ANTI-CAPITALISTIC FALLACIES AND CONSPIRATORS
This article deals with the book “In Defense of Capitalism: Debunking the Myths” (Management Books, March 2023), addressing unending claims against capitalism, which is “associated by the public with all that goes wrong globally,” examining the alternatives of capitalism, and providing insights about the popular perception of capitalism based on the results of a research conducted across 32 countries. Surely, capitalism does not need our praise or criticism but I thought it would be fair to have an opinion about these critiques.
In the last section of my article, I mention a study demonstrating public views about capitalism, including those from our country. The questions are highly interesting, particularly in that they give the impression that most of us do say one thing and do another, including the state apparatus! So, no one is of their word!
Born in Frankfurt Main, Germany, in 1957, the author, Rainer Zitelmann, studied history and politics and received a doctoral degree of “the Highest Honor” with his thesis titled “Hitler’s National Socialism,” written under the counseling of Professor Freiherr von Aretin. After managing various departments of Die Welt, he started his own company in 2000 and became a market leader in real estate consultancy in Germany. He received his second doctoral degree in 2016 with a thesis on “the psychology of the super-rich.” In the last few years, he wrote articles for and gave interviews to many leading media organs across the globe, including Le Monde, Le Point, Corriere della Sera, ll Giornale, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Welt, Der Spiegel, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, and National lnterest, as well as many platforms in China and Vietnam.
Below is a list of the 10 anti-capitalistic fallacies the author, Rainer Zitelmann, refutes with proof:
- Capitalism is responsible for hunger and poverty.
- Capitalism leads to growing inequality.
- Capitalism is responsible for environmental destruction and climate change.
- Capitalism repeatedly leads to new economic and financial crises.
- Capitalism is dominated by the rich: they set the political agenda.
- Capitalism leads to monopolies.
- Capitalism promotes selfishness and greed.
- Capitalism entices people to buy products they don’t need.
- Capitalism leads to wars.
- Capitalism means that there is always a danger of fascism.
Fallacy 1: “Capitalism is responsible for hunger and poverty.”
In a 2017 survey held by Ipsos MORI, only 11 percent of participants from Germany, compared to 49 percent of the Chinese participants, believed that absolute poverty had decreased globally. Absolute poverty is described based on the cost of a basket containing necessary goods and services. Anyone who cannot afford this basket is considered to be in “absolute” poverty. Before capitalism, the majority of people worldwide lived in excessive extreme poverty. In 1820, about 90 percent of the world’s population lived below the poverty line. Since the end of communism in China and other countries, the decrease in poverty has reached a rate unprecedented in any historical period. We need to look back in history to understand poverty. Many people believe that capitalism is the fundamental reason behind global poverty and hunger. In his book “Civilization and Capitalism” on social history between the 15th and 18th centuries, famous French historian Fernand Braudel wrote that famines were frequent even in Europe, which was doing relatively better than other countries at the time. Many people believe that what causes hunger and poverty is industrialization and urbanization. However, Braudel wrote that people living in rural areas suffer from higher poverty. German economic historian Werner Plumpe writes: “What created the proletariat was not developing trade or the industries but primarily the widespread unemployment in rural areas…” For example, in 1696-1697 a large-scale famine in Finland caused the death of around one-third or one-fourth of the entire population.
In Asia, the decision of the Chinese Communist Party to put capitalist principles into effect after the death of Mao Zedong in 1976 was the most significant factor. Never before in world history were hundreds of millions of people saved from poverty and elevated into the middle class within such a short time. Then, we can learn a lot about the ways of overcoming poverty from the case of China. As China made efforts toward identifying policies to achieve economic success, delegations made 20 visits to over 50 countries. The Chinese Government gave gradually more autonomy to state economic enterprises. The transition from a socialist economy run by the state to a market economy is a process that has been going on for years and is still not completed. Today, China has more dollar billionaires than all other countries except the USA.
Fallacy 2: “Capitalism leads to growing inequality.”
