An economic system in which a country’s businesses and industry are controlled and run for profit by private owners rather than by the government.
My views on Capitalism
Complicated. As they should be. Truly I'm in favour of Plato's Aristocracy, which to briefly summarise is:
3 classes
The lower class are the Workers, and this is determined by meritocracy in relation to the other 2 classes. They have access to limited luxuries.
The middle class are the Protectors, your police, your military, you could even place doctors in this class. They have access to more luxuries because they risk their lives or their profession demands a lot from them. They are selected from the most suitable of the Working class.
The upper class are the Ruling class. They have the highest level of responsibility, accountability, and are subject to being replaced or even killed. This grants them access to greater luxury in exchange for highest reponsibility + risk. They are selected from the best of the Protector class.
It's not much different from what has happened anyway via Capitalism, really. Except it's deliberate and selective and therefore more manageable because of those qualities, as well as a lot more fair.
Even then I think a (more limited) free market among the working class would be the best approach. The whole thing would need a lot of workshopping to be sure, but overall, I do believe it's a far better system than anything we've ever attempted.
So while I'm not the biggest fan of Capitalism, I'm even less a fan of Communism. For where we stand as a race, this is definitely the best option we've got, but that isn't saying much. It does a lot of good, and causes a lot of strife.
Typing Capitalism
While most, especially the cynical and those who haven't put much thought into the nuance, would throw Capitalism into the EXTJ category, they're missing just how idealist the core idea of Capitalism is. Just like Communism, you can't judge the idea (typologically) by it's end result. Fi is at the very core of Capitalism; its heart, you might say. There's no way its Fi inferior. Capitalism is ENFP. Very. Just listen to this premise: The novelty of your ideas (Ne) will allow you to flourish as an individual (Fi) with a bit of practical planning and hard work (Te), aided by paying attention to the details and establishing routine (Si).
Capitalism is all about profiting due to innovations (Ne) that belong to you (Fi). Te Hero and Parent value and respect hard work much more than Capitalism does. It's a Te Child view: I do the bare minimum physical work to get to the point where there are practical systems in place which mean I just have to direct things.
Also, just to really put a bow on it, Communism, it's eternal rival, is INFJ. Opposing functions... opposing.
Extraverted Intuition:
Ne>Ni or Symbiotic Introverted Intuition Dynamic | Fair | There's a certain amount of selectiveness inherently required in identifying the potential of an idea and sticking with it to the point that it becomes lucrative. The obvious, even stereotypical, reductive, view of capitalism is of course an 'eyes on the prize' kind of mentality, the 'prize' of course being riches. That would be more Te-Ni, that would be more fitting of an ENTJ verdict like many assume. But Capitalism at it's heart is not this.
It can be as simple as a family business selling their culinary skills to just live semi-comfortably. Capitalism is the system that facilitates this, it isn't all - or even majority - big corporations and fat cats with cartoon dollar-sign eyes. Through Capitalism, the possibility is there for anyone with a sufficient skill to turn it into a business and from there, the result is a far cry from easily determinable. Sometimes it is skill or a keen perception of demand, and other times it's sheer luck that leads a particular individual venture to skyrocketing success.
And of course, there is no real way of narrowing the "best" path towards success within the Capitalist system. There's no 'ideal' option. One can think they've got the whole thing figured out, taking the most 'sensible' path towards flourishing in this system only for some weirdo who's just chucking stuff at the wall to see what sticks to completely outclass them in market value without even trying.
Capitalism, at it's core, is completely open. That's one of it's most defining characteristics. Is that a good thing? ... Well... It has positives and negatives, like all things. On the one hand, on the lower levels, it allows for meritocracy and individual agency and freedom of commerce. On the other, it's easily exploited and allows for those with more "means of production", as Marx put it, to dominate the market.
Another strength of Capitalism which is easily characterised as Ne is the enthusiasm for out-of-the-box ideas.
Improvements towards balance: The consequences inherent in the degree to which Ne is the dominant force in Capitalism, such as its openness leaving equal opportunity for exploitation, are currently not being correctly addressed. Instead, the primary focus of the criticism towards the system is value-judgement-based. By putting all the focus on the perception of it as the Distorted EXTJ amoral scapegoat, this essentially amounts to a misdiagnosis, and subsequently, unsuitable treatment. It is for such reasons that people so quickly cry for scrapping the system in favour of socialism - the "nicer" system - instead of trying to amend and improve on what we currently have.
