A Republican Critique of Capitalism
Suppose you must choose to live in one of the following two societies, not knowing where in either one you’ll end up (the names are only suggestive; they aren’t definitions):
CAPITALISM: everyone is richer than they would be in any other kind of society. Yet there are also very large inequalities in wealth–large enough that well-heeled elites have much greater political power than the rest.
DEMOCRACY: Political power is roughly equal. Economic inequality is sharply limited, so to ensure rough equality in political rights. Everyone is less rich than under CAPITALISM, but no one is subject to the arbitrary will of the others.
What society would you choose? Well, if you knew you’d be an elite, you’d go for CAPITALISM, since you’d be rich and more than equal politically. But you don’t know that; for all you know, you could be anyone, in either case. If you choose CAPITALISM, you could wind up among those who get the short end of the economic and the political stick.
Now suppose you are a REPUBLICAN in the classical sense: you won’t stand for being subjected to the arbitrary will of others, at almost any cost, even if it means being less rich, and so you’ll have a dominant preference for political equality. In that case you’d choose DEMOCRACY over CAPITALISM. You’d rather be poorer than risk being subjected to the arbitrary will of others, being treated as anything less than a political equal.
Since this is a blog about assholes, we might put the point this way: you can’t trust an asshole to rule in a non-arbitrary way, and, other things being equal, there’s a better chance that assholes will rule under CAPITALISM. In that case, if you’re a REPUBLICAN you’d rather be poorer and live in a DEMOCRACY, which at least limits the damage that assholes will do, by equalizing political power.
Does this show anything about contemporary “republicans”? Many seem to want to have it all: they’re fine with unlimited inequality for the sake of the riches of capitalism, but they won’t stand for being subjected the arbitrary will of others, even if they’d have to be poorer for it. Is that a consistent position?
Well, it’s consistent if you aren’t worried about mixing money and politics, if you believe that unlimited inequalities won’t undermine the preferred form of political equality. On the other hand, have-it-all-republicanism *isn’t* a consistent position if you do think money and politics shouldn’t mix, that is, if you think large inequalities in wealth invariably give the well-heeled huge political advantages. (And don’t they?) Since many contemporary republicans do think this, they may be in a bit of muddle.
Here’s a way out: go for a form of capitalism that isn’t CAPITALISM, because it seriously regulates economic and political inequality. That could in theory be a REPUBLICAN position, thought it would require many contemporary republicans to worry a lot more about inequality.