Studies reveal that individuals of low socioeconomic status generally describe “performance” as “completing a certain number of tasks within a certain amount of time with diligence.” For entrepreneurs, however, what matters the most is the quality of their ideas about the business work, their creativity, and associated innovations. The true function of the entrepreneur is the application of innovation to the national economy. Essentially, this is what constitutes the entrepreneurial effort and distinguishes it from the repetitive routine aspects of simple management and administration. If you take a look at the list of the world’s richest people, you’ll notice that they usually have a unique entrepreneurial idea and reach billions in market sales as consumers demand their products. Ideas and their timing are vital and whether the idea is personally developed by the entrepreneurs does not really matter. In many cases, even when they are the ones who came up with the idea, many entrepreneurs have not achieved great wealth due to their innovations. Those who get rich are the ones who have genius ideas about how such inventions can be turned into products that would meet the needs of many people at a very special moment in time.
A field study conducted by the author in 11 countries indicates that most people do not believe executives deserve their high salaries. This reflects the dominant employee mentality that prescribes pay should be determined by how long and how hard a person works. Participants hardly understand the fact that executive salaries are determined by the supply and demand in the high-caliber administrators market. This is what underlies the anger toward “social inequality” or “social injustice.” However, the concept of “fair distribution of social wealth” is deceptive in itself as there is no wealth produced “by the society.”Rather, wealth in a society is the sum of things produced and exchanged by individuals. In their book, Equal is Unfair, Don Watkins and Yaron Book quote economist Thomas Sowell who said: “If there was some wealth that existed somehow, or dropped into people’s lap so to speak, then, of course, there would be an ethical question of how much of a share each member of the society should take from it. However, wealth is produced. If we keep in mind the fact that wealth is something produced by individuals, then we would know that economic equality is an ideal, and thus, not have to justify economic inequality.”
True. Justice is not the same thing as equality. And, most of the time, those who dish out justice ignore what you deserve. Therefore, it is said that absolute justice cannot be achieved in this world. There are many great examples of this in our religion, for instance in the anecdote of Moses and Khidr, and even in some Nasreddin Hodja jokes. (https://ilkadimdergisi.net/arsiv/yazi/kapak-hz-musa-aleyhisselam-ve-hz-hizir-aleyhisselam-kissasi-3053)[BK1]
Employees always expect the organization to ensure justice, which, unfortunately, is an impossible task. It can only be ensured through the legislative power of the state where the organization exists. Because acting as the enforcer of laws or assuming the role of jurisdiction exceeds the authority and responsibility of an organization. But, of course, organizations implement the “fair process” and treat everyone justly. I believe if everyone is given a chance in case of a dispute and, when necessary, jurisdiction is resorted to, then the organization fulfills its responsibility. Also, there are ethics committees and disciplinary boards for internal matters. However, it should be mentioned that such committees are limited only to internal, work-related matters and the purpose of the organizations. The applications submitted by many people after they leave the organizations are not for these boards to handle.
Overall, if we gather participants from developing and developed countries in a pool, regardless of the significant differences among them, we may conclude that more inequality is associated with more happiness. Scientists explain this by the “factor of hope.” In developing countries, people usually regard inequality as an encouraging factor to improve their conditions. On the other hand, Nobel Prize winner economist Angus Deaton suggests that inequality always accompanies progress.
However, analyses performed by Walter Scheidel within a sample of a total of 26 countries reveal the fact that inequality is on the rise. But this is accounted for by the following causes:
-Assortative mating (the increasing economic similarity between married couples)
-Technological advancement
-Spread of the welfare state (the increase in social security expenses leads to less savings)
-Globalization (thus, everyone has similar consumption opportunities).
What is Victim Mentality?
The promise of a better life for future people than the people today have is no longer plausible. If people get the impression that labor and personal effort do not work anymore and that the road to social improvement is blocked for themselves and their children, then discontent will grow. Among the reasons behind it are poor education systems, state bureaucracy and taxes standing in the way of entrepreneurship, and people holding the state responsible rather than taking initiative. Politically, this attitude gives power to those who keep telling people that it is the foreign countries that should be blamed for this situation.
