Skip to main content

Capital Has No Soul


In a capitalist society, capital rules: the need of capital to maximize the return on its investments, is preeminent. That need takes precedence, almost always, over every other interest unless blocked by the concerted effort of ordinary people. Capital on its own has absolutely no moral compass. It is inherently and constitutionally blind to every consideration other than profits. It will stop at nothing, no matter how morally odious, in the pursuit of its purely material ends – slavery, conquest and genocide, large-scale theft and deception – all these and more are the time-tested methods of capital.

The reason for this is not any human moral failing, for capital, to put it bluntly, is not human. It is not subject to moral feelings like empathy and compassion, for it has no soul, any more than a volcano or a tsunami. It is useless to appeal to capital to do the right thing, for it can hear nothing but the ka-ching of money coming in.

Let me illustrate with some examples. In spite of Germany’s innovations in green energy which you may have heard discussed here on the Old Mole, 37 percent Germany's electricity is powered by coal, and 23 percent of it by the dirtiest form of coal, called lignite, or brown coal. According to a recent NPR story,

 seven of Germany's brown coal mines are among the top 10 biggest polluting power plants in Europe. And yet, Germany still aims to reduce its carbon emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. 

But although Germany is investing heavily in a transition to clean energy, it is not reducing its carbon footprint. There is a commission charged with the task of phasing out coal, but one of its members, Stefan Kapferer, “head of Germany's largest energy sector lobby, which includes coal companies… says that for an industrial giant like Germany, …it could take another 20 years to shut down coal use.”
“The coal plants belong to companies who have ownership rights," he says. "So if you're going to insist they shut down, appropriate compensation has to be awarded." [And,] he adds, "We've got to ensure that our chemical, steel and aluminum industries can access and afford the electricity they need."
So the economic weight of capital is a major political obstacle to the survival of the atmosphere our lives depend on.

Here’s another example:

In South Africa, the Black population is still waiting for the ruling party, the African National Congress, founded by Nelson Mandela, to live up to its original promises of liberation. The ANC’s official policy still includes ‘Radical Economic Transformation’. Yet, according to Michael Smith writing in the journal Catalyst, the newly installed president, Cyril Ramaphosa, once a man of the left, “must allay the fears of local and international capital.”[1] Why must he do this? Because a critical mass of the nation’s wealth --  resources, means of production, money to hire and pay workers and to pay taxes, consists of capital, and capital must profit and grow, and to do so it must do what it can to prevent anything like “radical economic transformation.”
Another example from the days when the engine of capital accumulation in Western Europe was the brutally enforced, involuntary labor of enslaved people captured in Africa. In her book about the slave trade, Lose Your Mother: A Journey Along The Atlantic Slave Route, Saidiya Hartman tells of the horribly brutal murder by a ship captain of two enslaved girls during the Atlantic crossing in 1792. The case caused a moral outrage in England, but the Admiralty Court could be trusted not to convict the captain. Quoting from the book,
Were two dead girls more important than the prosperity and commerce of Great Britain? Were the fools and idiots ranting about abolition blind? The fruits and majesty of the empire would be impossible without slavery. Prosperity had a price. There was no getting around it—death was the cost of the Africa trade. It was certain as the day was long. An iron hand was the only way to manage it. [And] the judge said as much during the opening of the trial.[2]
Of course, the enslavement and deaths of millions of Africans in the interests of capital was also justified by racism, the idea that Africans were inferior. This is an idea that capital continues to rely on. In a recent interview about his film, “Sorry to Bother You” Boots Riley, asks (and I’m paraphrasing some),
Why racist ideas? Why are black folks imagined as savage, or insufficiently cultured, or angry or lazy. The need for these tropes is to teach that poverty is caused by the impoverished, not by the system we are living in. This system needs poverty, it could not exist without it. If there were full employment, wages would be what workers demand, no one could be fired with nobody to replace them. There’s a direct correlation between unemployment going down and wages going up. And when wages go up, the value of stocks, which are capital, goes down. The Wall Street Journal openly worries when the unemployment rate goes down because of the impact on wages and profits. They have to have an army of unemployed workers to make employed workers willing to settle for whatever capital is willing to pay – or as little as possible. How do you get the people to accept a system that requires poverty? That’s where the racist trope come in. To convince the white working class that they are not at risk because they are not black, so white people can regard themselves as middleclass because they’re not in the lower class signified by blackness.[3] 
The evils of capitalism are not produced by the immoral choices of owners, managers, and partisans of capital. Such people have lost their souls to capital, and insofar as they serve capital, they have no moral compass other than the sanctity of private property. Liberals who appeal to the moral consciousness of business and political leaders to put people over profits are sending messages into the void where no one hears them. Moral reasoning is powerless against the imperatives of capital. You might as well ask the lion not to eat the lamb. But we can make a moral argument, over the heads of capital, to each other, affirming the obligation we have to each other to do our utmost to organize together in the project of challenging and replacing the power of capital with the power of the people united to share equally in the work of building a world that works well for all of us.



[1] Catalyst, Vol 2, no. 1, p. 149
[2] Hartman, Lose Your Mother, p 149
[3] Boots Riley, interview by Daniel Denver on the podcast The Dig, August 8, 20l8.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MEANINGLESSNESS AND DESPAIR

In Woody Allen’s film “Crimes and Misdemeanors,” a wise European existentialist, Professor Levy, appears on video reflecting on the difficulties of living well in a universe without God. Here is one clip: Professor Levy : We must always remember, that when we are born, we need a great deal of love, in order to persuade us to stay in life. Once we get that love, it usually lasts us. But, the universe is a pretty cold place. It's we who invest it with our feelings and, under certain conditions, we feel that the thing isn't worth it any more. What are these “certain conditions” in which we feel that life “isn’t worth it anymore”—conditions in which love dries up? How about a world in which there is no place for us, where we don’t matter, where there is nothing we can do that has value? Is this not the world in which so many people now find themselves, the world from which they flee from their lives into a stupor brought on by alcohol or opioids, or escape

Saving the Time of Our Lives

Thinking in the wake of Martin Hägglund’s This Life: Secular Life and SpiritualFreedom If we had all the time in the world, if we were immortal, then it wouldn’t matter how we spent our time, for there would always be more of it. But if life is short, then it matters a lot. If we and the people we love are mortal and can die at any moment – and will die at some moment – then every day and every minute of our finite lives is supremely important. How, then, should we arrange our lives together so that the time of our brief lives is well spent? In view of our mortality, wouldn’t we want   to spend as much of our allotted time as possible doing things we want to do, that are worth doing for their own sake, and to minimize the time we spend doing things we have to do? There is the realm of freedom and the realm of necessity. The realm of necessity is what we have to do whether we want to or not; it includes the activities necessary for maintaining life: cleaning; c

An Epidemic of Despair

An Epidemic of Despair There is an epidemic of despair in the United States. The visible part is the increase in what have been called “deaths of despair” -- deaths by drugs, alcohol, and suicide. Among people who have not gone to college and for whom a traditional middle-class life is more and more out of reach, such deaths are rising steadily. The increases are connected to “a measurable deterioration in economic and social wellbeing.” [1] In a West Virginia town where textile plants and woolen mills that once provided good jobs now stand empty, a journalist who used to live there was asked why so many people there are struggling with opioids, including heroin.. He responded , “In my opinion, the desperation in [this area], and places like it, is a  social  vacancy,” he said. “People don’t feel they have a purpose.” … “Many drug addicts, he explained, are “trying to escape the reality that this place doesn’t give them anything. That’s really hard to live with—when you