This is the phrase Robert Jensen (UT Austin) uses to describe our current economic system as not only unsustainable, but inhuman and undemocratic, in Anti-Capitalism in Five Minutes. His goal is to outline to progressives how to discuss radical politics in plain language in short conversations with coworkers, friends and relatives: to persuade them that working to end the general aquiescence to predatory corporatism is not only desirable but vital.

Capitalism is admittedly an incredibly productive system that has created a flood of goods unlike anything the world has ever seen. It also is a system that is fundamentally (1) inhuman, (2) anti-democratic, and (3) unsustainable. Capitalism has given those of us in the First World lots of stuff (most of it of marginal or questionable value) in exchange for our souls, our hope for progressive politics, and the possibility of a decent future for children.

In short, either we change or we die — spiritually, politically, literally.

Jensen makes a compelling argument about the circular nature of one of the common arguments in favour of increasingly predatory corporate capitalism:

In short, human nature is wide-ranging. Our actions are certainly rooted in our nature, but all we really know about that nature is that it is widely variable. In situations where compassion and solidarity are the norm, we tend to act that way. In situations where competitiveness and aggression are rewarded, most people tend toward such behavior.

Why is it that we must choose an economic system that undermines the most decent aspects of our nature and strengthens the most inhuman? Because, we’re told, that’s just the way people are. What evidence is there of that? Look around, we’re told, at how people behave. Everywhere we look, we see greed and the pursuit of self-interest. So, the proof that these greedy, self-interested aspects of our nature are dominant is that, when forced into a system that rewards greed and self-interested behavior, people often act that way. Doesn’t that seem just a bit circular?

George W. Bush may have been deluding himself as much as the American people when he described himself as a “compassionate conservative”, given that the way that economic rationalism pseudo-compartmentalises financial practises from social practises, arguing that only one is political while the other is personal[1], can be very easy to buy into. However, it’s a wilful self-deception, as it takes only the most cursory examination of the economic rationalist cheersquad for predatory corporatism in practise though to note that the rationalists never take compassion into account. They always advocate the cutting of taxpayer-funded social programs that promote compassion in favour of allowing some corporation to make a profit instead, even when that means fewer people can access the programs. Wherever centralising public services that people want and rely upon conflicts with the capacity for the crony class to make a profit, then profit always seems to come first when the economic rationalists have their way.

The oxymoronic nature of “compassionate conservatism” leaves a huge gap for progressives to argue logically and persuasively for a more compassionate capitalism. Jensen provides one road-map for doing so.

Categories: culture wars, economics, Politics, Sociology

Tags: capitalism, conservatism, consumerism, corporatism, economics, social change