Another thing we see often is that the discontented individual is the complainant, prosecutor, and judge at the same time and I describe this situation as “brigandage.” For instance, someone who believes their pay is low starts showing passive resistance, and even sabotaging the business, saying “This is how much work they can get from me then,” when they can achieve no progress toward the resolution of the matter. This is not only utterly unfair but also worse than even an illegal strike. If such behavior starts spreading or is considered rightful then statutory authority and order will eventually diminish and anarchy will take over.
Fallacy 3: “Capitalism is responsible for environmental destruction and climate change.”
The popular capitalism and globalization critic, Naomi Klein, rejects such effective solutions as climate-friendly nuclear energy as he sees them to be a part of the capitalist framework, in the hope that a new kind of climate movement will complement the struggle against free trade although he doesn’t have a specific interest in climate change in the first place. However, in non-capitalist countries, environmental pollution has been a much more severe problem than it is in capitalist ones. For example, the nuclear disaster of Chornobyl, the rising carbon intensity in China, or the heavy pollution in Eastern Germany.
The correlation between economic growth and increasing resource consumption is getting weaker and weaker to an unprecedented extent in the age of dematerialization because companies continuously seek ways of making production more efficient, that is by using less raw material. In defense of nuclear power, Bill Gates said, “It is the sole carbon-free source of energy that we can use anywhere, 24/7.” The 2021 EPI report featured the view that Germany’s program to end nuclear power could hurt its environmental performance. For most climate activists, environmentalism is the excuse for their struggle against capitalism. However, the solution to the environmental problem lies in accepting the fact that it is the responsibility of the individuals.
Fallacy 4: “Capitalism repeatedly leads to new economic and financial crises.”
Anticapitalists keep waiting for the outburst of the major crisis that will lead to the ultimate collapse of capitalism. This is what they hoped during the crisis of 2008 or the global pandemic, which was the result of an external shock that had nothing to do with the structure of the capitalist economic system. The author distinguishes two kinds of crises: Those that result from normal economic cycles, and those that result from structural weakness, particularly the soft spots in the relationship between the state and economy. The biggest problem today is the latter. In normal economic crises, the best thing to do is to wait and trust the self-repairing powers of the system. At least it is better than economic stimulus programs, government actions, or printing money as these will have unwanted side effects in the long term although they yield good results in the short term. They will delay economic recovery and slow down economic growth in the long term. However, in severe crises whose roots extend deep into structural causes, it is needed to make more room for market forces through determined privatizations, tax reductions, and deregulation.
Today, the biggest problem is not that capitalism leads to crises but that the state and central banks intervene. German economist and libertarian thinker Roland Baader says: “When central banks act according to the principles of a planned economy and respond to the crisis using the same tools that led to the disaster, which are lower interest rates and higher money and loan supply, the crisis is only postponed and exacerbated. This prevents the correction of maladjustments in the production structure, only adding bigger ones to the mix.”
I believe two reasons led to the crisis that came after years of stability in our country:
1- The required changes were not implemented. For example, the current account deficit could never be prevented.
2- The recipe that got us out of the crisis was kept in effect without any changes after the crisis.
Fallacy 5: “Capitalism is dominated by the rich: they set the political agenda.”
The author objects to this dominant view by setting forth three claims:
1. The rich have political influence, but it is certainly not as powerful as the media, Hollywood movies, or some anti-capitalistically inclined academicians want to make us believe.
2. It is not rare that regulations that are in the interest of the rich also serve the interest of the weakest layers of society -for example, tax reductions.
3. Each person who believes that rich lobbyists influence politics more than they should while running after their own interests should defend less state intervention rather than more, that is, they should support capitalism more. After all, the more the state interferes with the economy through subventions and regulations, the bigger the impact of the lobbyists will be.
