The Dangerous Illogic of Capital

The Logic of Capital Versus the Logic of Human Development

Lebowitz starts this section by saying "there are many examples of how the logic of capital and the logic of human development are opposed." Isaac's comments after the last blog about the opposition between capital's focus on the nuclear family (really a concept of family based upon the source of income) and the need to focus on the larger, human family is one such example. The many ways in which our individual, personal development actually runs into contradiction with our long hours and often very constricting job parameters is another.

But Lebowitz chooses to focus on the conflict between capitalism and nature. If we see human development as something that should be in harmony with nature, then it is fairly obvious that the competitive drive to take over the globe for the sake of profit does not meet that need. The current turn toward the green economy seems disingenous at best. Celebrities buying green indulgences to make up for their travel emissions may be taken as an innocent enough gesture, but it's not doing anything to turn around the rapid destruction of our environment on every front. Neither, as the latest Progressive argues, is the rush to build more hybrid cars, which leads to more "guilt free" driving and arguably more carbon emissions in the long run. And then there's Obama on TV every hour or so arguing for the concept of "clean coal." Would we hear that argument from that man if he didn't run a country driven by profits?

I grew up in an oil town, and 35 years ago, we were concerned about the oil crisis. Manufactured or not, we knew it had real roots. My father would explain to me that his company was researching alternative fuels because these petrochemicals wouldn't last forever. Of course, he also confided that his company was not going to stop pushing fossil fuels until it became more profitable to sell renewable resources. All these years later, we're building speculative capital out of such schemes, but what good it will do is unclear, and any such measures may already be too late.

In a sane world, wouldn't we take the reins on this global environmental crisis by focusing on alternative sources of energy and letting the oil companies go by the wayside? Wouldn't we stop clearcutting the majority of our forests today and start looking at ways to make better use of all of the materials we have at hand?

The logic of the day--on every front I can think of--demands that we put human (including environmental needs) above those of industry. This system simply won't allow it. In terms of what we need for our development, the tail is definitely wagging the dog.

That's no way to run a world, and if we can't figure out a way to do better, then the choice may be taken right out of our hands. I choose to believe there's still time.

Lebowitz writes:

The logic of capital versus the logic of human development


36. There are many examples of how the logic of capital and the logic of human development are opposed. Think, for example, about nature and the environment. Human beings need a healthy environment and need to live with nature as the condition for the maintenance of life. For capital, though, nature—just like human beings—is a means for making profits. Treating the earth and nature rationally (from the perspective of human beings), Marx noted, is inconsistent with “the entire spirit of capitalist production, which is oriented towards the most immediate monetary profit.” Capitalism thus develops while “simultaneously undermining the original sources of all wealth—the soil and the worker.”


37. The logic of capital, in fact, is the enemy of the logic of human development. Standing opposite capital’s goal is “the worker’s own need for development.” But, if capital and workers are pressing in the opposite direction in capitalism, what determines the outcome?