It is impossible to restrict the exploitability of Capitalism without restricting the openness of its fundamental ideals and therefore debilitating its greatest strength.
I'm curious then, through this perspective, where the idea's biggest detractors would fall. Which is it? Freedom or "fairness"? And where would be the "fairness" in restricting freedom of success? I'm 100% playing Devil's Advocate here, I'll get more into this when I get to Fi and Te.
A Capitalism with more Ni influence might look something like a still-open market, but "frivolous" pursuits are much more heavily regulated i.e. the beauty industry or the gaming industry or the 'influencer' industry. There are plenty of arguments on both sides for whether this would be a 'good' thing, but the fact remains: it's inevitably discriminatory.
Also, this is not a direct point towards balancing the concept itself, rather a point about the Ne-Ni relationship in general, but I want to point out a marker I noticed for the validity of the age-old pro-Capitalist argument: that unsuccessful people aren't making enough wise use of their time to become successful.
Of course there's numerous important factors to consider such as mental health for one... but... In our modern age, there are more potential paths to success than there have ever been. The opportunities have never been more bountiful. And the 'unsuccessful' are typically the unskilled or low-skilled... The only way to argue against the notion that these people aren't at all accountable for their position, is to claim that they are so inept that out of the thousands of potentially successful skills they could be good at, they're good at... none of them. Really? I don't believe that. Do you believe that?
I refuse to believe that there are supposedly millions of people out there who just have no potential in anything. Far more believable is the notion that they suffer from the human tendency to take the path of least resistance or have given in to despondency or simply haven't been exposed to enough different skills that they might find one they enjoy enough to dedicate themselves to it, which naturally leads to some level of potential monetary gain.
Understanding of the cognitive functions and how they represent different types of intelligence would be highly beneficial in knowing where one might start looking when it comes to said skills.
Now, a reasonable counter-argument might be that learning a skill takes time, and not everyone has the time for this. Yes, this is where Ni needs to be given more consideration. Out of all the things you could be doing, what's important? What has long-term potential? It's not likely to be videogames or going out drinking every weekend, is it? If you choose to give too much of your time to these things, you can't just blame Capitalism for your dead-end and/or minimum wage job.
And how do you know what's 'too much' time? You'll know if you don't have enough time to learn a skill outside of an actually good reason like you have to care for a family member or something to that effect.
Victimhood is the enemy of empowerment. I say all of this as a current minimum wage worker who used to spend too much time playing videogames. Even then though, I was learning several different skills, and with each of those skills I had to discern whether I could - or wanted to - try to make a living from them. No one can levy any accusations at me of being some out-of-touch right-winger who's never known what being working class is like. I simply recognise that blaming Capitalism for my misery or lack of success isn't going to help me. In fact, it would probably make things worse.
One potential societal remedy for this is to include in the education system, some kind of skill-introduction workshop - perhaps taking place every fortnight - where young people can get a taster of a variety of different skills which can potentially lead to the mundane-yet-respectable kind of success, or at the very least, a career they actually enjoy. If funds are an issue in this endeavour, start a charity or Kickstarter for it. Something tells me a lot of parents would be quite willing to contribute to something like that.
Ne>Si or Challenging Introverted Sensing Dynamic | Balanced | Capitalism really brings out the healthier side of the Ne-Si dynamic. It has to, or it would fall apart. This necessity for integration of an otherwise often fairly antagonistic relationship between these two aspects is what has allowed Capitalism to sustain itself for its lifetime.
Going back to the family business example, there's nothing inherently 'novel' or exciting about this notion. It's pretty mundane, and that's not an insult. [For the sake of argument I'll specify it's a positive example of a family business, not one where anyone feels trapped by obligation or some such. In our example, there is minimal internal drama, and moderate success.] It's stable, it's comfy, it's routine, it's reliable.
And the Ne attitude of Capitalism embraces that. The genuine Capitalist spirit is never going to look down on these small business owners. There's no rules saying they have to be bigger and better and more 'successful' or else they've failed. You can be anything, you never have to be anything. It's just as inclusive - prideful even - of the mundane successes of the system as it is the exceptional outliers. Because it's about opportunity more than profit.