Those who wish to limit the impact of the rich should first of all limit the power of the state and the political class. After all, it is only more likely that the rich try to gain influence or bribe politicians when the state reinforces its control in distributing the economic resources. The relationship between money and politics is a specific problem in countries where the wealth is largely based on not entrepreneurial ideas but political influence, access to government leverage, and corruption.
I think this view is not valid for our country or our rich are generally religious and conservative. In our recent history, only the Ecevit government was given a memorandum by TÜSİAD (The Turkish Industry and Business Association).
Fallacy 6: “Capitalism leads to monopolies.”
Developing entirely new products and markets involves very different risks and activities than operating in established markets. Entrepreneurs lay their necks on the block only when they have hopes for substantially higher profits than normal profit margins.
Monopolies have disadvantages:
-High prices and fewer options for consumers,
-Lower motivation for reducing costs,
-Lower motivation for innovations and investments,
-Turning to the political power to protect acquired rights.
But they also have advantages:
-Low average costs thanks to scale economies,
-The possibility of using high profits for research and development,
-The encouragement that patenting creates for innovation and investment.
Yet these do not apply to all companies today. For example, monopolistic companies, such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google, are extremely innovative today. It is also possible for such companies to rapidly lose their monopoly as a result of technological innovations and new rivals. Companies such as Amazon, Google, Netflix, and Apple are molygopolies today. They get active in an increasing number of areas and compete with each other and other serious rivals in many market segments. Moreover, monopolies tend to be much less permanent than people think. As Tyler Cowen wrote in Big Business in 2019, it is only Microsoft that is still dominant among Kodak, IBM, Microsoft, Palm, Blackberry, Yahoo, AOL, DEC, General Motors, and Ford, the companies criticized for being monopolies in the USA in recent decades.
All in all, products that are more valuable to consumers are superior to the less valuable ones. Competition creates monopoly because the best prevails.
Moreover, those who criticize private sector monopolies accept public monopolies and consider them justified. On the contrary, public monopolies are the most dangerous ones. The state creates the real monopoly through protective tariffs, regulations that create privileged monopolies, occupational licensing regulations that make it harder to perform hundreds of jobs, and the antitrust law itself. In brief, we see today that a perfectly competitive free market is just a fantasy. In advanced countries or advanced industries in any country, an oligopolistic structure (a market where there are few sellers and many buyers) prevails.
Fallacy 7: “Capitalism promotes selfishness and greed.”
People associate the word “profit” with greed and other vile urges. Companies that fail to maximize their profit act in antisocial ways indeed, particularly toward their employees whose jobs they jeopardize.
The core of capitalism is not greed but empathy. However, in socialist systems, consumers are desperately left at the mercy of public enterprises that belong to the state, can never go bankrupt, and never pay the economic or legal consequences of their actions.
In presenting his suggestions on how capitalism should be reformed, British economist Paul Collier says that Gordon Gekko’s words “greed is good” from the movie Wall Street (1987 ) are the motto of modern capitalism. One of his counter suggestions is the direct representation of public interest in the board, which means each entrepreneurial decision should align with public interest in terms of sustainability, climate change, and gender, and citizens should assume the role of the police. However, these ideas have nothing to do with the market economy. Totalitarian systems try to repress the “I” and turn toward “us.” National socialist leaders, such as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, are such examples. For many of us, a system that dictates a purpose is preferable for an easy life philosophy. Socialist states promote a class-free society and give firm instructions such as what role each individual should play within it. Classic liberalism, on the other hand, is built upon the principle that neither the state nor the economy can make a binding decision for all citizens concerning the meaning of life. Each individual is free to make their own choice. So the state is not the FATHER as in Germany or the MOTHER as in Russia.
Greed is a moral problem. If someone wants to make money, they should find a compromise. The core of capitalism is not greed but empathy. However, in socialist systems, consumers are desperately left at the mercy of public enterprises that belong to the state, can never go bankrupt, and never pay the economic or legal consequences of their actions.
Fallacy 8: “Capitalism entices people to buy products they do not need.”
