[Because Capitalism] Is Unimaginative And Ursula Le Guin Is Not

Historically, capitalists claim that a free market economy promotes ingenuity. That the competition and consumer demands of capitalism inspires creativity, but regulations hamper the development and exchange of these creative goods and services. 

And maybe that was true in the earlier stages of US capitalism, back when corporations were project-oriented. Back when they applied for individual government charters whenever they wanted to develop something new and then disbanded once that project was completed. Those long-ago days before they were behemoth entities with religious freedom and 1st amendment rights.  

But today, corporations are born to exist in always-growing perpetuity, and capitalists aren’t concerned about creativity—at least not creativity in the way you’re probably thinking about it. 

For most of us, defining creativity is impossible without referencing the imagination. But in one of my favorite essays, “The Operating Instructions,” speculative fiction author Ursula Le Guin describes the difference between creativity and imagination, and how capitalism has destroyed the denotation of the former: 

“In the marketplace, the word creativity has come to mean the generation of ideas applicable to. practical strategies to make larger profits. This reduction has gone on so long that the word creative can hardly be degraded further. I don’t use it any more, yielding it to capitalists and academics to abuse as they like. But they can’t have imagination. Imagination is not a means of making money. It has no place in the vocabulary of profit-making…The imagination is an essential tool of the mind, a fundamental way of thinking, an indispensable means of becoming and remaining human.”

Currently, capitalism’s definition of creativity seems entirely rooted in creation. And even then, everything that is created through capitalism–jobs, goods, services–is created in a way that maximizes profits. Capitalism’s singular motivation is overwhelmingly unimaginative, and that monotony has trickled down into every major market. 

Le Guin claims that the imagination is “an indispensable means of becoming and remaining human.” And I have to agree with her because we feel that lack of imagination–and humanity–the most in the markets where our human experiences are now commodities: insurance markets. 

Earlier this week, I attended a panel that discussed the current homeowners’ insurance crisis in Louisiana, and I witnessed capitalism’s unimagination first hand. The panel featured 4 experts: a local insurance agent; a director of risk research in the global reinsurance market; an environmental law and policy lawyer; and the executive director of a local housing advocacy group. The panel discussed Louisiana’s skyrocketing rates and the soon-to-come deregulations that will remove most–if not all–consumer protections in Louisiana’s floundering insurance market. So I was happy to hear the panelists mention mitigation efforts and reciprocal exchange programs–both of which are rooted in mutualism and community. 

But for some reason, the panel and moderators kept pivoting back to the local insurance agent, and his message was essentially the chorus of “We’re Going on a Bear Hunt” but about insurance companies. “Can’t go under it…Can’t go over it…Can’t go around it…Oh no! We’ve got to go through it.” 

At the end of the discussion and Q&A, I left with heavy boots–the ones that are specific to feeling helpless within the confines of a system that’s too big to look at all at once.  And if a system feels too big to sit outside of (even just theoretically), it definitely feels too big to dismantle or even change.

So in an effort to sit outside of this issue (and to comfort myself after an existentially-icky discussion), here I am forcing some metalanguage on the situation. I’ve decided that there is an especially depressing type of conversation that happens in theoretical climate/environmental discussions, and I’m going to start calling those conversations [Because Capitalism] conversations. Here’s a small example of how those discussions go: 

Person Struggling Inside Current Systems/Working to Create Change: “Hey, this could be a good idea! What if we tried that thing we’ve been doing for a while differently. You know, that thing that’s on the verge of collapse? If we did it this other way, it would cost a lot less money, help a lot more people, and strengthen our communities.”

Person Working to Uphold/Profiting from Current Systems: “Sounds interesting, but we can’t do it that way. We do it this one way. And we’ve been doing it this one way for a long time even though it only works for some people, some of the time, and is constantly cycling around its own collapse. Anything you want to do differently has to fit in the framework of this deeply flawed system [because capitalism].”

In a [Because Capitalism] conversation, [Because Capitalism] is never actually spoken, but it is always implied. And that implication is another way of saying “because our profits won’t grow.” In a [Because Capitalism] conversation, our rigid adherence to for-profit systems (and their desperate need for infinite growth) cuts the discussion short and leaves very little room for the imagination. 

It’s like Ursula Le Guin says, “Imagination is not a means of making money. It has no place in the vocabulary of profit-making.” 

It’s not impossible to imagine our way around extractive capitalism, but the enormous size of these systems—like the private insurance market—and our need to live within them to meet our basic needs make it really difficult to see a way under, over, or around; instead we just keep pushing through. And when there is a panel discussion where one or more expert keeps circling back to [Because Capitalism] it’s harder to see anything beyond those failing systems. In fact, [Because Capitalism] arguments usually keep the discussion from going anywhere at all, and people are left feeling helpless, sad, and angry. 

So while some imaginative springboards came out of the panel discussion, ideas rooted in the humanity Le Guin talks about (community, reciprocity, mutualism), no deep dives were taken. Instead, the discussion kept pivoting to the [Because Capitalism] panelist in a way that seemed to make the audience a little sad. 

It took me a couple days to connect the panel discussion and ensuing existential empties with Ursula Le Guin’s essay, but I’m glad I did. It is yet another reminder that imagining our lives outside of our current economic system and beyond extractive capitalism is always an act of speculative fiction. And at a time when the [Because Capitalism] arguments are getting louder, more desperate, and taking up more space, speculative fiction helps us go under, over, or around.