Capitalism: Outward Form Versus Essence

Here's something to think about concerning the essential nature of capitalism.

Many contemporary egalitarian liberals (like Stiglitz) hold that the 'golden age' of capitalism was the immediate post WWII period, especially the 1950s, since it was a time of very low unemployment if not 'full employment', economic growth, high union membership, and lower levels of economic inequalities in income and wealth. None of this needs disputing. In comparison, the present neoliberal era of capitalism, which roughly began in the late 1970s with, first, the election of Thatcher in the UK and, then, a little later with the election of Reagan in the US, is far from being a golden age of capitalism. This is largely because of, on the one hand, growing inequalities in income and wealth along class lines, meaning that a greater level of income and wealth has been going into the hands of the capitalist class at the expense of the broad working and so-called middle classes; and, on the other, the way the state has been maneuvered by the capitalist class to advance its own economic class interests at the expense of the economic interests of both the broad working and so-called middle classes. This neoliberal era of capitalism can nevertheless be summed up as a golden age for the capitalist class but not for the broad working and so-called middle classes. Indeed, with respect to the broad working class, with its twin burdens of increased labour intensity and stagnant wages, plus the ever-present threat of unemployment, it's certainly not a golden age for it.

Now, for egalitarian liberals, what's required is a rewinding of the neoliberal version of capitalism back to its post WWII golden age, as this would be a 'better' and 'fairer' form of capitalism. For this would fix everything, economically speaking.

But here's the rub. While outwardly speaking this would be a 'better' and 'fairer' form of capitalism, would the economic system of capitalism be essentially different at a fundamental class level? Given Marx's scientific analysis of capitalism in volume one of Capital, the answer is no. This is because capitalism at its essence is an economic system based on capitalist oppression and exploitation of wage-workers. Accordingly, capitalism cannot be what it is without this particular oppressive and exploitative class relation being in place, as it constitutes its very social foundations as a particular economic system.

So, the point is this, for egalitarian liberals (like Stiglitz). While one focuses on the outward form(s) of capitalism, it's a mistake to overlook its fundamental or essential class nature, as this is (if we accept Marx's scientific analysis of capitalism) the root causal source of all its outwardly looking problems - such as the growing inequalities in income and wealth between the different economic classes. Another way of putting this: one's only looking at the symptoms and not the causes. So, in order to properly address the symptoms, then (as is often said) one needs to address their root causes.

It should also be noted that egalitarian liberals are only interested in changing the outward forms of capitalism, not its inner-nature. Thus, whether intentionally or not, they are engaging in the preservation of an essentially oppressive and exploitative class system.

NB. This discussion of mine has been couched in terms of Marx's appearance/essence distinction, which at an ontological level is simply a distinction between how the phenomena of the world appears to us (appearance) and how they essentially are at their inner-core (essence). This distinction of Marx's also implies there is a discrepancy between the way things appear and what they essentially are; hence, appearance and essence don't coincide with one another. Finally, it's also an epistemological distinction in that the essence of the phenomena of the world is the causal foundation of how these phenomena of the world appear to us (a very Lockean conception).