Capitalism produces many products that you or I may consider useless. However, it is a liberal and democratic system in that it allows people to make their own decisions about what they need and what they don’t. Yet German culturalist Thomas Hecken quite befittingly criticizes the fact that the buyers’ “real needs” are ignored and “pseudo needs” are artificially created in manipulative ways by the Market as a “highly manipulative discourse attempt.”
“When the culturally easily shapable nature of humans as imperfect beings is given, (contrary to all the others who all have been deceived) that only you know the authentic, real needs of people is a pointless and arrogant claim.”
Anticapitalistic critics of consumption reject all forms of advertisement. Of course, advertisements can and should manipulate. But this manipulation is absolutely not as omnipotent and subtle as critics argue. On the contrary, it is mostly ineffective.
Another consumption criticism is what is called “going out of date.” To make the problem bigger, the technical concept of being out of date and the psychological concept of becoming unfashionable are deliberately mixed. Anti-capitalists talk about a conspiracy theory where the business world systematically adopts a strategy of “planned going out of date,” that is, they purposely manufacture products so they break soon. However, each company knows that being revealed as a performer of such practices would have them all over the media and internet, which would damage their brand value and stock price. In the capitalist system, the customer has the last word. Moreover, the risk of being punished by the consumers for such practices is much higher than any short-term profit they may yield.
At the end of the day, some “materialist” entrepreneurs have improved the lives of millions of people while pursuing profit just like there are such cruel leaders as Hitler and Mao, who wanted to amend the world and save people but caused them endless suffering in pursuing that goal.
It is futile to expect people to be frugal without educating them. Regardless of how rich a person may become; they still may want more. This is stated by the Lord, Heaven forbid.
Fallacy 9: “Capitalism leads to wars.”
Above all else, wars were much more prevalent before the advent of capitalism, that is, the 19th century. After capitalism, wars have become less frequent.
There may be many reasons as to why countries go into war -economic reasons, geopolitical reasons, diplomatic threats, the leaders’ ambitions, and religion. But wars do no good to the national economy. For example, World War I harmed the German industry, which had even opened to world markets. Companies may make a lot of money by taking sides in military conflicts but that could happen in any system. Consequently, capitalism has reduced the economic significance of conquering foreign lands and the need for the gains doing so entails. In World War II, Hitler wanted to acquire more Life Space (Lebensraum) through war as the trade area tightened. But today, in modern economies, it is possible to acquire resources through mutual trade. Nations no longer need to conquer others’ lands to acquire wealth. Indeed, the free market and capitalism do not lead to peace. On the contrary, it is peace that leads to capitalism and economic development. The actual reason behind wars is conflict of interests.
Fallacy 10: “Capitalism means that there is always a danger of fascism.”
According to the Marxist view, capitalists strive to ensure sovereignty through “fascist dictatorship.” Even today, some believe that Hitler came to power only because big corporations supported him. However, this is only a myth. Initially, big companies supported anti-Nazis. On January 30, 1933, when Hitler came to power, the opportunistic business world tended toward the Hitler regime. Their belief that once Hitler came into power, he would tone down his radical program was a big fat illusion. Political power sometimes becomes unlimited power when it assumes ruling authority.
It was around the time of February 28, a pasha asked me if I knew Mr. Erdoğan, who was the Mayor of Istanbul back then. I was surprised to hear this question, and replied, “Sir, who wouldn’t know him? I am a citizen of Istanbul. Of course, I know and support him. As businessmen, we are all expected to recognize and support ‘those chosen by the people and the administrators’ anyway.”
Socialism Always Looks Good on Paper
The biggest mistake of anti-capitalists is to create a perfect social and economic order in their minds and then believe it could work in real life. Contrary to this, capitalism is not a system intellectuals made up but an economic order that developed organically over time. Organizations survive only as long as they’re successful. The system constantly changes and adapts. All socialist systems that rested on the philosophy of Marx -the Soviet Union, China, Yugoslavia, East Germany, North Korea, and Albania- have failed without exception. Although they have their differences, what’s common in all socialist systems is that entrepreneurs cannot decide what to produce, and, instead of prices being determined in the market, the economy is controlled by the state. Communist states that have realized this and could survive thanks to their geographical conditions have turned to capitalism -for example, China and Russia.
