4
<title>B.5 Is capitalism empowering and based on human action?</title>
9
<h1>B.5 Is capitalism empowering and based on human action?</h1>
12
A key element of the social vision propounded by capitalism, particularly
13
"libertarian" capitalism, is that of "voting" by the "customer," which
14
is compared to political voting by the "citizen." According to Milton
15
Friedman, <i>"when you vote in the supermarket, you get precisely what you
16
voted for and so does everyone else."</i> Such "voting" with one's pocket
17
is then claimed to be an example of the wonderful "freedom" people enjoy
18
under capitalism (as opposed to "socialism," always equated by
19
right-wingers with <b>state</b> socialism, which will be discussed in
20
<a href="secHcon.html">section H</a>). However, in evaluating this claim, the difference between
21
customers and citizens is critical.
23
The customer chooses between products on the shelf that have been designed
24
and built by others for the purpose of profit. The consumer is the
25
end-user, essentially a spectator rather than an actor, merely choosing
26
between options created elsewhere by others. Market decision making is
27
therefore fundamentally <b>passive</b> and <b>reactionary,</b> i.e. based on reacting
28
to developments initiated by others. In contrast, the "citizen" is
29
actively involved, at least ideally, in all stages of the decision making
30
process, either directly or through elected delegates. Therefore, given
31
decentralised and participatory-democratic organisations, decision making
32
by citizens can be <b>pro-active,</b> based on human <b>action</b> in which one
33
takes the initiative and sets the agenda oneself. Indeed, most supporters
34
of the "citizen" model support it precisely <b>because</b> it actively involves
35
individuals in participating in social decision making, so creating an
36
educational aspect to the process and developing the abilities and powers
39
In addition, the power of the consumer is not evenly distributed across
40
society. Thus the expression "voting" when used in a market context expresses
41
a radically different idea than the one usually associated with it. In
42
political voting everyone gets one vote, in the market it is one vote per
43
dollar. What sort of "democracy" is it that gives one person more votes
44
than tens of thousands of others combined?
46
Therefore the "consumer" idea fails to take into account the differences
47
in power that exist on the market as well as assigning an essentially
48
passive role to the individual. At best they can act on the market as
49
isolated individuals through their purchasing power. However, such a
50
position is part of the problem for, as E.F. Schumacher argues, the
51
<i>"buyer is essentially a bargain hunter; he is not concerned with the
52
origin of the goods or the conditions under which they have been
53
produced. His sole concern is to obtain the best value for money."</i>
54
He goes on to note that the market <i>"therefore respects only the surface
55
of society and its significance relates to the momentary situation
56
as it exists there and then. There is no probing into the depths of
57
things, into the natural or social facts that lie behind them."</i>
58
[<b>Small is Beautiful</b>, p. 29]
60
Indeed, the "customer" model actually works <b>against</b> any attempt to
61
"probe" the facts of things. Firstly, consumers rarely know the significance
62
or implications of the goods they are offered because the price mechanism
63
withholds such information from them. Secondly, because the atomistic
64
nature of the market makes discussion about the "why" and "how" of
65
production difficult -- we get to choose between various "whats".
66
Instead of critically evaluating the pros and cons of certain economic
67
practices, all we are offered is the option of choosing between things
68
already produced. We can only <b>re</b>-act when the damage is already done
69
by picking the option which does least damage (often we do not have even
70
that choice). And to discover a given products social and ecological
71
impact we have to take a pro-active role by joining groups which provide
72
this sort of information (information which, while essential for a
73
rational decision, the market does not and cannot provide).
75
Moreover, the "consumer" model fails to recognise that the decisions we
76
make on the market to satisfy our "wants" are determined by social and
77
market forces. What we are capable of wanting is relative to the forms of
78
social organisation we live in. For example, people choose to buy cars
79
because General Motors bought up and destroyed the tram network in the
80
1930s and people buy "fast food" because they have no time to cook
81
because of increasing working hours. This means that our decisions within
82
the market are often restricted by economic pressures. For example, the
83
market forces firms, on pain of bankruptcy, to do whatever possible
84
to be cost-effective. Firms that pollute, have bad working conditions
85
and so on often gain competitive advantage in so doing and other firms
86
either have to follow suit or go out of business. A "race to the bottom"
87
ensures, with individuals making "decisions of desperation" just to
88
survive. Individual commitments to certain values, in other words, may
89
become irrelevant simply because the countervailing economic pressures
90
are simply too intense (little wonder Robert Owen argued that the profit
91
motive was <i>"a principle entirely unfavourable to individual and public
94
And, of course, the market also does not, and cannot, come up with goods that
95
we do not want in our capacity as consumers but desire to protect for future
96
generations or because of ecological reasons. By making the protection of
97
the planet, eco-systems and other such "goods" dependent on the market,
98
capitalism ensures that unless we put our money where our mouth is we can
99
have no say in the protection of such goods as eco-systems, historical sites,
100
and so on. The need to protect such "resources" in the long term is ignored
101
in favour of short-termism -- indeed, if we do not "consume" such products
102
today they will not be there tomorrow. Placed within a society that the
103
vast majority of people often face difficulties making ends meet, this
104
means that capitalism can never provide us with goods which we would like
105
to see available as <b>people</b> (either for others or for future generations or
106
just to protect the planet) but cannot afford or desire as <b>consumers.</b>
108
It is clearly a sign of the increasing dominance of capitalist ideology
109
that the "customer" model is being transferred to the political arena.
