[Buddha-l] Karma and capitalism

[Dan Lusthaus]

Curt cites Marx and Smith as declaring capitalism "new" and unprecedented.
That's the giddyness of misperceived novelty -- to refer to the Dylan biopic
that prompted this whole discussion, it's the same as when Dylan says that
he thought he was doing something, was onto something, that no one else had
ever done before, which he now admits was an erroneous self-appraisal. In
Marx's case, for instance, he was merely following Hegel in constructing a
dialectic of history in which the East represented the "childhood" or
infancy of human development; all meaningful progress and innovation, i.e.,
adulthood, resided only and exclusively in their own Europe. Every European
"event", then, was momentous, not just a moment, and carried cosmic
consequences in the evolution of the Geist. That idea, expanded and
existentialiized, survives into Heidegger and beyond in the notion of the
"event". Hegel's eurocentrism was simply wrong, as it is much easier to
recognize today, and those who followed along -- for whatever reason -- were
equally wrong. The cornerstone on Marx's theory of history, that dialectical
necessity produces historico-economic reality, was equally wrong. Feudalism
(however one wishes to understand that overused and ultimately amorphous
term) did not produce capitalism out of necessity, and more obviously
capitalism has not been the necessary producer of Communism (where so-called
Communist revolutions occurred were in Peasant, not Capitalist societies,
thus skipping a supposed *necessary* step). Mercantalism (whether in "pure"
capitalist form or other configurations) has been ruling the world for
sometime (powerfully articulated by Ned Beatty in the boardroom to Howard
Beale in the film "Network," i.e., corporate institutions transcend
nationalism). Had Marx studied India better, he might have predicted that
the "revolution" would necessarily arise among the Peasants, not the
capitalists. America is now struggling with whether to return to the
theocratic rule at the top of the chart, and start all over again. During
the mid-20th c., America had moved the hyphen from Priest-Ksatriya to
Ksatriya-Merchant, which is why Eisenhower's farewell speech when leaving
office included the famous line: "beware the military-Industrial complex."
The hyphen is still in movement, so that when bin Laden struck at the old
hyphen (Pentagon and World Trade Center), he was buying into a myth that was
already becoming atavistic. (Note the only significant industrialization
sought in the Muslim world is nuclear technology).

In short, what was new in Marx's day was the Industrial Revolution, not
"capitalism" per se, though the massive quantificatory changes introduced to
society by industrialization had equally massive qualitative changes
(marxist "alienation" rhetoric, etc.) -- the worst of these ameliiorated not
by a communist revolution, but by trade unions and labor legislation
(against sweat shops, child labor, etc.). Now that Republicans have
successfully killed off the union movement (with a little help from the
unions' own internal corruption and bickering), everything is in play.

An alternate, but similar, historical model can be culled from the Indian
Caste (varna) distinctions.

1. Priests (experts, mandarins, psychiatrists, economists, academics who
advise Congress, etc.)
2. K.satriyas (Military, rulers, Politicians, etc.)
3. Merchants
4. Peasants, blue collar
5. Untouchables (Dalits) (migrant workers, etc.)

Indian history, just like world history, has been a progression in which
leadership moves down the list. At some hoary point in the past (perhaps),
Brahmins were in charge. Since actual conquest and ruling fell to Ksatriyas,
they made a pact with the Brahmins (usually); they would partronize and
support the Brahmins, in return for having their reigns sanctified and
justified (Henry VIII and the Protestant Reformation was a big break with
that, only to resanctify a new type of Brahmin class). Rulers always
depended on financing to conduct war, live high on the hog, maintain
impressive ceremonies, impress their neighbors, etc., so the merchants
became more and more important, e.g., their capital. The mechant class (oil
companies, etc.) rule today, and get themselves elected by appealing to
distracted envies and fears of the peasants who vote for them (keep them
inundated with sports, "beauty" products, celebrity gossip, etc.)

Curt also wrote:
I am quite fascinated by this description of "basic capitalist theory"
as being aimed at "the sublimation and redirection of desire for the
general good...." Is this something that Adam Smith said?

Yes, with a different vocabulary, which he drew from such political
theorists as Hobbes and Spinoza. Smith's proposal was not Machievellian, in
the sense that he was not advocating a deceitful usurpation of power and
capital; it was Hobbesian, in that the goal was the advancement of the
common good (which became Paine's "Common Sense"). If there is a course in
the history of capitalism being taught near you by a non-ideologue (from any
side), avail yourself of it.

Dan Lusthaus