Eliminating economic freedom expands the state’s sphere of influence as politics and bureaucracy are no longer limited to political decision-making but also have their hands in economic decisions. While there is a powerful and influential elite next to the political elite in capitalist countries, there is a single unquestionable elite with a command of all areas in a state-controlled economy.
Surely, it is possible to imagine systems where freedom and socialism coexist. Moreover, it could be possible to have them coexist temporarily at best. For example, Britain and Sweden flirted with “democratic socialism” in the 1970s. The British Labour Party asked for a much more extensive role than ever for the state. But then the opponents of socialists convinced the majorities in Great Britain and Sweden to vote for themselves and put into effect capitalist reforms which reduced the state’s power over the economy through tax reductions, privatizations, and deregulations.
What is the public opinion about capitalism in Türkiye?
Based on the results of a survey conducted across 32 countries, the author presents some figures and graphics about what people living in Türkiye think about capitalism. Each edition of the book reports the results that concern the country where it is published. He designed an international survey for 32 countries in collaboration with the Allensbach Institute and Ipsos MORI to see more details on capitalism, which was then conducted between June 2021 and November 2022. In Türkiye, Ipsos MORI surveyed a sample group of a thousand people. A total of 32.894 people participated in the survey worldwide.
This study stands out among many others on capitalism with the level of detail of the questions and the method it employed:
· In the question set on Economic Freedom, the word ‘capitalism’ was never used. For example: “Since markets have failed multiple times, we need more state action in the economy.” “I support an economic system where the state makes the rules but ideally does not intervene in any other way.”
· The two other question sets did use the term ‘capitalism.’ Firstly, it was asked what that word was exactly associated with.
· The most important set of questions was the third one. Each participant was offered 18 statements about capitalism -for example, negative statements such as “capitalism is responsible for hunger and poverty,” and positive statements such as “capitalism has enabled better conditions for ordinary people in many countries.”
· Except for Russia and Chile, in all countries where the survey was conducted, when the capitalist economic system was described without the use of the word ‘capitalism,’ the approval of capitalism significantly increased or its rejection decreased.
· In Türkiye, on the other hand, even when the word ‘capitalism’ was not used, people had negative opinions about capitalism. However, in this case, the degree of rejection was not as high as it was when the word ‘capitalism’ was used.
· The two most approved statements clearly advocated the state’s intervention in the economy. 53 percent of the participants agreed with this statement: In addition to food and rent prices, the state should also determine the minimum and maximum wage. Otherwise, the system would be socially unjust. 45 percent believed this: Social justice matters more than economic freedom in an economic system.
· There were no differences among these people in terms of age group, gender, or education. Those with a monthly income below TRY 9 thousand were for a more powerful state and, again, even those with a monthly income above TRY 30 thousand supported the statist view.
· In Türkiye, unlike the pro-market moderate rightist participants in other countries, a skeptic attitude toward the market economy prevailed, regardless of where they stood across the political spectrum.
· The participants from Türkiye associated negative concepts with the word ‘capitalism.’ The average marking of such negative terms as greed, black economy, and corruption corresponded to 73 percent. On the other hand, positive terms such as welfare, progress, innovation, and freedom were supported by an average rate of 53 percent. Negative association was dominant in both the low- and high-income groups.
· In Türkiye, even among the right-wing participants, the association with ‘capitalism’ was not positive but medial.
· The participants were offered 18 statements (10 negative and 8 positive) on capitalism. The 10 most ticked off were negative ones. For example, 59 percent of Turkish participants agreed that “capitalism leads to a rise in inequality” while 58 percent believed “capitalism is a system where the rich rule and set the political agenda.” 57 percent thought that “capitalism promotes selfishness and greed,” 50 percent believed “capitalism is responsible for hunger and poverty,” and 48 percent agreed that “capitalism leads to wars.”
