Story:
Identity, Transgression & Connection: Capitalism And Sales

The idea that capitalism can be "re-invented" is an invitation to hubris, and is based on an assumption that a social process is amenable to directed choice.  In classical literature, hubris leads to destruction and certainly there is a large chorus forever singing a song of capitalism's demise.

But the question of re-inventing capitalism, in its audacity, is also characteristic of the fundamental genius of capitalism as a social system.  Not for nothing did Marx himself welcome a bourgeois revolution as a way beyond the prison of feudalism and hierarchy.  The idea of capitalism is very much about the idea that freely associating human actors can build lives and organizations as they see fit.

The MIX Brief for the "Long-Term Capitalism Challenge" identifies three subjects that are of concern to the sponsors of the program: principles or ethics, patience or time horizon, and lastly "the social" or community, which although being today's buzzword is still a good proxy for the problem of atomization of relationships .

These three challenges, principles, patience and community, are core problems under capitalism because they are derived from capitalism's revolutionary nature.  The three challenges are such because capitalism as social organization explicitly casts aside traditional restraints of ethics, perspective and community.  Insofar as traditional ethics, perspective and community were based on injustice, exploitation and rigidity, capitalism is therefore a welcome door to freedom and fulfillment.

But despite capitalisms undoubted benefits, unrestrained capitalism is under varying levels of attack from multiple groups. Traditionally-minded societies reject the social atomization which may come with freedom and capitalism.  Western middle-classes are under increasing pressure and some have speculated may be tempted to authoritarian solutions.  And in “almost-developed nations”, the worst cases of unrestrained development, named “turbo-capitalism” or “savage capitalism”, make easy targets for those who believe capitalism is inherently flawed and unjust.

Can the question posed by the MIX challenge can even be answered?  The question suggests that further voluntaristic acts, according to some winning formula, might provide the ideological and practical basis for "reforming capitalism".  And such a reformed, "greener", "more friendly" capitalism would meet the challenges listed.  Without facetiousness, it would be true to say that under such conditions, the end of history, or at least economic history anyway, would have been reached.

The purpose of this "hack" is not to attempt to directly propose a program meeting the requirements of the challenge.  Instead, this hack asks a question about our understanding of capitalism itself.  And perhaps an answer to this question will make the development of any program a little easier.

Capitalism is usually defined in phrases which focus on the stock of capital itself, as in "investment in and ownership of the means of production" etc.  It is worthwhile however to consider a focus instead on the interrelationship between actors under capitalism.  With a focus on interrelationships instead of the stocks of capital themselves, the raw genius and nature of capitalism becomes the subject of our discussion.

What then is the difference between capitalism and other modes of economic organization?  What is the difference which will help us better address the three questions of the MIX challenge?

Capitalism is characterized by free contract.  Even the term "free enterprise" does not fully capture the idea that under capitalism, relationships are freer, and can be more freely made and broken, than in any other mode of organization.  And it is this free contract and free association that is the sometimes obscured genius of capitalism.

Let's explore the idea of free contract in more depth. Specifically, free contract requires "sales", typically an activity assayed by professional sales people, but also by many senior executives in any function.  We come now to the strangest moment in this hack, which is the suggestion that the profession of sales, and the act of selling, is at the core of the social organization of capitalism.  And further, our lack of understanding of sales impedes our understanding of capitalism, and thus any answers to the MIX challenge.

How is it possible to claim that sales is not well understood under capitalism? Certainly there are innumerable anecdotal books on the topics of sales, but a true theory of sales seems to be missing.  Apparently there are no "faculties of sales" or "chairs of sales", except of the most pedestrian kinds, in any business schools.  The head of one top-ranked business school reportedly considered establishing such as chair, but was warned against it, because to do such a thing would be to sully the reputation of the school.