to ask one of these folks what they would do with their lives if money didn’t exist. Not just that they are super rich, and thus that money doesn’t matter to them, but what they would do if money didn’t exist at all — no one does anything in exchange for money, no one buys or sells anything at all, and no one has to save or invest anything. I’ve practically never got any response other than a dumbstruck stare of incomprehension. A few have asked if there is something else in place of money. You know, like seashells or something (which would just be money in a different form). Even folks who consider themselves on the “left” end of the political spectrum have to stop and think for a while.
I mean, what even is life without the oppressive constraints of the economy? How would people know how to behave without elites in power telling us all what to do and directing our behavior (read: consumption habits) by way of capitalist manipulations? When I ask what people would do in a world without Money or Capital, I’m asking them to imagine a world in which these invisible bindings, these tenets of the Church of Capital, no longer hold. That’s like asking them how they would live in a world where the laws of physics didn’t apply. It just can’t be done, can it? That’s just not possible. Capitalism is just human nature!
It isn’t, of course. They act like humans wouldn’t be able to eat or breathe without some monetary stimulus. The very reason that some humans even wake up in the morning is so that they can go to work to make money for someone else, thereby getting a tiny bit for themselves. If no one had to do this, then… what on earth would people do all day?! How would anyone know what to do without following the money?
The daily bell on Wall Street (well, business days only) is the call to prayer for the high priests. There are many who still stand on the floor of the temple to this day, singing their praises to Capital and holding forth their written prayers of “Buy, buy, buy” and “Sell, sell, sell!” Most of these priests, known as “traders,” have transitioned to doing all of their prayers remotely using computers. Many just let the computer algorithms do it for them, executing thousands of them per second. They constantly play the game of exploitation, buying and selling of properties, either gambling on the major swings each day or buying embattled assets in order to wait (sometimes years) for other humans to rebuild their value for resale.
This is the way this god is worshiped. It’s not just hierarchical manipulation by threat of violence, although there is definitely that. It’s the full systemization of that hierarchy and monetary incentives to make us believe that this is all a good idea and that it builds humanity up. All good things are credited to the church, and all evils are blamed on lack of faith. We truly have to stand in awe as “the line,” the earthly manifestation of the greatness of Capital, goes up, up, up. With the exception of a few bouts of depression (or “recession”), he has clearly been pleased with his acolytes.
There can be no freedom of the individual, no democracy, without the capital system, the profit system, the private enterprise system. These are, in the end, inseparable. Those who would destroy freedom have only first to destroy the hope of gain, the profit of enterprise and risk-taking, the hope of accumulating capital, the hope to save something for one’s old age and for one’s children. For a community of men without property, and without the hope of getting it by honest effort, is a community of slaves of a despotic State.
– Russell C. Leffingwell, High Priest of the Capitalist Temple
There are many different sects of the faith, as you would expect to find. Smith and Ricardo, and those other early priests of Capital, gave us “Classical Liberalism,” but that’s sort of fallen out of fashion. These days, especially since Reagan and Thatcher in the 80s, we’ve seen the dominance of “Neoliberalism.” There are a number of other, smaller denominations (such as so-called “Libertarianism”) as well, but something that’s absolutely guaranteed is that they all sit firmly under the umbrella of the Church of Capital. There are no heresies permitted.
I think that some Marxists would take issue with that last proclamation, and I’ll address that in a moment. First, however, I think it’s useful to look back at the way things used to be. To give credit where it’s due, Marx did come up with a really useful framework, called “modes of production” in his “historical materialism,” to think about how political and economic systems work, starting with the ancient slavery systems. Well, he actually starts with “primitive communism,” but there are issues there that I don’t want to go into.
In the ancient world, to a lesser and greater degree depending on where and when you look, you had slave systems. That was just a fact of life. It was pretty common to see people who were defeated in wars taken as slaves and sold. Sometimes, slaves were taken as punishment for crime or as repayment for debts. These people would be used as servants in whatever capacity was required by the master. Refusal to serve would result in punishment of pain or death. Very clearly, this is a power dynamic based on violence. Entire societies formed around this dynamic and whole economies were built on the backs of enslaved populations. Unlike modern slavery, which is still very much present despite popular denial, this practice seemed acceptable in almost every part of the world. To keep the system running, the master would work the slave to the greatest extent possible and then give the slave just enough to prevent revolt and ensure work the next day.
Eventually, (and I’m simplifying a lot here) when it was decided that keeping people enslaved was no longer fashionable, the elites just took control of the best land — the richest fields, the sources of clean water, and naturally the areas in and around urban centers. If necessary, people were removed violently. The common folks were not “owned,” per se, but they were rather bound to the land (which is totally different!). If the peasants wanted to grow food, they would have to pay some of their harvest to the local lord. This is the origin of “rent,” by the way. Peasants could technically leave (if they had permission of the lord), but travel was difficult and there weren’t many places to go, except for those controlled by a different lord. To keep the system running, the lord would ensure that the peasant kept enough of his harvest to prevent revolt and be able to continue working the next day.
