Illegitimi non carborundum

The Poverty of
Hypothetical Situations,
Anachronism, and
Descriptivism
There are three types of disputations in
the varied political discussions I have had
which have both agitated me and stirred my
creativity. As a left-thinker I have usually
heard these remarks, at least when directed at
me, emanating from those who would either
defend capitalism or attack socialism. I do not
claim any sort of prescience or special ability
on this subject or any other, but merely wish to
share with you the experiences I have had, and
my reaction to them.
The first polemical technique stems, and
never strays far from a hypothetical what
if. Example: In a given revolutionary society
where profit is no longer a motive, what
would induce anyone to retain an occupation
considered undesirable? What confronts us
immediately with such a statement are the
assumptions embedded in this thought, such
as that profit motive is to a great extent the
natural mode of human production, and all
people work under this very drive today. These
hypothetical situations are sometimes very
beneficial for elaborating any given vision, but
the hypothetical question itself is an invitation
to assume the same ideals as the questioner.
Before proceeding, we would need to unpeel
any implanted assumptions which present
themselves.
The second technique usually takes the form
of an appeal to universal historical truths or
anachronisms. These involve projecting the
masses’ ideals, thought patterns, and desires
of today’s capitalist society onto the past. It
is easy to make historical misstatements,
but often those who advocate for capitalism
seem to locate within history all aspects of
capitalism. For example, locating free market
values in the Middle Ages where a peasant
struggled for the economic freedom to sell
at the highest prices the market could allow.
Whether the ‘free market,’ or any of the
systemic conditions allowing for capitalism
existed has no place. In such an argument.
Drawing from history is a most powerful tool,
but trying to make all of history think like a
contemporary investment capitalist is not only
plain wrong, it again takes assumptions about
human nature for granted.
The third rhetorical tool often used in political
discussions is just as potentially useful, but
which is easily used to confuse any more
fundamental issue. This is the direct form
of the above two, taking formulations and
opinions of today’s society and asserting mere
existence as proof of correctness. We could
call this argument Social Darwinism and be
done with it, but that would be giving too
much credit. The example, which I’m fairly
certain every anti-capitalist has heard before,
that sure, this system has its problems, but it
is the best there is, just look at how pervasive
it is. The one to one correspondence of the
domination of a certain system over the world
and moral/economic/societal excellence is
so utterly fallacious it falls into the mythical.
Nonetheless we must maintain caution not
to be dragged into a discussion whereby
we accept a correspondence of this type
unwittingly.
Thus we have limited our political challenger
to more material realms, grounding them
in at least a world where everyone does not
think like them; where the current economic,
political, and social system is neither universal
nor everlasting.
But what constitutes a sound premise for
expounding our anti-capitalist views on how
human society is flawed and how then, it
should otherwise be? Of course, given the
above critique, I stick to what the contention
should not be. We should not make an appeal