Thursday, April 30, 2015

Enlightened Self-Interest and Prudential Self-Interest

'Enlightened' Self-Interest can be distinguished from what is sometimes called 'Prudential' Self-Interest. While according to the former, one's own Good is either a means to or a part of the General Good, according to the latter, the achievement of the General Good benefits oneself, and, hence, is to be promoted as a means to it. Both main versions of Utilitarianism are examples of the former, while the latter follows from the premise, advocated by e. g. Hume, that the role of Reason in behavior is to calculate the best means to one's satisfaction. In contrast, Smith vacillates between the two concepts of Self-Interest-- the phrase 'wealth of nations' expresses the 'enlightened' variety, while some passages reflect Hume's influence. Contemporary Capitalist discourse about 'Enlightened Self-Interest' is typically similarly casual in that respect.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Self-Interest and Enlightenment

'Enlightened Self-Interest' usually connotes the coordination of one's own Good with the general Good, attributable to classical Capitalism, starting with Wealth of Nations, though not to some contemporary versions, e. g. Rand's. However, typically lacking in the advocacy of the concept is an exhaustive analysis of it. One exception is that of Kant's system, which shows that the coordination converts each Individual into an entity equal to every other under a universal law. Accordingly, one's own Self-Interest loses any privileged status in one's conduct. In other words, 'Enlightened Self-Interest', is self-contradictory, a consequence that advocates tend to stop short of recognizing.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Will to Power, Competitiveness, Profit-Seeking

On Nietzsche's usual analysis of it, Will to Power qua Self-Overcoming is a synchronic structure, i. e. in which the result of the exercise of control of a 'lower' Self' by a 'higher' Self is simultaneous with the exercise. In contrast, according to a diachronic interpretation of Self-Overcoming, one which it is unclear that Nietzsche does or would endorse, the transcending of Self by Self leads to a superior Self that is subsequent to the transcending. Thus, since Profit-Seeking entails the surpassing of one condition by a subsequent greater one, it could be attributed to the diachronic Will to Power. Now, on Nietzsche's diagnosis, Self-Overcoming is the product of the internalization of aggression. So, likewise, as an expression of the Will to Power, Profit-Seeking can be understood as the internalization of Competitiveness, i. e. of a triumph over another force. But, if so, then Profit-Seeking and Competitiveness are not identical drives, contrary to the generally accepted premises of Capitalism. So, while the Will to Power might be a more versatile Psychological principle than Self-Interest, which is the standard principle of Capitalist theory, the attempt to incorporate it into the latter only brings the incoherence of that model into greater relief.

Monday, April 27, 2015

Self-Interest, Competitiveness, Will to Power, Capitalism

The frequently accepted interchangeability of Self-Interest and Competitiveness in Capitalist theories tends to abstract from a significant factor. For, while the goal of each is some personal satisfaction, that of the former can be sufficiently achieved by the acquisition of some object, e. g. food, essential to that of the latter is a victory over others, and, hence, unlike that of the former, the involvement of others. In other words, receiving a reward and outperforming a rival are often distinguishable in one and the same game, a distinction not explained by the presumed interchangeability. In contrast, a psychological drive that is more adequate to Competitiveness is the Will to Power, a necessary feature of which is the overcoming of resistance per se. However, contemporary Capitalists who have sought support from Nietzsche in that respect overlook that in its superior manifestations, Will to Power becomes Self-Overcoming, i. e. Self-Control, and, perhaps, a Will to Empower others, neither of which is necessarily a means to the maximization of Wealth. So, Competitiveness remains without adequate psychological grounding in Capitalist models.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Competition and Collaboration

At its etymological root, to 'compete' means to 'seek together', so 'competition' is synonymous with 'collaboration'. In sharp contrast, of course, 'competition' usually connotes 'zero-sum game', in which togetherness at the conclusion is precluded, i. e. not everybody can win. Thus, insofar as in Capitalist theory, even the thought of collaboration is proscribed, in its emphasis on Self-Interest as the exclusive goal of any player, its concept of 'competition' is doubly antithetical to the original.