110
This reflects the fact that the increasing scale of political institutions
111
has reinforced the tendency noted earlier for voters to become passive
112
spectators, placing their "support" behind one or another "product" (i.e.
113
party or leader). As Murray Bookchin comments, <i>"educated, knowledgeable
114
citizens become reduced to mere taxpayers who exchange money for
115
'services.'"</i> [<b>Remaking Society</b>, p. 71] In practice, due to state
116
centralism, this turns the political process into an extension of the
117
market, with "citizens" being reduced to "consumers." Or, in Erich Fromm's
118
apt analysis, <i>"The functioning of the political machinery in a democratic
119
country is not essentially different from the procedure on the commodity
120
market. The political parties are not too different from big commercial
121
enterprises, and the professional politicians try to sell their wares to
122
the public."</i> [<b>The Sane Society</b>, pp. 186-187]
124
But does it matter? Friedman suggests that being a customer is <b>better</b>
125
than being a citizen as you get "precisely" what you, and everyone else,
128
The key questions here are whether people always get what they want when
129
they shop. Do consumers who buy bleached newsprint and toilet paper
130
<b>really</b> want tons of dioxins and other organochlorides in rivers, lakes
131
and coastal waters? Do customers who buy cars <b>really</b> want traffic jams,
132
air pollution, motorways carving up the landscape and the greenhouse effect?
133
And what of those who do not buy these things? They are also affected by the
134
decisions of others. The notion that only the consumer is affected by his
135
or her decision is nonsense -- as is the childish desire to get "precisely"
136
what you want, regardless of the social impact.
138
Perhaps Friedman could claim that when we consume we also approve of its
139
impact. But when we "vote" on the market we cannot say that we approved of
140
the resulting pollution (or distribution of income or power) because that
141
was not a choice on offer. Such changes are <b>pre-defined</b> or an aggregate
142
outcome and can only be chosen by a collective decision. In this way we
143
can modify outcomes we could bring about individually but which harm us
144
collectively. And unlike the market, in politics we can <b>change our
145
minds</b> and revert back to a former state, undoing the mistakes made. No
146
such option is available on the market.
148
So Friedman's claims that in elections <i>"you end up with something different
149
from what you voted for"</i> is equally applicable to the market place.
151
These considerations indicate that the "consumer" model of human action is
152
somewhat limited (to say the least!). Instead we need to recognise the
153
importance of the "citizen" model, which we should point out includes the
154
"consumer" model within it. Taking part as an active member of the
155
community does not imply that we stop making individual consumption
156
choices between those available, all it does is potentially enrich our
157
available options by removing lousy choices (such as ecology or profit,
158
cheap goods or labour rights, family or career).
160
In addition we must stress its role in developing those who practice
161
the "citizen" model and how it can enrich our social and personal life.
162
Being active within participatory institutions fosters and develops
163
an active, "public-spirited" type of character. Citizens, because they
164
are making <b>collective</b> decisions have to weight other interests <b>as
165
well as</b> their own and so consider the impact on themselves, others,
166
society and the environment of possible decisions. It is, by its very
167
nature, an educative process by which all benefit by developing their
168
critical abilities and expanding their definition of self-interest to
169
take into account themselves as part of a society and eco-system
170
<b>as well as</b> as an individual. The "consumer" model, with its passive
171
and exclusively private/money orientation develops few of people's
172
faculties and narrows their self-interest to such a degree that
173
their "rational" actions can actually (indirectly) harm them.
175
As Noam Chomsky argues, it is <i>"now widely realised that the economists
176
'externalities' can no longer be consigned to footnotes. No one who gives
177
a moment's thought to the problems of contemporary society can fail to be
178
aware of the social costs of consumption and production, the progressive
179
destruction of the environment, the utter irrationality of the utilisation
180
of contemporary technology, the inability of a system based on profit or
181
growth maximisation to deal with needs that can only be expressed
182
collectively, and the enormous bias this system imposes towards
183
maximisation of commodities for personal use in place of the general
184
improvement of the quality of life."</i> [<b>Radical Priorities</b>,
187
The "citizen" model takes on board the fact that the sum of rational
188
individual decisions may not yield a rational collective outcome (which,
189
we must add, harms the individuals involved and so works against their
190
self-interest). Social standards, created and enriched by a process of
191
discussion and dialogue can be effective in realms where the atomised
192
"consumer" model is essentially powerless to achieve constructive social
193
change, never mind protect the individual from "agreeing" to "decisions of
194
desperation" that leave them and society as a whole worse off (see also
195
sections <a href="secE3.html">E.3</a> and <a href="secE5.html">E.5</a>).
197
This is <b>not</b> to suggest that anarchists desire to eliminate individual
198
decision making, far from it. An anarchist society will be based upon
199
individuals making decisions on what they want to consume, where they
200
want to work, what kind of work they want to do and so on. So the aim
201
of the "citizen" model is not to "replace" the "consumer" model,
202
but only to improve the social environment within which we make our
203
individual consumption decisions. What the "citizen" model of human
204
action desires is to place such decisions within a social framework,
205
one that allows each individual to take an active part in improving the
206
quality of life for us all by removing "Hobson choices" as far as possible.
added
removed
html/secB5.html