Additionally, you need to pay attention to details to keep a business afloat - you need to have paperwork and legislation and infrastructure and record-keeping etc. etc. All very Si things necessary to keep the Ne ideal actually functional.
Improvements towards balance: None really needed here, honestly.
Ne>Se or Dichotomous Extraverted Sensing Dynamic | Fair | One of Capitalism's biggest downfalls is how the ideal plays out in reality.
It's all well and good conceptually having opportunities everywhere, but starting a business typically requires funds and some degree of knowledge in what the hell you're doing, otherwise you might end up just wasting those funds.
We happen to know the result when Capitalism is allowed to have total free reign in a laissez-faire economy: The Great Depression happens. That was Capitalism in full Ne dream-force, until Se reality slapped it in the face. Not hard enough to knock it down and out, but certainly with more consideration from that point on, thanks to the British economist John Maynard Keynes, who asserted that at least some state intervention was necessary.
Still, we know that realism hardly went far enough. As a direct result of Capitalism we have Consumerism, which is a significant culprit in the declining mental health of the general population. Not to mention all the pollution from not-nearly-regulated-enough giant corporations.
Capitalism also of course leads to "haves" and "have-nots" and poverty. People are born into conditions which often result in disadvantage and limit them into vicious cycles of poor mental/physical health, addiction and self-fulfilling prophecy environments such as the ghettos in the U.S. - thousands of kids are essentially indoctrinated into the "thug life" before they even have the opportunity for anything else. By the time opportunity does potentially arise, they are already in so deep it becomes nearly impossible to escape.
But that being said, there are positive realities that Capitalism has facilitated that must not be ignored. I am of the opinion that if you cannot acknowledge the positives of whatever you are criticising, you shouldn't be criticising it. To paraphrase a Bill Hicks bit - if you're against Capitalism, do me a favour and take all the electronics that make your life easier and provide you with entertainment, and burn them, because they wouldn't exist without Capitalism. Not just electronics, mind you, how about any product you enjoy at all. Necessity is the mother of invention, and competition is the father.
Improvements towards balance: This dynamic lends itself well to much of the criticism of Capitalism everyone and their mother already knows, I don't feel I have much to add. It really just comes down to paying more attention to what actually happens compared to the Capitalist ideal.
Introverted Feeling:
Fi>Fe or Symbiotic Extraverted Feeling Dynamic | Distorted | This is where Socialism finds its footing. Capitalism is a terribly individualistic ideology.
It is all about individual - or in the case of the family business example, individually-valued - success. My ideas belong to me. The success those ideas bring belongs to me. The success was because of my efforts. Having a brand associated with me brings me satisfaction. My family are connected to me and therefore may share my success.
This part isn't criticism, necessarily. Remember: Fi isn't inherent selfishness, it's subjective experience. All of those me/my-s are just as true when switched to you/your-s. Of course you're going to be nepotistic in your family business rather than give it to some stranger.
The criticism comes from the problems that arise from subjectivity in general, and especially the improper formation of the average Ego. An improperly formed Ego results in desperate yearning to be more whole, and that desperation leads to the integration of things which are harmful and a hinderance to that very completion. Capitalism fuels this via over-importance of roles in relation to identity, as well as consumerism. The unformed ego latches on to whatever it can to feel more sustainable, thus people 'become' thier career. They become a brand - their brand - and without careful consideration this becomes too much a part of themselves.
Not to mention, many people have adopted the very M.O. of Capitalism erroneously as part of who they are i.e. "chasing that bag" hustle culture, crypto culture, etc.
But the thing is, Humans aren't designed to be individualistic. We are literally a social animal. We only got this far in the first place through that very capacity. And Capitalism is not a friend of community. Without community, society begins to degrade.
Improvements towards balance: New systems based on awareness that fascilitate the proper formation of Ego, understanding of self as seperate from our 'roles' a la Jaque Lacan's Symbolic Castration and Jean-Paul Sartre's Bad Faith concepts.
Fi>Te or Challenging Extraverted Thinking Dynamic | Balanced | No one can accuse Capitalism of ever placing personal values over practicality or efficiency...
Improvements towards balance: None in this particular direction. The reverse is another matter entirely.
Fi>Ti or Dichotomous Introverted Thinking | Fair | Capitalism leans on the power of Ti's logical processing abilities pretty heavily, especially in modern times with the advent of technology becoming such a dominant force in production and of course for invention, the trade systems it implements, etc. etc. Individual subjective experience rarely interferes with any of this.