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Growth, Profit, Loss

The negation of organic Growth is stasis of some variety. Therefore, if there is a corresponding Will to Grow, such negation would be experienced as boredom, repression, etc., depending on circumstances. Likewise, insofar as any of those occurs in a business context, it could be interpreted as confirmation of the thesis that Profit-Seeking is a special case of a Will to Grow. However, the most significant Economic negation of Profit is Loss, not mere non-Gain. Hence, the psychology of Profit-Seeking, i. e. of Gain-and-Loss, is not easily reducible to a Will to Grow.

Friday, April 24, 2015

Self-Interest, Interest, Growth

While Smith conceives Self-Interest to be the motor of his system, that of contemporary Capitalism is Interest. In addition to the perhaps unwitting depersonalization expressed in tha dropping of the 'Self-' prefix, the phrase 'seed money' hardly converts an Interest-facilitated loan into an agricultural enterprise. Finally, since Growth entails the preservation of internal coherence, a quantitative increase that can be comprised of a combination of sharp gains and widespread losses hardly qualifies as Economic 'growth'. So, the use of biological metaphors to promote Economic policy, a staple of contemporary Political rhetoric, does not hold up well to rigorous scrutiny.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Growth, Health, Profit-Seeking, Greed

A familiar example of natural increase is Growth, so, perhaps Profit-Seeking can be interpreted as a mode of personal Growth. Now, one of the characteristics of Growth is that it is a wholistic process, i. e. that the integrity of an organism is maintained in the course of enlargement. Accordingly, Profit-Seeking can be a process that is internal to a Self only insofar as its integrity is maintained, which is a criterion of Eudaimonism, rather than of mere Egoism. But, if so, then it is a mode of personal Growth only insofar as, unlike cancer cells, it is not an increase distinct from other organic processes, i. e. is not at the expense of Health. So, the proposition that Profit-Seeking is an end-in-itself is difficult to validate, or, equivalently, Greed is not Good, contrary to what some contemporary Capitalists assert.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Self-Sufficiency and Profit-Seeking

The contemporary American ideal of Self-Sufficiency is akin to both that of Aristotelian Eudaimonism, i. e. Self-Control, and Hobbesian Self-Preservation. However, the popular image of it is usually vaguely and inadequately defined, since it certainly does not entail, as is required in a rigorous analysis of the concept, either self-creation or independence from air, food, water, etc. Instead, it usually connotes social self-reliance, popularly ilustrated by a hermit in the wilderness through whose efforts alone shelter, sustenance, etc. are secured. However, such an Egoist concept has little relevance to classical Capitalism, some of the factors of which include Division of Labor, market exchange, and the promotion of general Wealth. It is closer to more recent Capitalism, insofar as the latter typically jettisons the generality of Smith's goal, and, especially, as a contrast to the popular image of reliance on government assistance associated with Keynesian Economics. Still, lacking, perhaps, conspicuously, in the concept of Self-Sufficiency is an essential feature of either version of Capitalism--a ground of Profit-Seeking, which, thus, remains, without foundation.

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Egoism and Profit-Seeking

The modern prototype of an Egoist principle is Hobbes' Self-Preservation, which, grounding behavior that aims at remaining alive, is inadequate as a basis for Profit-Seeking for its own sake, i. e. when not a means to survival. In order to explain the latter, what might be called a 'Will to Increase' is necessary, though its incorporation into the Capitalistic Egoism that presupposes it seems problematic. For, insofar as such a drive is indistinguishable from Greed, which Aristotle shows is a psychological disorder, it is not necessarily beneficial to the Self. Furthermore, Increase from Greed often comes at the expense of a Decrease of another, thereby reducing Smith's project of an increase in general Wealth to a zero-sum system. Finally, a Will to Increase can develop into Self-Transcendence, entailing a dissolution of the Self, which is antithetical to Egoism. So, the motivational principle of a fundamental dynamic in Capitalism remains underived, and, perhaps, underivable, from Egoism.

