Can capitalism be saved, or should it be saved?

Tetsunori Koizumi, Director

Shocks and disturbances are the facts of life in capitalist economies. For one thing, shocks and disturbances come from the fact that in capitalist economies production and consumption are not coordinated activities but are disjoint activities conducted by different groups of individuals with different goals and motivations. These shocks and disturbances, which stem from mismatches between supply of, and demand for, goods and services, are, in a way, normal shocks and disturbances inherent in the way capitalist economies operate as a system. Besides these normal shock and disturbances, capitalist economics are occasionally hit with abnormal shocks and disturbances, the Great Depression in the 1930s being an outstanding example of such major disruptions in the world economy.

What took place in the global economy in 2008 is another example of major disruptions in the world economy that was far beyond normal shocks and disturbances, prompting the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to call it “the most dangerous shock in mature financial markets since the 1930s”. Indeed, this was the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, as exemplified by the stock market crush of October 2008, with stock market losses estimated to be $6.5 trillion on October 6 and 7 alone, according to Standard & Poor’s BMI Global, an index of major markets worldwide. As the title of a featured article, “The Meltdown Goes Global”, in the October 20th issue of Time illustrates, the crisis of 2008 would soon to be called as “The Global Economic Meltdown”.

The Global Economic Meltdown reflects a fundamental shift that has taken place in the world economy from the era of the “goods-and-services-based economy” to the “information-based economy” in which trade between nations has become mostly trade in financial services and information-related products and services. The new era of “information-based economy”, which is said to have emerged around 1990s, requires new thinking about the way it works and the way it is to be managed. This is so because the “information-based economy” is new in the sense that the products and services transacted are financial and information products and services, most of which are non-excludable like public goods. As a matter of fact, it is not often transparent what are actually transacted in the new “information-based economy” when customers’ private information, for example, is sold on the Internet from one company to another.

While private economic activities know no national borders, economic policies are mostly conducted by national governments to stabilize their own economies and very seldom, if ever, done to stabilize the world economy. We are caught in a fundamental dilemma here, for, while financial and information products and services transacted in the global marketplace today require non-market regulations by concerted efforts of national governments, the national government has become powerless as it, too, has to live by the rules of the global marketplace if it wants to keep its national economy competitive in that global marketplace. This is one reason why income disparity between rich and poor has dramatically expanded, for the national government that conducts redistributive economic policies must do so at the risk of financial capital of rich people leaving the country for greener pastures elsewhere in the global marketplace.

The global financial market—and the world economy for that matter—is driven by one logic, that is the logic of the marketplace, in which capital always seeks the most profitable place, irrespective of its geographical location. While this logic has been the driving force behind capitalist economic development, its impact on the world economy has dramatically expanded with the swiftness with which capital moves from one place to another, thanks to the development of information technologies. The world economy has indeed been turned into a gigantic casino, with millions of investors participating in the game of financial gain and loss 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Global capitalism that surrounds us today is a new phase in capitalist development in which the conventional wisdom concerning the role of the national government in managing the economy formulated during the Great Depression is no longer relevant. While both represent great shocks and disturbances in the working of capitalist economies, the Great Depression and the Global Economic Meltdown reflect the fundamentally different characters of the world economy in the twentieth century and in the twenty-first century. This is the reason why we need fundamental rethinking about capitalism. While capitalism in the twentieth century was saved by the Keynesian intervention in the national economy, that kind of intervention is no longer effective to manage the world economy in the twenty-first century. Indeed, the question we need to be asking is not whether capitalism can be saved as it was but whether it should be saved in view of the fundamental change in its character in the last few decades.*

*Two books published in 2015 offer two opposing views on what we should do with capitalism today. While Robert Reich, in his Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not For the Few (New York: Knopf, 2015), argues for saving capitalism despite its apparent drawbacks, Paul Mason, in his PostCapitalism: A guide to Our Future (Bristol: Allen Lane, 2015) argues against it on the ground that capitalism today is saddled with the contradiction between network and hierarchy.

Making democracy function as it should

Tetsunori Koizumi, Director

The election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States sent a shock wave around the world. Here is a man whom his predecessor, President Barack Obama, characterized as “unqualified, temperamentally unfit and a threat to the republic who should never be president”. His election by winning the Electoral College, despite a majority of the nation voting for his democratic opponent, Hilary Clinton, raises a number of troubling questions about democracy. For one thing, it is clear that his election does not represent the will of the people if his opponent won more popular votes. His election also points to a paradox of the federal system of government, or what systems scientists call “level inconsistency” among different levels of government—between the state-level decision and the national-level decision in this instance.

