Capitalism vs global poor: the evils of greed, exploitation and entitlement

 

In a capitalist society defined by neo-classical economic theory further promoting the mechanisation of the workforce as merely machines and instruments of production, and compromising their rights for the hopes of improved economic efficiency and productivity, there can be no clearer way of proving that capitalism kills.

The decadent society we live in in the developed world led by image and status, all of this defined by wealth and material possessions continues to increase in prevalence as much of the world develops and undergoes social and economic transition. This in turn would prove to exacerbate what disparity in accessing resources is observed and further increase their concentration among only the wealthiest members of society. It is also important to note that the regions that are responsible for the majority of the supplying and production of these resources are not within the developed world (i.e. would make up the majority of the world). This would present for a large amount of resources, the amount of which are continuing to be increased at a constant exponential rate perhaps faster than that for the world population growth, to be primarily concentrated within a very small and defined demographic. These individuals would be overconsuming and largely responsible for the deficit of resources available to be evenly distributed amongst the world population. For that reason, it would not be that the world is going through a demographic crisis and has a population too large to be sustainable, but that greed, entitlement and exploitation are leading to famine, environmental degradation, and reduced quality of life. Moreover, the world's population and the amount of food able to be produced being assumed to be increasing evenly at a rate directly proportional to each other, would completely disregard the factors influencing periods of unsuccessful and successful crop yields (i.e. the Irish potato famine in the 1840s also influenced by inhumane economic policy under the UK rule leading to the famine being used by the British as a means of culling the Irish), as well as the implementation of more efficient strategies for maximising crop production which would mean that a straightforward linear rate of increase in food production is unlikely to be observed. Equally, the fact that crops can be grown at a faster rate than humans can reproduce, as well as the significant differences in mortality rates between developing and developed nations globally would prove to provide evidence disproving this perspective.

Exploitation of power, resources and land by the developed world can also be a significant cause of famine and resource scarcity. This is observed with the Bengal famine in the 1940s as discussed by Amartya Sen in Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation to have come not because of a lack of available food, but due to war, conflict and British imperial acquisition having led to a dramatic rise in prices of food rendering it inaccessible to much of the Bengali population (particularly the landless proletariat in society of the time), as well as the panic buying of food in large quantities by others. According to Sen, it is estimated that these British military decisions observed were responsible for the excess deaths of 3 million Bengalis, with the prevalence of disease and epidemic that they brough as a result further contributing to this figure. This would, therefore, prove to explain the significant contribution of corruption in power and exploitation of the people by the entitled and greedy capitalist elite globally to be the result of inequality and resource deficit as opposed to overpopulation, further emphasising the damage of rising global capitalism.

Clarke, S (1999)  Capitalist Competition and the Tendency to Overproduction: Comments on Brenner's 'Uneven Development and the Long Downturn' in Clarke/Capitalist Competition and Overproduction 

Ellis, E.C (2013) Overpopulation Is Not the Problem in The New York Times September 13th 2013 NYTimes.com

Lamont, T.W (2013) Why is there so much hunger in the world? Lecture in honour of Frank L. McDougall delivered by Prof. Amartya Sen: Thirty-eighth Session  Rome, 15-22 June 2013 Twenty-eighth McDougall Memorial Lecture

Malthus, T (1798) An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) in Malthus, On Population, Chapter 10

Smith, R (2013) Capitalism and the destruction of life on Earth: Six theses on saving the humans in real-world economics review, issue no. 64 http://rwer.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/rwer-issue-64/

The Association of "Snowflake" Qualities with Liberals and the Left in Political Discourse

                               A 2017 political cartoon by Tom Stiglich from The Week magazine depicting liberal snowflakes against Trump.

The term "snowflake" as it is used today (referring to an individual who is "overly sensitive", "too politically correct", according to Merriam Webster's Dictionary) has existed since the late 19th century, with the first recording uses being in the 1860s referring to wealthy, white (hence snowflakes) and politically more influential people opposing the abolition of slavery. However, it has only been within the past decade that it has become more embedded into political discourse and used in more mainstream and quotidian contexts, this coinciding with the rise of conservativism and the political right for both the UK and the USA. This has predominantly been by those on the political right as a derogatory term and a means of disparaging against those who value more liberal and socialist principles such as egalitarianism, freedom of expression, and individual and collective liberties. This can, therefore, present for the groups most likely to be considered as snowflakes now compared with in the 1860s to be completely oppositional. However both of these groups appear to relate to individuals that are likely to be radicalised or perhaps considered a threat to society, or would perhaps have more limited ability to take on a diplomatic tone or act willing to accept different viewpoints. This can be evident for individuals on both the left and right of the political spectrum, although perhaps mainly those with authoritarian views who are unlikely to be the egalitarian liberals and socialists that often get labelled using this term. As a result, as well as the fact that they often are unwilling to accept social progress and get offended by viewpoints they consider misguided, incorrect or inappropriate, it appears that many individuals on the far right can, ironically, very much present as having these snowflake qualities.