Monday, April 20, 2015

Egoism, Eudaimonism, Capitalism

One's own self-interest is not equivalent to one's own best self-interest. Likewise, Egoism, for which the former is the goal, is not equivalent to Eudaimonism, for which the latter is the goal. To the contrary, the sharpest criticism of Egoism is not from without, on the grounds that it neglects others, but from within, from Eudaimonism, on the grounds that it promotes an inferior concept of the Self. Similarly, a problem for Capitalism is that its standard Egoism explains the maintaining of Wealth, but not, as the system requires, the pursuit of its increase, i. e. Profit-Seeking. On the other hand, insofar as Profit-Seeking and Greed are indistinguishable, Eudaimonism, which does not approve of the latter, does not explain the former. Thus, the motivational factor that is a foundation of Capitalism is not as easy to define as it is apparently usually taken for granted to be.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Egoism and Capitalism

Egoism can be either descriptive or normative. Hobbes' variety--the thesis that an instinct of self-preservation governs all behavior--is an example of the former. Smith's variety--an advocacy of self-interested pursuits, with respect to which sympathetic behavior is an alternative option, and which entails trust in the Invisible Hand--is an example of the latter, i. e. he conceives Egoism to be the best means to the goal of his system, which is the wealth of a nation. In contrast with both, Rand's variety is a normative principle that she portrays as a description, thereby exempting her from any responsibility for justifying what is, in fact, an arbitrary proposition. The resulting dogmatism of her 'Objectivist' doctrine is frequently expressed in the obstinant promotion of laissez-faire Capitalism by her followers.

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Egoism, Egalitarian, Inegalitarian

Egoism, whether descriptive or normative, is often conceived as an Inegalitarian principle, i. e. because the exclusive pursuit of one's own self-interest distinguishes one from others. On the other hand, any principle is essentially universal in scope, so, insofar as it applies indifferently in each of its instances, it is Egalitarian. Thus, the classification of Egoism as one or the other type of principle is a function of the context in which it is presented. For example, for Hobbes, Self-Preservation entails no Oligarchical privilege, and, hence, is an Egalitarian Psychological principle, as his consequent Political theory expresses. Likewise, for Smith, in his historical context, Self-Interest counters Feudal subservience as an economic motivation. Thus, contemporary Capitalists, who are typically a-historical, do not recognize their transformation of Smith's system, from its original Egalitarianism, to Inegalitarianism.

Friday, April 17, 2015

Pleasure, Pain, Egoism

If Locke revives the Aristotelian concept of Empiricism as a method, he also initiates its undermining in that respect. For, its value as a method depends on the connection between sensory information and not immediately perceivable processes, a connection the severing of which begins with Locke's distinguishing between Primary and Secondary Qualities. The subsequent universalization of that severance, by Berkeley and Hume, thus transforms Method into Ontology, just as Heidegger does centuries later with Husserl's method. As a result, a sensory datum becomes a self-subsistent entity, and, , with Hume, the basis of the 'Self'. Thus, as sense-data, Pleasure and Pain are severed from their causes, thereby reinforcing both Psychological and Moral Egoism, in which Pleasure and Pain are conceived as sufficient grounds of motivation. Consequently, all behavior, including sexual stimulation and parental joy, can be reduced to Egoistic events. Hence, a market economy a significant portion of which, as has been previously discussed, is influenced by the propagation of the species, can, nevertheless, be reduced to an aggregate of self-interests. The adequacy of that reduction is perhaps equivalent to that of an expectant mother's labor pains to a selfish event.

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Species-Propagation, Economy, Selfishness

The influence of the propagation of the human species on the market is undeniable, considerable, and, perhaps, incalculable. On the one hand, there are the transactions pertaining to reproductive activity--care of the reproductive organs, the attraction of a partner, etc. On the other, there are the transactions pertaining to child-raising--not only food, shelter, clothing, medical, education, etc., but those devoted to financing such expenditures, e. g. finding an adequately paying job, securing a mortgage, etc. Now, one significant challenge to any variety of Egoism, whether descriptive or normative, is to account for such transactions on its own premises. Falling that, in any respect, leaves the concept of an Economy based on the principle of Self-Interest, Selfishness, etc., woefully inadequate to actuality, if not entirely fictitious.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Self-Interest, Imprisonment, Liberation

