Friday, July 25, 2014
RE PIKETTY CAPITAL INTRODUCTION
Page 1, he already shows off some deep misunderstandings, going in.
He trots out utilitarianism, from the French Revolution, in the opening quote. Social distinctions can be based on many other things besides wealth, or even common utility going back to Helvetian Enlightenment utilitarianism, a species of social and political theory based on self interest (But the French couldn't talk politics in the 17th Century.).
He thinks that democratic societies are based on meritocratic values. I wish they were, but they are not. See for example the short discussion in The Credential Society, and doubtless there are countless other works on the subject.
He tends to see his notion of capitalism itself as inherently identified with his notion of democracy, and thinks that an inherently democratic capitalism has been allowed to take over democracy itself, whereas capitalism is not necessarily identified with democracy, meritocratic or not.
Braudel, for example considered that non democratic capitalism had existed at least since the middle ages I believe. One of his books, I think, is called Civilization and Capitalism 1500 to 1800. His notion of capitalism thus also predates the Enlightenment by well over 100 years.
On the other hand, were it, capitalist democracy, as Piketty describes, moreover, he would then be in the classic liberal economists' trap, criticizing an outcome that laissez faire 'meritocratic' democratic capitalism itself has brought into being. On page 1 of the Introduction, he is already on the horns of a terrible dilemma.
He trots out utilitarianism, from the French Revolution, in the opening quote. Social distinctions can be based on many other things besides wealth, or even common utility going back to Helvetian Enlightenment utilitarianism, a species of social and political theory based on self interest (But the French couldn't talk politics in the 17th Century.).
He thinks that democratic societies are based on meritocratic values. I wish they were, but they are not. See for example the short discussion in The Credential Society, and doubtless there are countless other works on the subject.
He tends to see his notion of capitalism itself as inherently identified with his notion of democracy, and thinks that an inherently democratic capitalism has been allowed to take over democracy itself, whereas capitalism is not necessarily identified with democracy, meritocratic or not.
Braudel, for example considered that non democratic capitalism had existed at least since the middle ages I believe. One of his books, I think, is called Civilization and Capitalism 1500 to 1800. His notion of capitalism thus also predates the Enlightenment by well over 100 years.
On the other hand, were it, capitalist democracy, as Piketty describes, moreover, he would then be in the classic liberal economists' trap, criticizing an outcome that laissez faire 'meritocratic' democratic capitalism itself has brought into being. On page 1 of the Introduction, he is already on the horns of a terrible dilemma.
No comments:
Post a Comment