Long story made incredibly short, you get to the modern period and capitalism. I’m skipping a lot of history and nuance, but bear with me. I’m trying to make a point. Capitalism hits the scene and it’s no longer acceptable to bind peasants to the land. You get your “enclosure acts,” migration to urban centers, industry, fossil fuels, growth, and all that stuff. Common folks can come and go as they please, provided they have the means to do so.
The Oxford dictionary says that capitalism is “an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.” That’s a decent summary, but of course there’s more to it. These private owners, the capitalists, own and control basically everything: land, resources, equipment, buildings, roadways. Everything, essentially, except for humans themselves, although they do exert a tremendous amount of influence over human behavior and power over what they deem as misbehavior.
Those who don’t own anything other than their personal property and their labor are the workers. So, the capitalists will hire the workers to operate some aspect of private property in order to produce a lot of value. The capitalist will take that value for himself and pay the workers a small portion of it, which should be just enough to prevent a revolt and keep them coming back to produce more value the next day. I feel like we’ve heard this story before.
Incidentally, you should read through some of David Harvey’s work. While I don’t fully agree with some Marxists’ suggested solutions, I think they’re fantastic at diagnosing the problems, and Harvey is particularly good at this. Speaking of their solutions though, I should get back to the bit I mentioned earlier about heresy against the Church of Capital.
I certainly don’t mean to speak for all Marxists, much less all communists in general, but history is what it is, and so it’s got to be addressed. From the Russian revolution to present, we’ve seen quite a number of political and economic experiments that the world has agreed to call “communist.” These arrangements, I’m sure their participants would claim, are the antithesis (indeed, the antidote!) of Capital. Considering that the US and the USSR were at each other’s throats for decades with the Cold War, a lovers’ spat so inflamed that it nearly ended all life on the planet with nuclear obliteration, I think it would be fair to assume that the two ideologies must surely be polar opposites. Surely.
It certainly would seem so. All of that land, resources, equipment, buildings, etc. that was held by private (or noble) entities in previously capitalist (or feudal) economies were appropriated by “the people” and put under state control. With the “means of production” held solely by a central command structure, those who control that command structure were able to direct the behavior of the people toward goals desired by “the party.” With this arrangement, the enlightened party can appropriate the value produced by the loyal workers and make sure that they get just enough to prevent a revolt against the great leader and able to come back tomorrow to continue the glorious work of the revolution. So there. Completely different, you see.
By the way, I’m a huge fan of little-c communism, but that’s not what was tried before, and the systems that called themselves “communist” were never going to end up actually being so. Why? Because elites run the show there too, and the powerful will never give up their power willingly. The state will never “wither away.” There will never be “full communism” through a transition that’s guided by a state or vanguard party.
It will not happen because that would go against the laws of the god in charge of these systems. This god, which I said earlier might be more accurately named “Coercive Economic and Political System,” behaves the same no matter which mask he wears or name he uses. Even if he changes around the labels, he will always have elites control everything and get rich while exploiting everyone else. This rich minority will claim the monopoly on violence, so that if the ownership of their holdings is threatened, the perpetrators will be located and harshly punished. It doesn’t matter if we say it’s a master whipping a slave, a baron demanding rent from the peasants, or a property manager evicting a tenant. The power dynamic, the ability to force regular people to do whatever is desired by the elites on pain of violent punishment, remains the same.
And, that’s about it — the summary of civilizational economies. Whether it’s slavery, feudalism, capitalism, so-called “communism,” or any other hierarchical political and economic system that has been attempted by civilized societies, what you end up with is a power dynamic that has elites on top who make up the rules to benefit themselves, who hold all of the power to direct whole nations of people, and who insist that there’s no other way that life could even work. Everyone else who isn’t elite has to either fall in line, whether they believe the tripe or not, or else they’re a problem solved through violent coercion.
I want to stress the requirement of the monopoly on violence. If you recall the letter wherein I told you about your cousin who believes in the oxymoron known as “anarcho-capitalism,” there is the idea that Capital is a self-correcting system, and that the pressures of the “free market” will solve every problem. If only that darned-ol’ government would get out the way. I explained that if you don’t violently force people to engage with the system, then they simply won’t do it. Thus, if Capital somehow finds itself to exist without a “government” to force people to participate, it’ll have to create one (something probably resembling a “private security force,” or whatever).
On the other side, we see that Marxists tend to believe the reverse, as they say that Capital is bad and that they’ll use the government to get rid of it. In the so-called Communist countries so far, they did mostly remove the trappings and façade of Capital, but they left in place the same sort of oppressive violence monopoly that we get from capitalism. If the dynamic is the same and the result is the same, then it doesn’t matter if you call it “capitalism,” “communism,” or “anarcho-Bidenist-Malthusianist-Dengism,” it’s all the same shit, just in different piles. Coincidentally, it’s always been interesting to me that the greatest capitalist success story of the past 30 years has been the People’s Republic of China.