Whether or not to rat on another is not a dilemma faced by the prisoners in book VII of the Republic. For, to begin with, they are not even aware of their imprisonment. Still, Plato's scenario is relevant to contemporary economic behavior, even if it is not as widely recognized as such as is the Prisoner's Dilemma. For, it suggests not only that Self-Interest can be the product of conditioning, and, hence, unfree, but, further, that 'freedom' can be as inculcated an illusion as any shadow-play on a cave wall. So, if Plato is right, government non-interference, choice between competing brands, etc., are phenomena of an at best superficial 'freedom', and only reinforce the underlying imprisonment--the Self-Interest that occludes any vision of the objective Good that is truly liberating.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Imprisonment, Isolation, Freedom

Just as imprisonment isolates someone from a general population, isolation within a prison is imprisonment within imprisonment. Accordingly, therefore, just as 'freedom' for a prisoner is a return to general sociality, the restoration of communication between the two prisoners in the Prisoner's Dilemma is a recovery of a relative 'freedom'. In other words, the model can be interpreted as equating Freedom and Sociality. Now, the concept of the Individual in Smith's system is that of the discrete, opaque, entity that has dominated Western Psychology since both Descartes and Hobbes. So, the Prisoner's Dilemma can be interpreted as an illustration of Capitalism as a prison for its participants, with analogous implications for the concept of Freedom.

Monday, April 13, 2015

Prisoner's Dilemma, Selfishness, Sociality

A crucial factor in the Prisoner's Dilemma is the severing of communication between the two prisoners. So, the scenario involves two losses by each--freedom and camaraderie, and yet the standard analysis fails to take into consideration that the recovery of the latter, as much as that of the former, is an interest of each. If it did, then the dilemma would disappear, i. e. neither would rat out the other, and so, too, would the apparent paradox--that Selfishness can be self-defeating. In that case, what is instructive in the example is that the standard Capitalistic psychological analysis of competitive or hostile encounters, similarly, does not take into account the possibility that in them, sociality is as much a motive as is profit-seeking. If it did, then negotiation would not be a compromise, and exploitation would not be an option. So, what the Prisoner's Dilemma potentially exposes is the general neglect of sociality for its own sake as included in Selfishness.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Compromise, Cooperation, Value

In studies of the Prisoner's Dilemma, trustful compromise is often characterized as 'cooperation'. However, the implied concept in the latter of self-sacrifice is not only extrinsic to it, but a potential distortion, perhaps reflecting the aversion of an 'individualist' to involvement in a pluralistic scenario. To the contrary, 'cooperative' often connotes an alliance constituted by complementarity, in which the profits of a member can exceed any projected for them taken in isolation, and, hence, can be irreducible to any Utilitarian calculation. For example, the earnings of an architect, even Rand's, will vary according to the competence of an associated builder, materials supplier, construction crew. etc. Accordingly, what can be called 'cooperation-value' can enhance, not diminish, that of both the labor-value and the exchange-value of an individual in the marketplace.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Prisoner's Dilemma and Invisible Hand

In the Prisoner's Dilemma, the freedom of both prisoners is impossible, and the continued pursuit by each of their own freedom leads to the maximum punishment for both. Thus, the example is usually interpreted as a lesson in the value of trustful compromise, applicable to hostile encounters, e. g. arms reduction negotiations. However, its relevance is much more general--to any market exchange. For, the maximum profit for each party in an exchange is gain without any loss, the unyielding pursuit of which by both will lead to an impasse, and, hence, to a failure of each to acquire what might be vital goods. So, the scenario exposes a significant shortcoming in Smith's system--the gloss over the value of trustful compromise, via the Invisible Hand-guided 'Law' of Supply and Demand that preserves the efficacy of Selfishness.