· Survey findings clearly reveal that the popular opinion in Türkiye is anti-capitalism.
Among the questions featured in the survey conducted for this book were these 2 statements offered to all participants by Ipsos MORI:
1-In reality, politicians do not get to make any decisions. They are puppets controlled by some powerful background forces.
2-Many things in politics can only be properly understood if you know that behind them there is a much larger scheme. However, many people are not aware of this fact.
Those who agreed with both statements were described as people with conspirator minds. Also, an anti-capitalism scale was created based on the answers participants gave to 6 of the 18 questions they were asked on capitalism. The participants who were against capitalism agreed at a significantly higher rate with the statements above than pro-capitalists did.
For Türkiye, the Overall Assessment Coefficient was 0.55 for support to state action. Only in 6 of the 32 countries, namely Poland, the USA, the Czech Republic, Japan, South Korea, and Sweden, a positive attitude toward economic freedom clearly prevailed. When the word “capitalism” was included, Sweden was eliminated, with only five countries remaining.
According to the overall survey results, the statements on capitalism that disturbed people were the following:
1. In capitalism, the rich rule and set the political agenda;
2. Capitalism leads to increasing inequality;
3. Capitalism promotes selfishness and greed;
4. Capitalism leads to monopolies.
While anti-capitalism was most noticeable among those standing on the left wing of the political spectrum, the fiercest pro-capitalists were located toward the right of the middle, the center. In most countries, age impacts the attitude toward capitalism. In many countries, young participants adopt a more critical approach toward capitalism than older participants. In most countries, the difference is not that big. However, the most significant exception is the USA, where participants younger than 30 adopt an attitude toward capitalism that varies between neutral and negative while participants over 60 are prominently pro-capitalist. In most countries, people with low incomes are anti-capitalist, or at best, have a neutral view of capitalism but those with high incomes are pro-capitalist or less critical of capitalism. However, in some countries, including Great Britain and Türkiye, the differences are quite small. On the contrary, the difference of opinion is much bigger in Bulgaria, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland among different income groups.
In all countries except for South Korea, Vietnam, Albania, Pakistan, and Russia, men have a more positive or less critical view of capitalism than women. Yet in some countries, gender plays a significant role in attitudes toward capitalism. In Poland, Bulgaria, Brazil, Chile, The Czech Republic, Sweden, Portugal, and Spain, men have a significantly more positive view of capitalism. In other countries, there is no distinct difference between men and women. For example, in South Korea, men and women hold an equally positive view of capitalism. In 24 of the 32 countries, differences between people who received only primary education and those who received higher education are in the same direction. People with a higher level of education lean more towards or have a less negative view of capitalism. This finding applied to all countries except South Korea, Vietnam, Poland, Montenegrin, Slovakia, and Türkiye. The difference was highly evident in Argentina, where people with lower levels of education adopted an attitude that varied between neutral and slightly negative toward capitalism those with higher levels of education had highly positive views of capitalism. With the only exception being Albania, it was found that anti-capitalists were much more inclined to adopt conspiracist attitudes than pro-capitalists in all countries. The analysis revealed a firm correlation between anticapitalistic attitudes and conspiracist thinking. In almost all 32 countries where the survey was conducted, anti-capitalists were more inclined toward conspiracist thinking than pro-capitalists.
Consequently, it is not possible to justify anti-capitalism by reason. We are facing a rejection that essentially rests upon feelings. This is a feeling of protest against the existing system and its pioneers are the intellectual elite. As it was first stated by the American political scientist Eric Voegel, Anti-capitalism, which has become a religion, satisfies the feelings of envy felt for the rich on the one hand, while turning personal failure into a structural problem in terms of the attitude psychologists describe as an external locus of control on the other. According to this view, capitalism is the source of not only all the evil in the world but also people’s problems and neuroses. Therefore, for the anti-capitalists, getting rid of all evil is not something that will happen in the afterworld, in heaven but a society where the private property of means of production is abolished would also feel like heaven.
