First, the supreme consumer.
The fundamental feature of modern capitalism is the mass production of commodities that are ultimately available for mass consumption. As a result, the standard of living of ordinary people tends to continue to rise, and many people are becoming more affluent. Capitalism freed the "common man" from the "status of the proletariat" and joined the ranks of the "bourgeoisie".
In the capitalist market, ordinary people are the supreme consumers, and their buying and refusing to buy ultimately determines what should be produced, how much should be produced, and at what quality. Shops and factories that specialize or mainly satisfy the needs of the wealthy for more refined luxury goods occupy only a secondary position in the market structure of a market economy. They will never grow into big business. Big business is always the one that directly or indirectly serves the masses.
This is one of the great social changes brought about by the "Industrial Revolution". Those who, in all previous historical epochs, had been reduced to slaves and serfs, paupers and beggars, were now the patrons of goods, and the merchants had to look after their horses. They are consumers, so they are "always right";They are the masters of the market, and they have the power to make poor merchants rich and rich factory owners poor.
In the network of the market economy, there is no room for those who sell panaceas and politicians to stir things up, and there is no room for those dukes and their gangsters who arbitrarily oppress the common people, forcibly expropriate and squander. In the market, villains end up empty-handed. The system of profit enriches those who succeed in satisfying people's needs by the best and cheapest means possible. It is only by serving consumers that wealth can be amassed. As long as the capitalists do not invest their money in projects that best meet the needs of the public, they immediately lose their wealth. There is a referendum going on every day in the market, and every penny is a vote cast by the consumer, which determines who will own and operate the factories, shops and farms. The control of the material means of production is nothing more than a tool of society, which the supreme consumer can either give to or take away from someone.
This is where the modern meaning of the concept of freedom lies. Every adult can shape their own life according to their own plan. He is no longer forced to live according to the only plan set by a planning authority and enforced by the police——— that is, under the social mechanism of coercion and coercion. It is not the violence or threat of violence from others that restricts the freedom of the individual, but the physiology of his body and the inevitable scarcity of the factors of production given by nature. Obviously, man's free right to shape his own destiny can never go beyond the limits drawn by what is called the laws of nature.
In affirming these facts, we do not justify individual freedom from the point of view of any absolute standard or metaphysical concept. Nor do we judge the fashionable theories of totalitarian advocates of all stripes, whether "right-wing" or "left-wing." Nor do we claim the lie that the masses are stupid and ignorant, and have no idea what best serves their "real" needs and interests, and therefore they desperately need a guardian, i.e., **, or they will kill themselves. We also don't look closely at one of their assertions: there are some supermen who are just right to be the guardians of the masses.
2. A strong desire to improve the economic situation.
Under capitalism, ordinary people enjoy a lot of convenient and comfortable facilities, which in the past people have never heard of, and even the richest people cannot enjoy them. Of course, things like cars, televisions, and refrigerators don't make people happy. The moment he gets these things, he may feel happier than before. However, as soon as some of his desires are satisfied, new desires arise immediately. That's what human nature is.
Few Americans are fully aware of the fact that their country enjoys the highest standard of living, and that in the eyes of people in non-capitalist countries, the life of the average American seems to be as mythical as it is simply unattainable. The vast majority of people underestimate what they already have and what they can gain, and draw on what they cannot possibly acquire. There is no point in writhing over this insatiable desire. Because this strong desire is the driving force that leads people to improve their economic situation. It is not a virtue for a person to be content with what he has already obtained or can easily obtain, and to indifferently renounce any effort that will improve his material condition. This attitude is the behavior of an animal, not a rational person. The most quintessential sign of man is that he will never give up his efforts to improve his welfare through purposeful activity.
However, these efforts must be adapted to their own ends. They must be conducive to achieving the desired effect. The fault of the vast majority of our contemporaries lies not in their strong desire for greater abundance of various commodities, but in their choice of incorrect means to achieve this goal. They are misled by all sorts of deceptive ideologies. The policies they like are in fact the opposite of their own rightly understood fundamental interests. They are too dull to understand the inevitable long-term consequences of their actions and to be complacent about their short-term fleeting effects. The measures they propose will inevitably lead to widespread poverty and to the disintegration of the system of social cooperation under the principle of the division of labour, thus returning humanity to the age of barbarism.
There is only one way to improve the material condition of humanity: to increase the rate at which capital accumulation grows faster than the rate of population growth. The greater the amount of capital invested in each worker, the more and better it is that it can be produced and consumed. So it is capitalism, the system of profit that has been attacked too much, that has brought about, and is bringing about rapid change. However, the vast majority of contemporary political parties are desperate to destroy this system.
Why do they hate capitalism so much?Why, while enjoying the benefits of capitalism, do they always look at the "good old days" of the past and the miserable living conditions of Russian workers today?
3. Identity-based society and capitalism.
Before answering this question, it is necessary to carefully compare the completely different characteristics of capitalism and identity-based societies.
Entrepreneurs and capitalists in a market economy are often likened to aristocrats in a status-based society. The reason for this analogy is that both are more affluent than the living conditions of the majority of the people. However, if we believe this analogy, it is impossible for us to recognize the essential difference between the wealth of the aristocracy and the wealth of the "bourgeoisie" or capitalists.