Friday, April 10, 2015

Prisoner's Dilemma, Utilitarianism, Capitalism, Collective

The Prisoner's Dilemma demonstrates that 1. Selfishness can be self-defeating; and 2. The determination of the course of action that is most beneficial to its agent can be dependent on the action of another. Hence, the example undermines both Bentham's and Mill's Utilitarianism, i. e. by showing that neither procedure can arrive at the greatest happiness of either an individual or of the greatest number, in at least one case. Now, Capitalism is essentially Utilitarian, of one or the other variety, while a Cooperative is an interactive organization, similar to a team sport or an artistic ensemble. Thus, a Cooperative is not only irreducible to a Capitalist model, i. e. its value cannot be determined with respect to the latter, the Prisoner's Dilemma shows that it is potentially more beneficial, both to each of its members, and as whole, than any version of Smith's system.

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Selfishness, Consequences, Wealth

Every action affects, to contingently varying degrees, both the agent and others, e. g. hurting someone and merely walking past someone is each an effect on another. Thus, on descriptive grounds alone, Mill's calculation of the General Good, which incorporates all the consequences of an action, is more accurate than is Bentham's, which abstracts from the effects of an action on anyone other than the agent. Imagery from over the centuries, such as 'trickle-down', and 'a rising tide lifts all boats', are familiar, though methodologically n0n-rigorous, attempts to supplement the Selfishness principle with a representation of other consequences, in order to arrive at a representation of the General Good. They are, thus, tacit acknowledgements of the inadequacy of the cardinal principle of Capitalism, that the pursuit of Self-Interest of each citizen suffices as a means to the Wealth of a Nation.

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Cooperative and Association

According to Atomism, all relations are external, so any unity of Atoms is nominal. Thus, insofar as Capitalism is Atomistic, a 'Cooperative' is no more than an 'Association', i. e. is no real entity distinct from its members. However, a contrast of Bentham's and Mill's varieties of Utilitarianism illustrates that between Association and Cooperative. In the former, the General Good is calculated on the basis of the sum-total of the individual consequences of each action of each member. In the latter, the General Good is calculated on the basis of the sum-total of the general consequences of each action of each member. So, there is a real distinction between the two general bodies, which can be called 'Association' and 'Cooperative', respectively, and, since self-interest might be compromised in the latter, the approval of a Capitalist of the former is not equivalent to that of the latter. That the author of Wealth of Nations, according to which the National Good has priority over the Individual Good, might not disapprove of the Cooperative model, does not seem to have occurred to many other Capitalists.

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Cooperative, Communism, Capitalism.

'Cooperate', like 'collaborate', most literally means 'work together', and like it, is commonly mis-connoted. For, the 'co-' connotes equality of partnership, whereas one who 'cooperates' with the police, or one who 'collaborates' with the enemy, is not an equal partner with either body. Likewise, 'being cooperative' typically connotes an asymmetrical relation. In contrast, in a local food 'cooperative', members are equally owners, workers, and beneficiaries of its activities, thereby better exemplifying what is arguably a Socialist ideal than a 'collaborative', which is usually restricted to a small number in an artistic context, or a 'commune' the emphasis of which is on a togetherness of living that may or may not involve productivity. So, a Capitalist critique of Socialism should address such cooperative arrangements, and the Communist advocacy of Socialism needs to clarify its relation to what might be called Cooperativism.

Monday, April 6, 2015

Private Property, Natural Right, Collaboration

In the popular American imagination, Private Property is a Natural Right in Capitalism, but not in Marxism. However, the superficiality of that comparison is indicated by passages in which, on Utilitarian grounds, consistent with his entire system, Smith allows for the abolition of private property if it the maintenance of it is a threat to the General Good, whereas Marx plainly asserts the inalienability of one's own Labor. Furthermore, an examination of the origin of the concept of Private Property in each system confirms the reversal of the popular judgment. For, in Smith's Empiricist tradition, notably in Hume's analysis, the concept of Self, and, hence, of Private Property, is an artificial, albeit useful, construct, i. e. is an Epistemological analogue of friend Rousseau's concept of a property-less 'state of Nature', in the context of which the building of fences is a conventional modification. In contrast, following Kant and Hegel, Marx derives the concept of Property, and, hence, that of its status as a Natural Right, from that of the natural process of Labor. At the source of the confusion of the popular image is, perhaps, the misunderstanding of the concept of Collaboration, from which Marx derives that of Collective Property, as antithetical to that of Individual Labor, rather than one in which the latter is sublated.