Moreover, the term appears to be rather ageist and stereotyping about culture and lifestyle considering that, along with liberals and leftists, it appears that millennials and Gen Z are often lumped together as the "snowflake generation". This seems plausible considering that the conservative and ideologically right wing population who have coined this term are generally from the generations before who would seem considerably more socially and economically stable and are more likely to favour traditionalist ideas. This would, therefore, prove for the term, to some extent, to almost appear apolitical and non-partisan.  Anna B. Faria in her 2022 paper referring to millennials as having "traded in home ownership for avocado toast, and abandoned canned seafood and diamond rings" (all of which unlikely to be politically motivated and seem to only refer to working with their own financial situations or changes in lifestyle from that of older generations) perfectly illustrates this. It could even be argued that it had come about through older generations not appearing to relate to and being keen to poke fun at the generations after them as opposed to being about any clearly defined ideological positions or whether certain groups are more likely to appear a cause of concern to society, yet that this insult clearly became politicised so as to further categorise the population through examining defining political and non-political characteristics of individual generations.

Alyeksyeyeva, I.O, (2017) Science and Education a New Dimension. Philology, V(39), Issue: 143, 2017, Defining snowflake in British post-Brexit and US post-election public discourse, https://seanewdim.com/

Faria, A.B, (2022) Comrade Snowflake? Why Millennials Won’t Be Socialists Forever, V(27)2, ISSN 1086–1653

n.d https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/the-less-lovely-side-of-snowflake

Murray, A.H, (2018), Generation Snowflake?, RSA Journal , Vol. 164, No. 4 (5576) (2018–19), pp. 44-47

Pignatero, J.R, (2017), What Is A 'Snowflake?' Origin Of Insult From Alt-Right Leaders Who Support Trump, in International Business Times 15/2/2017

Libertarian Philosophies Presented on the Political Compass

So as to put into perspective the breadth on libertarianism and the stark contrast between its various interpretations and application to different concepts across the political spectrum, I have made this political compass based on my personal judgement. While libertarianism is generally considered centrist or centre, it is clear that upon looking at this depiction that many libertarian philosophies appear to be either concentrated around the far-left or far right. This is likely as a result of the clear link between libertarianism and neoliberalism with social and economic anarchy, and the main aims of this ideology being in reducing the state's influence and ability to impose regulations on the markets and the values and behaviours of individuals.

                                                     Generated using The Political Compass

I have also written a list of definitions for these forms of libertarianism below:

Environmental liberalism- a liberal philosophy which also emphasises the importance of implementing the environment into policy.
Social anarchy- the functioning of an anarchic society without the presence state or governing body. This form of anarchy, unlike right wing anarchy (see Rothbardianism, Hoppeanism and right voluntaryism) prioritises collective social gains and the abolition of corruption and abuse of power, as opposed to the removal of the state influence so that businesses and the wealthy can gain increased social, economic and political power.

Proudhonism- relates to the libertarian communist ideology of Pierre Josef Proudhon who emphasises collective and individual liberties, communitarianism, and liberation of the lower classes within an anarchic and revolutionary communist society. Proudhon was one of the key founders of social anarchy and left libertarianism.

Civil libertarianism- a philosophy with support for some moderate conservative libertarian principles (i.e. minimal state regulation of the economy and private property ownership) yet that also champions individual and civil liberty, and advocates reducing use of the military, and the opening of borders to migrants.

Agorism- a revolutionary left form of libertarianism.

Christian libertarianism- a conservative form of libertarianism advocating the integration of Christianity within governance and having a society revolving around religious principles. Christian libertarianism is often less liberal regarding homosexual rights, marriage and abortion.

Liberal conservativism- a right wing form of liberalism in which private property, feudalism, capitalism and the free market economy are supported through the adoption of libertarian and liberal principles.

Panarchy- advocacy for the  and integration and support of all political ideas within governance with no specific emphasis on any particular ideological viewpoint.

Neoliberalism- the functioning of markets with little or no state regulation.

Centrist libertarianism- libertarianism based on centrist and liberal values moderately leaning to both the left and right of libertarianism.

Rothbardianism- the ideas pioneered by right wing libertarian anarchist Murray Rothbard.

Hoppeanism- a form of right wing capitalist anarchy developed by economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Libertarian capitalism- the reduction of state regulations on the economy to support the capitalist and feudal land owning system, and allow for markets to function independent from the state with limited regulation and policing.

Right/left voluntaryism- the idea that all behaviours and code of conduct are voluntary and no regulation and policing should be evident regarding these.

My position on this political compass- I measured this using this interactive political compass and www.mapmypolitics.org (which defined me as a libertarian socialist (perhaps slightly more moderate than I was expecting; I see myself more as a liberal communitarian communist who is considerably less libertarian from an economic perspective)). My values were aligned with the position shown on this political compass presenting me as very much socially and economically in line with the far left, albeit perhaps with greater emphasis on the economic left. Judging by my scoring for the other forms of libertarianism, this puts them closely in line with Agorism, social anarchy and civil and environmental libertarianism. I consider all of this as quite a fair representation and similar to where I would have imagined being positioned on a political compass.

                   My position according to https://politicalcompass.github.io