The wealth of the aristocracy was not a market phenomenon;It is not a process that derives from satisfying consumers, nor can it be deprived by any action on the part of the public, and it may not be affected at all. His wealth derives from conquest or the generosity of his conquerors. These may be lost by the deprivation of his master, or by his violent expulsion by other conquerors, or by the squandering of his wealth himself. The feudal lords don't care about the consumers;Whether the common people are happy or not cannot do any harm to them.
Entrepreneurs and capitalists derive their wealth from the consumers of their businesses. Once others can serve consumers better or cheaper, thus replacing them, they will inevitably lose these wealth.
It is not the intention of this article to describe the historical conditions under which the caste system and the identity system were formed, in which people were divided into hereditary groups with different statuses, rights, and qualifications, and the law granted privileges to some and deprived othersThe most important thing for us is to remember that the preservation of these feudal systems is incompatible with the capitalist system. The abolition of feudalism and the establishment of the principle of equality under the law removed the obstacle to the common enjoyment of all the benefits of private ownership of the means of production and private enterprise.
In a society based on status, identity, or caste, a person's activities throughout their life are fixed. He was born with a certain identity, and his place in society was determined by rigid laws and Xi Xi customs that assigned to each class of people definite privileges, responsibilities, or explicitly stipulated that he did not possess certain qualifications. In some very rare cases, unusual good or bad luck may elevate a person to a higher class or demote someone to a lower position. But usually, the situation of an individual who belongs to a certain class or a certain class can only be raised or decreased with the change of the situation of the whole class. The individual is not primarily a citizen of a state, but a member of a caste, and only through this is he indirectly integrated into the structure of the state. When dealing with people who belong to another class, people don't feel a sense of community. On the contrary, he sensed an insurmountable gulf between him and other people. This difference is vividly manifested in the fact that people of different ranks, speaking different languages, and wearing different styles of clothing. Under the Ancien Régime before the French Revolution of 1789, the European aristocracy spoke elegant French, the Third Estate used the "vernacular", while the lower classes and peasants in the towns generally spoke a mixture of local dialects, impure grammar and vocabulary, and were incomprehensible to the educated. Different grades are dressed differently. Whoever you meet anywhere you meet someone can easily recognize his rank.
The main reason why those who praise the old Belle Époque criticize the principle of equality under the law is that it abolishes the privileges of hierarchy and the dignity of the nobility. They say that the principle of equality under the law "atomizes" society and disintegrates the "organic" strata of society into an "unorganized" masses. Now, "too many people" have climbed to the top, and their vulgar materialism has replaced the high standards of the past. Money is king. Those who have no taste at all have wealth and enjoy a prosperous life, while those who deserve all this in society are empty-handed.
The implicit implication behind this criticism is that under the Ancien Régime, the aristocracy rose to prominence because of their virtues, and that they possessed their status and wealth because of their moral and cultural superiority. We need no need to refute this myth. Historians, who do not make value judgments and do not wish to express their value orientations, have unceremoniously pointed out that the high-ranking aristocracy of the great powers of Europe was nothing more than the descendants of the soldiers, courtiers, and courtesans who wisely sided with the victorious side in the centuries of religious and constitutional struggles.
The conservative and "progressive" enemies of capitalism do not agree with this assessment of the old standards, and they unanimously attack the standards of capitalist society. In their view, those who are most qualified do not receive wealth and privileges, but those who are worthless are satisfied. On the table, the two blocs talk about replacing the apparently unfair distribution of laissez-faire capitalism with a fair "distribution" method.
Today, no one would argue that, judging by external standards of value, those who live best under unfettered capitalism should be the most favored people. What capitalist market democracy achieves is not the distribution of rewards to people on the basis of their "real" merits, intrinsic worth, and moral prowess. What makes a person rich or poor is not the evaluation of his contribution from the standpoint of some "absolute" principle of justice, but the personal evaluation of the people he serves from the perspective of his own personal needs, desires, and goals. This is exactly what a democratic market system means. The consumer is supreme – that is, the monarch. They want their desires to be satisfied.
Millions of people enjoy drinking Coca-Cola, an alcoholic beverage that is popular around the world by The Coca-Cola Company**. Millions of people love detectives**, mystery movies, tabloids, bullfights, boxing, whiskey, cigars, chewing gum. Thousands of people voted for those who were eager to renew their equipment and start war. Thus, the entrepreneurs who best and cheapest ** the goods and services that consumers use to satisfy these desires get rich. What plays a role in the framework of the market economy is not the value judgment of pure academic theory, but the evaluation of people in the behavior of buying or not buying.
There are those who complain about the unfairness of the market system, and for them we can only make one suggestion: if you want to get rich, then try to provide the masses with cheaper or better things to meet the needs of the masses. Efforts were made to replace Coca-Cola with a drink that was blended with other liquors. Equality under the law has given you the right to challenge any millionaire. In a market that isn't hindered by the restrictions imposed by **, if you don't have more money than a chocolate king, movie star, and boxing champion, you have nothing but to blame.