Often these two align. For example, again it makes sense to be nepotistic in your own family business. It makes sense to look out for yourself and your kin when you're born into a world that practically demands that.
Ti is often similarly individualistic. Libertarianism is a very Ti philosophy, for example. But it's hardly a healthy, balanced expression of the function.
Where Capitalism falls short for healthy Ti is that is it far more based on value subjectivity rather than logical subjectivity. Healthy Ti would typically regard the individualism inherent in Capitalism as counterproductive to logical systems that would produce better results in many ways, as well as lacking in core principles and integrity. This is again where Socialism finds purchase in the hearts of people - logically speaking, cooperation and cameraderie are better for us as a social animal than every man for himself. Distributing evenly makes logical sense and aligns with principles of justice and fairness that Ti naturally gravitates toward. But it's a subjective, immature logic, with insufficient grasp of practicality: "it should be this way, because muh logic".
Improvements towards balance: If we look at all the great Ti Philosophers (which is a a pretty strong majority over Fi by the way), very few of them come to any kind of logical conclusion that individualism is much to base anything worthwhile off of. Thus basing society so heavily on such matters is logically unsound from the offset.
Extraverted Thinking:
Te>Ti or Symbiotic Introverted Thinking Dynamic | Pretty Good | These two live up to their symbiosis quite well. Enterprise capitalises on the systems constructed by Ti, but enterprise also rewards individual thinking, innovation and refinement of its structures. Te manages the systems devised by Ti effectively, giving Ti the breathing room to further fine-tune these systems.
Improvements towards balance: The main point that knocks it from a better rating is that too often decisions are made based on charts, statistics and other data aggregates when there are objectively smarter decisions that could be made through more attention to subjective logic. A perfect example is the film industry and especially the collapse of the large franchises such as Star Wars and the MCU. Ti would be: "Well thought-out stories and characters matter most in storytelling." while Te says: "We've noticed some trends we can try to capitalise on."
Te>Fi or Challenging Introverted Feeling Dynamic | Needs Work | Although Fi is a critical element of Capitalism, it's also its main detracting force. It's tempting then to claim that "Aha! Capitalism doesn't fit ENFP!" because of this, but it's important to remember what the Parent function represents, which is the function we have most control over. And that includes the capacity to supress said function.
Certainly, the degree to which Te is the dominant force in Capitalism suggests that it would fit EXTJ better, but if you think of what might happen if we let a child who heavily favours Te motivations, you'll get the idea why this is the case. Nobody claimed this is a particularly healthy ENFP, and unhealthy Te Child is obsessed with esteem based on objective markers of success. This obsession is a huge portion of the fuel that drives the Capitalist machine, because it is perfectly in line with Human nature to desire external validation.
Capitalism is undeniably responsible for a great deal of individual experiences that are overwhelmingly negative. For all its wider successes, there are millions of individual souls - to put it in a very Fi way - that are suffering unjustifiably.
In many workplaces, subjective emotional experience is still viewed entirely as an obstruction to efficiency.
Improvements towards balance: I think this is best explained with a question.
Do you think Capitalism views people as:
a) Individuals with entire experiences of their own, which are all valid and infinitely sublime in their own right?
or
b) Cogs in the machine?
Yeah... The only reason it's not Distorted is the reasoning I explained in the Fi section.
Te>Fe or Dichotomous Extraverted Feeling Dynamic | Distorted | Capitalism does not give a damn about the collective experience. Social and environmental causes and Capitalism are at war with each other 24/7. And the only time it seems like they get along is when corporations are going full-on Machiavellian scheming mode and co-opting these movements to improve their image, which almost always primarily concerns their bottom line. Or when these social and environmental causes are corrupted by greed and turned into hollowed-out corporate shells of their own beliefs and intentions.
We need only look at the notorious treatment of employees by many large corporations to see the Te>Fe dynamic in action. Furthermore, Capitalism frequently uses zombified Fe as its 'face', most notable in customer service, where toxic Fe "keep up appearances and avoid conflict" mentalities are integral to business.
Improvements for balance: For the love of god, recognise the efficacy of teamwork and morale. There are businesses and employers that do, but they are not majority. More broadly, the importance of community and the damage that an overly Te-based approach does to that foundation of Human operation (which ironically greatly affects our productivity and efficiency as a species) needs to be brought to thundering attention.
