Capitalism and Its Critics: A Long-Term View

At any point in time, very different and even contradictory assessments of capitalism have coexisted or competed, which is why it is hard to generalize. If we do nevertheless generalize, we may conclude that over the centuries in Europe, the rise, the breakthrough, and finally the triumph of capitalism have taken place in an intellectual and mental climate of pronounced Kapitalismuskritik, or criticism of capitalism. If this conclusion is correct, one may wonder why these skeptical and critical sentiments and convictions have not hindered or handicapped the real rise of European or European-sponsored capitalism more than is apparently the case. An achievement with a bad conscience? A typical contradiction between basis and superstructure? A century-old hypocrisy not unknown in the history of public morale and noble principles? A European Sonderweg?

One can offer a more constructive hypothesis and hold that the widespread criticism of capitalism has contributed to its permanent change and reform - as well as indirectly and inadvertently to its survival and success - over the centuries. One could show in detail that ideas and discourses of Kapitalismuskritik, once they managed to be translated into social and political energy, have led to reforms that improved and civilized capitalism, making it more compatible with human needs. This has enhanced its social acceptance and ultimately its capability to survive. It is neither guaranteed nor excluded that this mechanism will continue to work in the future.

Sometimes the difficult and ambivalent concept "capitalism" reminds me of the similarly difficult and ambivalent concept "modernity".²⁶ Both concepts relate to an impressive multitude of very different empirical phenomena, with respect to which one sometimes wonders why they should be assembled under one and the same conceptual roof. Both are rather abstract constructs, which were originally created by relating them to basic value judgements. Both share particular temporal structures in that they try to make present phenomena intelligible by differentiating them from past and future phenomena; from objects of remembrance on the one hand, and from objects of imagination on the other. In one case (modernity), hope and the expectation of progress stimulated the conceptual construction, in the other case (capitalism), it was criticism. In both cases, concepts emerged from acts of evaluation, but this did not prevent them from becoming instruments of sophisticated analysis.

The comparison with the concept "modernity" highlights the fact that the concept "capitalism" not only serves the purpose of understanding and interpreting present realities, but also serves as a conceptual foil on which very different expectations, anxieties, and hopes can be projected in order to be articulated, asserted and, if possible, accomplished. That means that the concept may tend to change the reality that it helps to represent and understand: The concept as a sort of intervention.