There’s another common thread that runs through each of these philosophies, because it’s an important effect of the Church of Capital itself. The priesthood makes sure to encourage the belief that this is “just how things are” and that they could never be any other way. The late, great author, Ursula K Le Guin said in a speech in 2014, “We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable — but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings.” With greatest of respect to Madame Le Guin, I don’t think we truly changed much from the times of kings and serfs. Rather, we just shifted around the names and faces. The system differs only in form, but the function remains as it always has.
Mark Fisher elaborates on this in his excellent book wherein he describes how impossible it seems for society to break away from Capital’s psychological grip on our collective imagination.
Watching [the film] Children of Men, we are inevitably reminded of the phrase attributed to Fredric Jameson and Slavoj Žižek, that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism. That slogan captures precisely what I mean by ‘capitalist realism’: the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible to even imagine a coherent alternative to it.
– Mark Fisher, “Capitalist Realism”
There is a YouTube channel that I enjoy named Anark. The person who runs the channel goes by the same name, and he’s quite the insightful fella. He agrees with Fisher’s capitalist realism argument, but like me, he also believes it goes a step further, calling it “Hierarchical Realism.” Specifically, that we in civilized society simply cannot imagine what life would be like without hierarchical, coercive power structures. The history of civilization, which goes back about ten thousand years, has been the chronology of these sorts of oppressive societal arrangements.
There have been forms of communities in indigenous cultures that were specifically not hierarchical, and some even still exist today, but not within cultures that would consider themselves civilized (except a handful of short-lived examples, such as revolutionary Catalonia). I’m sure that someone could make the argument that civilization, as a method of organizing human communities, actually requires hierarchical power structures. To that, I would simply add that that’s another mark against civilization, at least in my book.
The brainwashing is so thoroughly complete, actually, that people seem to get somewhat upset if you ask them, as I suggested above, to engage in a thought experiment featuring the absence of oppressive power systems. They begin to spout all of the Hobbesian garbage about how people would never work without monetary incentive, or how people will just murder or rape everyone if there are no laws, or any number of other bizarre accusations without any basis in reality.
Seriously, there’s no good evidence that humans without coercive “discipline” behave like this. In cases where people aren’t working to make their community better, there’s absolutely a reason for it. They may need something, or maybe they’re sick. Instead of accusing them of laziness, we should really just talk to them. In cases where a person might kill someone else, there’s generally a reason for that too. It might be a terrible reason, but people don’t just do these things randomly. Turns out that people aren’t psychologically built for the trauma of killing another human. We generally avoid it as much as we can. We actually are built to work together, help each other, and try to comfort others as much as possible. Humans who can’t or won’t work to help out generally fall into depression. Helping other humans usually solves that problem.
The above allegations, however, are exactly what the elites would tell us to make sure we keep perpetuating the systems that keep them in control. Hobbes, incidentally, was aggressively monarchist. Gosh, I wonder what he thinks common folks will do if there’s no king to tell them what to do. I mean, we didn’t have kings for 90+% of our existence as homo sapiens, but we just got lucky, I guess? We’re all just sociopathic, brainless apes, right? We just kill each other indiscriminately without law and order? Good thing we got those kings and masters just in time to save us from ourselves (and to send us to war against the other people who are evil for some reason??).
You get my point. We’re controlled, and we behave the way we do because we’ve fully bought into the religions that we perpetuate every day. Capital, a.k.a. Slavery, a.k.a. Feudalism, a.k.a. big-C “Communism,” is the religion that brings together economics and politics in an unstoppable machine of public control. Every so often, people fight against it, and sometimes the system changes. But, those changes are always superficial. The same god just puts on a new mask, labels himself something that appeals to the people, replaces a few elites on the top of the ladder, and calls it a revolution — the world keeps spinning.
How do we rid ourselves of this god? I’m not sure if we can, but our civilization is presently collapsing. Most of the power structures that compose it will crumble eventually. Given enough time, maybe centuries, it’s possible that humans will drift back away from civilization. Maybe then the elder god, Hierarchy, will finally die. For ourselves, I think the best we can do is to try to build a community in which this pantheon is unwelcome. Maybe it’ll catch on, who knows?
Son, I appreciate that you read through these letters. It means a lot to me that you care enough about my rambling thoughts to slog through them. I don’t know whether I’ll ever learn if they are helpful to you in your life, but I know that they’re helpful to me in mine. Knowing that you’ll read them someday helps to keep me going with them. I love you very much.
Your father,
Papa Bear
[Author’s note: This is a series of letters that I intend to print to paper and deliver to my son, probably around the year 2040. You are more than welcome to read along. The links in the article are only for you, the reader, and will include citations, jokes, asides, and links to books or other items. If you happen to purchase anything through such a link, I’ll get a small commission. Every little bit helps, right?]