Sunday, April 5, 2015

Collective and Collaborative

'Collect' connotes 'receiving', often of money, and, hence, passivity. Now, the Pluralism that Marx prescribes, as the immediate remedy for the de-humanization of a worker, is active, i. e. the locus of which is productive processes. Thus, 'collaborative' more accurately characterizes that Plurality than does 'collective'. Hence, the 'Collectivism' that some contemporary Capitalists, e. g. Rand, opposes to their 'Individualism', is to be found not in Das Kapital, but in Wealth of Nations, which, as its title indicates, promotes a source of Pluralist passive pleasure.

Saturday, April 4, 2015

Drudgery and Collectivization

One social "necessity" not addressed by Plato in the Republic is that of the performance of what can be called 'drudgery'--the disposal of waste products, repetitive tasks, strenuous physical exertion, etc. Over the millennia, drudgery has been assigned to enslaved, indentured, or menial though nominally 'free' classes, and typically ignored by theorists, who tend to do no more than vaguely attempt to justify such stratification on the basis of some inadequately conceived 'natural' differences. Marx, too, despite the standard gloss of it as 'egalitarian', seems to advocate a hierarchy in his "From each according to his abilities" principle, which, on the face of it, entails the assignation of drudgery to those with inferior ability. However, that subsumption ignores the metamorphosis of the general social context to one determined by the collectivization of the means of production, which concomitantly transforms drudgery to a labor of love, derived from pride of ownership. In other words, one of the essential features of drudgery is that its performer does not own their labor, to which Marxism offers a remedy.

Friday, April 3, 2015

Dehumanization and Collectivization

The focus of Marx's criticism of Capitalism is its treatment of workers, beginning with the inherently unjust system of compensating the creation of surplus-value in raw material with the minimum wage possible. Now, more recently Capitalism has attempted to tweak this type of market exchange, sometimes voluntarily, sometimes under pressure from Labor Unions, by enhancing retribution with higher pay, benefits, etc. However, that type of modification does not address the deeper stratum of Marx's concern--the dehumanization of the worker effected by the reduction of an organism to a piece of machinery, one result of which even Smith recognizes--social fragmentation. In contrast, the Marxist corrective to dehumanization--the collectivization of the means of production, thus also addresses Smith's worry, i. e. by restoring social cohesion.

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Activity, Passivity, Collectivism

Aristotle and Spinoza are among those who distinguish active from passive pleasure. While the latter is a localized response to an external stimulus, e. g. the taste buds, the sexual organs, etc., the former is the feeling of harmonization of all the parts of an organism as it is engaged in some activity. Now, insofar as Wealth is regarded as an end-in-itself, e. g. in Capitalism, the enjoyment of it is passive. Likewise, therefore, the target of the standard Capitalist criticism of 'Collectivism', qua the redistribution of Wealth, is collective passivity. Thus, just as active pleasure has no intrinsic value in Capitalism, that criticism is oblivious to the possibility that the Collectivism that Marx prescribes as a remedy to the de-humanization of Labor is that of collective activity. Since many of those critics are no doubt aware of the enjoyability of participation in team sports or in ensemble artistic performances, that obliviousness can only signify a divorce of their vision of Capitalism from actuality.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Ability, Wealth, Pleasure

Vitalism is not antithetical to Hedonism; it merely rejects the traditional concept of Pleasure, e. g. in Utilitarianism, as a terminal, inert state, i. e. as Satiation. One obvious example of a dynamic enjoyable experience is Play, and another is voluntary skilled activity, i. e. the exercise of one's abilities. So, just as Vitalism can challenge Utilitarianism on Hedonistic grounds, Marxism can similarly argue against Capitalism that the exercise of one's abilities is a greater personal Good than the possession of Wealth.