If, upon hearing the term “capitalism» someone thinks about inequality, poverty, financial crises and environmental destruction, then his book Rainer Hitelmann In Defense of Capitalism (Eurasia Publishing, translated by Vajos F. Daphos) may upset him by its title alone. So is its content: a German historian, sociologist and author (as well as a businessman) argues on the basis of historical and research data that the “entrepreneurial economy” is not only “the most successful economic system in History”, but also the one that reduced hunger in a world that has mostly benefited the environment, it doesn’t cause economic ruin until it agrees to government intervention, and it doesn’t cause wars as often as it used to.

Characteristically, Chitelman shows that the percentage of the world’s population living in absolute poverty has drastically declined over the past two centuries. Inequality, writes Germanos, is unrelated to capitalism because the economy is not a zero-sum game in which the rich get richer at the expense of the rest: instead of pre-existing, wealth is produced and profits are the result of entrepreneurial innovation. . As for the environmental implications, recalling Chernobyl and the carbon emissions of communist countries, Chitelman suggests thinking about renewable energy sources developed under capitalism, as well as the “dematerialization” trend, in which a simple smartphone contains about 35 devices that, when would consume many times more raw materials.

In school, university, and the media, we hear so much about the ills of capitalism, but not enough about the ills of socialism.

“At school, at the university and in the media,” says Reiner Hitelmann, “we hear so much about the ills of capitalism, but there are not enough defenses that can be found in my book. As if we don’t hear enough about the ills of socialism. I lecture on this topic all over the world and I always ask the audience the same question: did you hear in school about the greatest socialist experiment in history, Mao’s “Great Leap Forward”? 45 million people died, but few people know about it. I also ask if they know that before capitalism, in 1820, 90% of the world’s population lived in absolute poverty, and today this figure is less than 10%. I think such an event should be heard.”

Chitelman himself reads, as he says, anti-capitalist books: “Not only he Marx and his Engels, but also Piketty, Zizek and others. The most recent was Bernie Sanders’s book, It’s Not Wrong to Be Angry at Capitalism. “But I doubt,” the author continues, “that anti-capitalists will read my book. Someone asked me, I think they will be convinced by my arguments, I said no, because they won’t even buy it, when I post this on social networks, people write “this is nonsense” without reading. So I wrote it mainly for those who may not be as sentimental pro-capitalist as I am, but are open to the facts.”

Do you know how long you waited in the… line in East Germany to get a car? From 12 to 17 years old.

The economic arguments of Rainer Hitelmann lie at the heart of classical and neoclassical economic thought. Enterprises, writes the German historian, should be free to determine what and how much to produce, based in their decisions on prices set by the market, and consumers will judge their success. Countries that have followed this principle by adding “more market” to the “test tube” of their economies (eg Vietnam, Poland, China) now enjoy more prosperity than those that have added “more state”, such as Venezuela. But although these are the main functions of capitalism, there is one important aspect of it that Rainer Hitelmann does not particularly touch on: the law of supply and demand, which was sharply criticized not only by socialists. For example, political philosopher and Harvard professor Michael Sandel summarized this law as follows: during a snowstorm, the price of shovels will rise at a time when people need them most.

“Which would be better?” Chitelman responds to our respective comment. “Forcing a government official to decide who gets the shovel and who doesn’t? This was done in a planned economy when there were not enough shovels. In a free economy, others will start producing them, as happened with the coronavirus pandemic in developed countries: at first, masks were expensive, and then, when others saw that they could be produced, the price dropped. The alternative is for politicians to decide how to share goods, which also takes time. In a planned economy, people had to stand in lines to get something. Some paid people to stand in line for them. Do you know how long you had to wait in East Germany to get a car?” the author asks. We answer him hypothetically: from two to five years. “Everyone gets this question wrong,” he says. “From 12 to 17 years old. In West Germany, if you had enough money, you bought a car and left.”