Yet capitalism only claims to offer an answer to the question of how people can organize their economic relations to “provide a sufficient amount of goods and services at reasonable prices” to give as many people as possible a good life. Capitalism does not offer people the meaning of life; it doesn’t have such a claim. It neither promises to eliminate inequality nor to solve all worldly problems. It is not a utopist system. All anti-capitalistic experiments of the last century have failed. Therefore, the only amendatory arrangement the author suggests is that the state keeps its hands off social and economic affairs as much as possible. Capitalism is not a problem but a solution.
Let me confess at this point. When I was a student at İEL (*a prominent high school in Türkiye), our Deputy Headmaster, who also taught religion, the late Mr. Ahmet Güneş told us that liberalism* was a good system. However, I didn’t understand why he said it, and I undervalued this statement.
*The world view that advocates liberty of conscience, belief, and thought for all and adheres to free thinking. In economy, it refers to the political and economic doctrine that supports individual freedom, and free competition among economic powers, and where the state keeps out of the economic relations among individuals, classes, and nations.
So, let’s get back to the survey. It is worthwhile to reflect on the answers. Only 7 out of the 32 countries were identified as “pro-capitalistic” whereas 9 had a neutral attitude toward capitalism or displayed no clear advocacy or hostility and 16 countries, that is, 50 percent of all the countries that participated in the field study, stood out with their anti-capitalistic attitudes. Among the top five claims most agreed with were: capitalism is a system where the rich rule and set the political agenda (31 out of 32 countries); capitalism increases inequality (29 countries); capitalism promotes selfishness and greed (28 countries), and capitalism leads to monopolies (25 countries).
Poland, a former communist country, stood As the world’s most pro-capitalistic country while the most anti-capitalistic countries were Türkiye, followed by Bosnia-Herzegovina and Russia. One of the most interesting and significant findings of the survey was the highly positive relation identified between anti-capitalistic attitudes and the tendency to believe in conspiracies. In other words, in Türkiye and other countries alike, the tendency to believe in conspiracies and adopt conspiracist thinking is systematically higher among those who decidedly display an anti-capitalistic attitude.
However, we have a capitalistic economic order in our country. Our economic management is quite liberal. Of course, I say this in the context of laws and regulations; I am sure there are exceptions in actuality. For example, there are interventions in privatizations due to various considerations worldwide, just like in our country. But in the light of the survey data, regardless of whether we are women/men, leftists/rightists/liberals, rich/poor, or educated/uneducated, the majority of us in Türkiye were found to be anti-capitalists. There must be a conceptual reason behind this. Could it be that in every period, the state was our father and that nowadays we have been promoted into a big family from being subjects of the sultan? The people seem to have left the welfare responsibility to the state, driven by a fatalist approach. We, the Turks, have one of the most deep-rooted state traditions in human history. This state tradition, that is, the view of the eternal state, is a primary factor that distinguishes the Republic of Türkiye from other Muslim countries. Indeed, since the early Ottoman Empire the concepts of justice, law, and truth, as well as the “way of the Almighty,” have imposed the idea of an egalitarian and fair society to the people and instilled in them the idea of holding confidence in the state and the state itself above individual identity. The “learned helplessness” imbued by the Eastern culture could also be an effective factor. In this case, the people have internalized the belief that they can never make a difference through their achievements but could lead a safe life only through the assistance and management of the state.
All in all, although there are more countries with anti-capitalistic tendencies, starting with our country, there has been no successful anti-capitalist experiment so far. As Madsen Pirie, the President of the Adam Smith Institute in London, said: Perhaps capitalism could slowly leave the stage in some countries but there will always be others that will rediscover it and succeed.
I remembered my impressions of China. It is an interesting example where a communist party is in power but a market economy is implemented. For me, China’s success in recovery is my most valuable observation that confirms the author’s ideas.
Note: This open-source article may be quoted by mentioning the author. No copyright required.