But if you despise the money you might make from a clothing business or a professional boxing match, and value more of the satisfaction that comes from writing poetry or studying philosophy, you are certainly free to do what you want. That way, though, you're certainly not making as much money as people who serve the majority. This is the law of economic democracy in the market. You're meeting the needs of a few people than those who meet the needs of the majority, and as a result, you're getting fewer votes – dollars. When it comes to how much money they make, movie stars definitely outnumber philosophers;The makers of Coca-Cola certainly surpassed the symphonic composers.
It is important to recognize that it is the social system that gives people the opportunity to compete for a certain reward. And it is impossible for a social system to eliminate or alleviate the innate defects that nature unfairly imposes on many people. It is unlikely to change the fact that many people are born with illness or acquired disabilities. A person's physiology severely limits the range of space he can swing. There is an insurmountable gap between those who have the ability to think and those who do not.
Now we can try to figure out why people hate capitalism.
In a society based on caste and identity, an individual can blame circumstances beyond his control for his own unfavorable fate. He was a slave, for the forces beyond human control that determine the course of all human lives have given him this status. This was not the result of his own efforts, and therefore, he had no reason to be ashamed of his humble position. Faced with his current situation, his wife can't find fault with him. If she says to him, "Why aren't you a duke?".If you're a duke, I'm a duchess. ”
He could have replied to her: "If I had been born the son of a duke, I would not have married you, the daughter of a slave;I would marry the daughter of another duke. It's entirely your fault that you're not a duchess, why aren't you a little smarter and born into a good family?”
Under capitalism, the situation is completely different. Here, everyone's life situation depends on his own efforts. Everyone whose ambition is not fully realized knows very well that he has missed certain opportunities, that he has tried, but that people are not happy with him. If his wife reprimands him, "Why do you only make $80 a week?"If you were as smart as your former friend Paul, and you would have become a foreman, I would have been able to live a good life. He was well aware that he was inferior and that he felt humiliated.
People often talk about the cruelty of capitalism, and the most they say is that capitalism arranges each person's status and wealth according to his contribution to his fellow citizens. The principle that plays a leading role is to distribute according to performance, and if you are in a bad situation, you can only blame yourself, and you can't find an excuse. Everyone is well aware that people who are similar to themselves succeed and themselves fail. Everyone knows that many of the people who make him jealous are self-made, and he started at the same time as others. What's worse is that he knew, and everybody knew about it. He saw some kind of wordless accusation in the eyes of his wife and children: "Why can't you be smarter?".He saw how people praised those who were more successful than him, and for him, there was a look of contempt, even pity.
What makes many people uncomfortable under capitalism is the fact that capitalism gives everyone the opportunity to climb to a position that everyone aspires to, and unfortunately, of course, only a few people are able to achieve it in the end. A person would expect a lot of things, but in the end, only a small part of his ambition is satisfied. He always sees that some people succeed where they fail. There are always people who surpass him, and in the face of them, he subconsciously breeds an inferiority complex. This mentality is generated by the homeless against the person with a stable job, the factory worker against the foreman, the manager against the vice chairman, the vice chairman against the chairman of the company, and the man with only $3000 worth against the millionaire. Everyone's self-confidence and sense of moral equilibrium are undermined by the brilliant achievements of those who have proven themselves to be more gifted and talented. Everyone is aware of their own failures and inadequacies.
The founder of the German history was Justus Merzel a long list of scholars who fiercely opposed the ideas of the "Western" Enlightenment and the social philosophies of rationalism, utilitarianism, and laissez-faire, as well as the policy propositions put forward by these schools of thought. A novel principle that infuriated Mersel was that it was proposed that military officers and civil servants should be promoted on the basis of personal merit and aptitude, and not on the ancestry and noble descent of the incumbents, and their age and length of service. Mersel said that such a society would be completely unsustainable if success depended solely on the merits of individuals. Everyone has an innate tendency to overestimate their worth and the rewards they have won. If a person's life circumstances are determined by factors that are outside of their own internal merits, then those at the lowest levels of the social hierarchy will accept this result with ease, they will know their own weight, and they will still retain their dignity and self-esteem. But if life circumstances are decided solely on the merits of individuals, the situation is completely different. Those who don't succeed feel like they've been ** and hurt. The inevitable result is that they will hate and be hostile to all those who are stronger than him.
The capitalist market system is such a society in which the success or failure of each individual is determined by the merits and achievements of individuals. Whatever we may think of Mersel's preconceptions about the merit principle, we must admit that his description of the psychological consequences of this principle is correct. He has gained insight into the feelings of those who have made an effort but have not won people's liking.
In order to comfort themselves and regain their self-confidence, such people begin to look for scapegoats. He struggled to convince himself that his failure was not his fault. He was at least as good, efficient, and hardworking as those who overshadowed him. But unfortunately, our current social order is not to reward those who deserve it mostOn the contrary, it is the dishonest, shameless scoundrels, exploiters and "ruthless individualists" who are popular. He was too decent to use the dastardly tricks by which his successful competitors gained an advantage.
Excerpt from Mises, Bureaucracy and the Anti-Capitalist Mentality