But what about not cars, but health and education? Why should access to such goods depend on money? Why should medical research depend on the popularity and profitability of its subjects? “First, I think that even in the US only the rich have access to health care,” he replies, and continues: “I would, however, separate health from education. I am not entirely against public schools and universities, however in many cases they are of poor quality. Public education in the US sucks, while private schools and universities are much better. Nothing is really free—public education is paid for by taxpayers, not God. As is health. So the question is whether they should be paid through taxes or privately. If you were to ask me now what kind of insurance system I prefer, I would say that the state forces citizens to have insurance, and then they turn to private companies and decide which ones they are willing to pay and under what conditions. People have to take certain risks. Of course, a complex operation, cancer, should be partially covered by insurance. But someone doesn’t need to get paid when they have a cold and need a nasal spray.”

I understand young people looking for utopia, I was a maoist in my youth

In addition to arguing for the primacy of the market, Chitelman cites in the book the results of a large study he conducted with the Allensbach Institute and Ipsos MORI to document the recruitment of capitalism in 32 countries. . Greek public opinion is dominated by anti-capitalism. As the saying goes, “only 15% of Greek respondents admit that ‘capitalism has improved the living conditions of ordinary people in many countries’, while 38% believe that ‘capitalism is responsible for hunger and poverty’.” As Hitelman explains, such percentages appear in Germany as well. But what exactly impressed the author, especially with regard to Greek measurements? “They didn’t really surprise me,” he replies. “I think anti-capitalism in Greece has to do with its traditions and history. I get the impression that your political system of the last decades, of course, is not called socialist, but to a certain extent it is. And not only with SYRIZA in the government. Even under the New Republic, he was a bit socialist. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve heard that the ruling party decides who gets the job in the country. Even in the private sector, it was sometimes important to be a member of a party that, when it came to power, made sure to offer jobs to its supporters. It reminds me of socialist systems where party connections were more important than professional achievements. I have also heard that someone has been collecting hundreds of signatures for years to get permission for a large building project. This reveals a lot of red tape, and at the same time, it is difficult for financial services, if I am not mistaken, to collect taxes. Thus, to the outside observer, Greece is a strange case of a state that seems too big and bureaucratic in some areas and too small in others.

Your political system is not called socialist, but to some extent it is. Not only with SYRIZA, even under the New Democracy.

He also says that he has heard of cases of corruption and nepotism in Greece, as well as a general belief of citizens in the power of the state, which has little to do with right or left beliefs. “I met something similar in Argentina,” the German historian comments and explains: “They don’t consider themselves socialists either, but they really believe in the state. It’s a way of thinking they’re starting to rethink. The other day I was giving a lecture to a young audience in Argentina. There was a young man sitting in the front row, not particularly handsome, so I thought maybe he wasn’t in a relationship. I asked him, “Do we have a girlfriend?” He replied, “No, I didn’t.” “Would you like to have a very beautiful girl?” “Yes,” he said, and laughed. Who do you think will bring you this? Government; State;”. He laughed and replied that he did not think so. “Who is responsible for finding her?” “I think it’s me,” he said. Exactly the same applies not only to his girlfriend, but also to money and other important things. Don’t expect them from the government, but from yourself. That’s my philosophy.”

After his research, he concluded that “for many people, anti-capitalism is an emotional problem. It is a pervasive sense of protest against the existing order.” According to Chitelman, the gap between the facts about capitalism and what the world thinks about it is ultimately so wide that it becomes clear that “anti-capitalism is not based in the realm of reason or rationality – it is primarily a rejection based on sentimentality.” ‘. We ask him whether the emotional attitude is also verifiable and valid, especially when it comes from people who cannot have memories of socialist regimes and whether they should not necessarily compare their experience with what they did not experience. Perhaps we should be concerned about so many negative feelings towards capitalism.

“Absolutely,” concludes the author. “I am the last person who does not understand this attitude. When I was young, I was a Maoist. I understand young people looking for a utopia. They are not attracted to those who want to maintain the status quo, which is good. If it wasn’t for the new generations changing things, it would be terrible. The only question is in what direction. I don’t want the status quo either – don’t mistake me for someone who thinks everything is fine. The young people are right, but there have also been dangerous political movements against the youth. National Socialism was also one of them, and many at the time hoped for a better society. We know what the result was. Therefore, it is important to talk with young people about History.”