How does the last century of social democracy fit into this? Unbridled capitalism creates a system whereby wealth flows to the top x%, who then out of luxury / boredom / freedom might create new shit. Science, for example, has historically mostly been done by white rich dudes with way too much money and time on their hand. It's a direct consequence of the power and wealth structure that capitalism generates. However, social democracy and in particular wealth redistribution through serious taxation creates the much more preferable social order whereby there's a less rich top x%, but the rest of us plebs has enough of a social safety net that innovation can come from a much larger portion of the society. Which is beneficial for all of us, and also for capitalism in the long run, but isn't a system that has the evolutionary strength to survive against populism and fascism as the past decades have shown. I could argue that the postwar social-democratic (pre-Reagan, pre-Thatcher) capitalism is a better version of capitalism that lost to the current strain of short-sighted capitalism, even though it is better, which seems to me to fly in the face of the idea that the most powerful version of capitalism will win out.that capitalism as practiced from the Renaissance onwards has been absolutely dominant compared to everything else it encounters.
What do you see as the difference between "unbridled capitalism" and feudalism? Wallerstein argues that the current world system started with you guys. I am not about to lecture a Dutchman on Dutch history so you tell me - what set the Dutch East India Company apart from Spain under Isabella and Ferdinand? Tell me about the Dutch Republic - what were the social structures in place that set it apart from monarchy? Here's something I've concluded that I don't like - Capitalism supports the Pareto Principle. There will be wealth concentration. Enclosure was the principle process by which feudal England became capitalist England, be a rich asshole and kick people off their ancestral homelands. The US followed suit, of course, with added genocide. In a capitalist system, those with the gold make the rules. What separates capitalist tyranny from feudal tyranny, however, is upward mobility. If the capitalists do not balance out their desire to be Isabel dos Santos with their fear of becoming Isabel dos Santos, the collectivists will strike it all down. But if you can keep them griping about how unfair it is but also give them an opportunity to rise a little higher than their peers, they will shut the fuck up. Innovation definitely increases in direct proportion to social mobility. Societal well-being does, too. But wealth continues to concentrate, and as the wealthy grow more and more detached from the proletariat they favor their own ends over societal stability more and more. Wealth corrupts, absolute wealth corrupts absolutely. The gilded age led directly to the depression which led directly to populism. Germany, Italy and Japan elected fascists, America elected a socialist (at least by modern definition). Socialism (at least by modern definition) won, and the pendulum swung the other way. Then Thatcher and Reagan took the reigns and it was all fuckin' over for socialism. Then we ended up with Trump and Johnson. What happens next? Capitalism can be populist and fascist. Has been. Fascist Germany had a whole bunch of familiar corporations in it. Every day I get a new email from Judd Legum about how AT&T is overthrowing democracy. But as wealth protection hits high gear, innovation chokes off and the clever go somewhere they can leverage their cleverness, at least in a world of open borders. Just look at the science that fled Nazi Germany. Look at the scientists that returned to China under Deng Xiaoping. you wouldn't even need to crack a book That's not what I said. What I said wasHowever, social democracy and in particular wealth redistribution through serious taxation creates the much more preferable social order whereby there's a less rich top x%, but the rest of us plebs has enough of a social safety net that innovation can come from a much larger portion of the society.
Which is beneficial for all of us, and also for capitalism in the long run, but isn't a system that has the evolutionary strength to survive against populism and fascism as the past decades have shown.
I could argue that the postwar social-democratic (pre-Reagan, pre-Thatcher) capitalism is a better version of capitalism that lost to the current strain of short-sighted capitalism,
even though it is better, which seems to me to fly in the face of the idea that the most powerful version of capitalism will win out.
Going back to synthesis, I would argue that an inherent characteristic of "capitalism" is the societal gyration between the needs of the shareholders and the needs of the stakeholders.
It's actually possible that Thatcher/Reagan were inevitable. Unions had evolved from Walter Reuther to Jimmy Hoffa, and everyone was sick of leasing their rotary phone from AT&T. The problem, of course, is that a leader can't get traction by saying "I'm for innovation; let's have some common sense reforms." But they can get a hell of a lot of traction by opening their campaign on the doorstep of a terrorist massacre to rant about states' rights. Leading the horse to clean water is what democrats try to do. Getting the horse to drink whatever sewer water is in front of it is what republicans do.
I think that fundamentally, both sides of the argument have to push things to the point where the middle is willing to deal with it. Labor in the UK was malignant. They got eliminated because of it. Labor in the US led to the PATCO strike. That was fuckin' that. Now the UK exports nothing but reality television and Amazon employees piss in bottles.