If sufficiency is the goal of society what does that mean for capitalism? Are the concepts of a sufficiency economy and capitalism compatible ? Lets start the discussion by first clarifying what we mean by sufficiency economy and by capitalism. By a sufficiency economy we mean an economic system whose goal is first foremost the fostering of sufficiency and by sufficiency we mean a sense of completeness. By capitalism, we generally mean an economic system wherein the means of production are largely privately owned; supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are determined mainly by private decisions and competitive market forces rather than through a planned economy; and profits are distributed to owners of capital invested in a given enterprise. The goal of capitalism is generally thought to be the accumulation of capital (e.g. objects of value – money and things).
First off, the two systems appear to have very different goals. The goal of capitalism is to accumulate money or stuff and the goal of a sufficiency economy is to expand sufficiency. So if the goals of each system are any judge of compatibility, capitalism and a sufficiency economy are not a match.
However, if we take a broader view of capitalism and suggest that “capital” could include human capital, of which perhaps the most important aspect is sufficiency, then we could say that capitalism as defined could be consistent with a sufficiency economy. Instead of maximizing money and things, the capitalist system in this case would maximize sufficiency.
But what about the essential tools of the capitalist economy (money, prices, property, private enterprise, and trading). These tools are extremely effective at managing complex human decisions but are they consistent with a sufficiency economy? My response would be, yes, as long as the tools themselves do not become the goal. There is nothing inherent in the tools themselves that makes them inconsistent with sufficiency; they are simply objects or processes. It is the value that we give to them today that is the problem. We are attached to money, we are attached to property and we are attached to certain ways of doing things. Today, money is not simply a measure of wealth, it has become wealth itself and at the same time it has become a symbol of our scarcity mentality (see writing on money). The same may be said of property or market processes. Possessing these things or adhering to these processes doesn’t bring about sufficiency but they are useful tools for efficiently exchanging goods and services and for investing in activities that build sufficiency. If we can manage to use money, property and market mechanisms without becoming attached to them, they become useful tools for survival, self-expression, education, generosity and self-reliance; all of which can contribute to sufficiency.
To many it may be an anathema to substitute human capital (sufficiency) for financial capital/physical capital and still call it capitalism. And to others it may be completely counter to human nature to base an economic system on sufficiency rather than greed. In response, I would argue that greed is highly over-rated and is essentially leading us to ruin, so to base an economic system on it is unwise. Moreover, a focus on greed as a main motivator for human activity simply ignores the variety of values that drive human society and human nature. Lastly, it doesn’t matter how you get to a sufficiency economy, whether it is a capitalist, planned, or a mixed economy, it is the goal that is the key. The good thing about a free market system is that it allows for a higher degree of free choice than a planned economy and free choice is an important foundation for sufficiency. Sufficiency is about self-reliance and self-expression, which entails the freedom to choose.
So what does a sufficiency economy look like? Well, it would still use money and people would still buy things for survival and pleasure but the accumulation of money and things would be secondary to the the pursuit of sufficiency, which we have said is best done through the creative application of our talents and abilities (see writings on brilliance). We would still have to pay for things and balance the books. We would still compete to sell or buy things, although there would likely be a gradual evolution to a more cooperative approach to production and a shift from competition with others to competition with the self. HOWEVER the realization of sufficiency would be the ultimate goal of economic activity not the accumulation of money or stuff. This doesn’t mean that a sufficiency economy wouldn’t have rich people. There would still be rich people but the riches would be a side effect of using one’s talents and abilities and not of greed and hoarding. And riches would be secondary to new social markers of success like happiness, generosity or creativity.