Level inconsistency is but one way in which democracy as a system can go wrong. There are other ways in which democracy fails to live up to its promise of representing the will of the people. The way democracy fails to live up to its promise, or the way democracy dysfunctions, may be classified into four types.1

Democracy is a contrivance of organizing the political life of a social system in which the sovereign power is relegated to the people, or their representatives. Choosing between two major candidates may seem a rather simple choice for the people. However, the choice is made complicated by the wide range of issues the people are asked to make their judgment, from the environment to the economy, from immigration to national security, from health care to social security. Since the people are asked to weigh merits and demerits of each candidate’s policy on each of these complicated issues, it is quite possible that the decision is made out of ignorance on the part of the voting public. This type of dysfunction of democracy may be termed “type-C” dysfunction after Coriolanus, the Roman general in a Shakespeare play. It was Coriolanus who, because of his aristocratic contempt for the wisdom of the masses, characterizes democracy as a system where “gentry, title, wisdom cannot conclude but by yea and no of general ignorance.”

Whether the decision is made out of ignorance or reflects informed judgment on the part of the people, no social action is exempt from the possibility that its consequences could be very different from the intended one. This type of dysfunction may be termed the “type-M” dysfunction after Robert K. Merton, a sociologist who called our attention to the importance of unintended consequences of purposeful actions in social life.2 Unintended consequences come about because the people cannot always foresee complicated patterns of actions, reactions, and interactions that any social action triggers. It is a dysfunction in the sense that another action is needed if the outcome originally intended is to be regained, resulting in some cases in an endless cycle of actions and corrective actions.

In a democratic society where the freedom of association is guaranteed as one of the basic rights of the people, the number of groups that promote special interests tends to multiply as the people’s interests diversify. And as the number of special interest groups multiples, the functioning of the whole society, including that of the representative government, comes into conflict with the functioning of groups, which are subsystems of the society. The resulting loss of effectiveness of social action may be termed the “type-R” dysfunction, for it was Rousseau who foresaw this type of dysfunction for democratic societies. The majority rule ceases to be an effective method of reaching a social decision because “there are no longer as many votes as there are men but only as many votes as there are groups”.3

A social system is a complicated system as systems go, and a complex system is susceptible to a dysfunction that reflects inconsistency between different levels of the system. Consider, for example, the classic problem of organizing economic life based on the individual pursuit of self-interest. The problem of level-inconsistency arises in the preservation of limited resources, for example, because the pursuit of self-interest by individuals runs against the common interest of the overall system to preserve limited resources. This is the situation described by Garrett Hardin as “the tragedy of the commons”, and may therefore be termed the “type-H” dysfunction.4 The type-H dysfunction presents a special challenge for a democratic society because the common interest is not usually represented by any subsystem and, therefore, tends to be left unattended.

Given that democracy is not immune from these dysfunctions, we may well wonder whether a democratic form of government is one phase in human history which is destined to be replaced by some other form of government. We may indeed recall how Plato warned of the possibility that democracy may pass into despotism. In fact, democratic societies, if not an endangered species, only occupy a limited niche in the eco-system of human societies.

The fact of the matter is that democracy, like any other social system, does not offer a complete solution to the problem of organizing social life. Though incomplete, democracy offers the best hope for the betterment of the human condition in that it allows the people to be the master of their own affairs not only in the political arena but also in the cultural and economic arenas. Institutional reforms are certainly needed if we are to rid a democratic society of the symptoms of these dysfunctions. However, no amount of institutional reform would rid democracy of these dysfunctions unless the people become fully aware of the full implications of their sovereign power invested in them.

  1. A detailed discussion of the four types of dysfunction of democracy is found in: Koizumi, Tetsunori, “Knowledge, Power, and Democracy”, Cybernetica, 31(3), 1988, pp. 215-224.
  2. See Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Structure, Glencoe: Free Press, 1957.
  3. See Rousseau, Jean Jacques, The Social Contract, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968, p.73.
  4. See Hardin, Garrett, “the Tragedy of e Commons”, Science, 162, 1968, pp. 1243-1248.