Introverted Sensing:
Si>Se or Symbiotic Extraverted Sensing Dynamic | Pretty Good | Capitalism endorses risk-taking to a certain extent. Despite built upon Si's infrastructure, it isn't overly precious about it and allows for the same "throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks" approach I mentioned before. It is a system which is constantly active and taking risks.
Improvements for balance: There is still too much emphasis on concrete expansion. What I mean by this is the Se drive to simply expand physically vs. the Si appreciation of what is already there. This, in combination with the untempered natural aspect of the Human condition which demands that nothing is ever 'enough' to satisfy, results in greed, essentially.
Si>Ne or Challenging Extraverted Intuition Dynamic | Fair | Capitalism's very existence is threatened by radical new ideas and change. It has established a system which works "well enough" both societally and economically (at least from its own perception) and seeks only to maintain that system. Innovation is encouraged only within the system. Even then, in the contexts of many institutions and industries, they aren't exactly keen on radical reform.
Improvements for balance: More openness to change but with careful consideration of what can and cannot be changed without uprooting too much and causing more issues than the reforms would try to address.
Si>Ni or Dichotomous Introverted Intuition Dynamic | Distorted | This is a system defined by its inability to see greater meaning or any kind of long-term vision for the human race beyond its own routine.
Improvements for balance: Stop focusing on just maintaining a fragile stability that goes nowhere and breeds suffering rather than letting go of all the things that don't really matter and embracing the things that do. Money matters to a point, at which contentment vastly outweighs it, and more money will do nothing for contentment. Material possessions matter even less. Esteem matters only if your Ego is fragile enough to need others' validation. Legacy matters only if it's founded on the right reasons. Give time long enough and the legacy of the likes of moguls, actors and musicians will fade, while that of the great philosophers, scientists and leaders will endure because they contributed to the greater evolution of our species. That's not to say the arts are in any way pointless, but that pursuing anything for egoic reasons is ultimately fruitless. We're all gonna die, and if you want a legacy for your children, all you're really saying is you want your children to be extensions of your ego rather than their own individual selves. A child brought up in poverty with a caring family and good principles will live a far more satisfying life than the privileged rich kid who was basically neglected.
Addendum: Regardless of whether you want to see Capitalism amended or torn down completely, the true solution remains the same. Like with any other problem, you have to look at the root cause. In this case, the cause is evident we look at how someone with nothing is capable of being more content than someone with everything. I've met recovering drug addicts who now work for NA/AA who lead more fulfilling lives than the supposedly "better-off" middle classes. I know a man who used to be a bigwig joiner leading projects on some of the most recognisable buildings in Edinburgh, only to lose it all and become a humble customer care worker who has told me he's actually happier now.
And that's just the thing: Capitalism is built on a lie. Most people think the lie is the difference between the ideal and reailty, when the real lie is the ideal itself. The truth is even when you win you don't, because the only way to win the game of fantasy is to not play. Fantasy, as outlined by Freud, is the "if only". Whatever makes you think "if only I had this, then I'd finally be satisfied" is your fantasy. In Capitalism's case, the fantasy it sells you is "if only you were rich", "if only you had a yacht, then life would be great".
Wrong. That's not how the Human condition works. You'll never be satisfied, and the only way out of the neverending loop is to accept it and appreciate the things which actually can fulfil us. But of course, you don't know that, no one ever tells you that, and most of them don't even know for themselves.
If you're really smart, you may be able to tell where this is going... The only way to beat Capitalism is to stop playing its game. Marx was wrong, there will be no great proletariat revolution and overthrowing of the bourgeoisie, nor should there be. Instead what needs to happen is we need to spread the cure for fantasy. We need more and more people to shrug at excess and say "whatever, guys, you're not happy. We are." We must find a way to be, in the words of King Crimson:
"Happy with what you have to be happy with,
You have to be happy with what you have,
To be happy with what you have,
You have to be happy with what you have to be happy with."
"The best revenge is a life well lived," as the saying goes. You want to get back at the 1%? Make everything they have irrelevent, and make them aware of it. Attacking their moral character will do nothing. Pity them. Pity the weakness of their need for material things. Accrue a wealth of sovereignty. Then it is you who has everything, and they who have nothing.
コメント