Diagnosing Market Capitalism: A Metacybernetic View

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is difficult to judge. While it was a pleasure reading this essay and it clearly expresses extensive knowledge, it is not suitable to be published in a scientific journal.

The reasons are not the extensive length of the essay (which is quite untypical for a journal article) and also not the sloppy writing: there are a lot of sentences with a missing endpoint or which are grammatically incorrect. It reads as if the author changed the way to formulate a certain argument while writing the sentence. Also the reference in the text to the tables are sloppy. Just one example: on p. 44 the text refers to table 16 which does not exist at all. These are issues that can be accepted (length) or easily corrected.

However, also the argumentation remains sloppy. Given the length of the paper, this is surprising and this is the reason why I don’t think that the submission is suitable for a scientific publication. 

First, there is a lot of name dropping. This holds for authors such as Deleuze, Sorokin, Scott, and many others, but also for concepts such as complex adaptive systems, fractals, cybernetics and metacybernetics, and many other concepts. However, it remains unclear why and how these authors and concepts are used for what argument made in the paper. Also, the author makes a lot of strong assertions that need a more careful justification. To mention two examples: regarding the market as a living system or including spirit in the analysis of market capitalism are certainly thought provoking statements, but such claims need to be critically discussed and justified in detail.

Next, the central objective of the article remains unclear: what is the common thread between issues such diverse as the long term evolution of the economic system, market hegemony through predatory platform capitalism, the epistemology and ontology of the market, the psychology of well-being, or the comparison of neoliberal and stakeholder capitalism? It would be useful to concentrate on one of these issues and investigate it in close detail. Likewise, the author rightly states that “the emergence of different capitalist ideologies in the 20^th century can be attributed to a complex set of factors”. However, beside some common sense statements none of these factors (or their interplay) is investigated in detail.

It is interesting that the author builds on various sources ranging from psychology to philosophy. However, in particular as they so diverse it cannot be expected that the reader of the article is familiar with all these sources. Therefore, the theories need to be at least shortly explained and building on such an explanation it need to be argued how these diverse theories fit together and contribute to the argument made by the author.  

In sum, (as also mentioned by the author) the style is rather essayistic. This has the consequence that – while the title promises a diagnosis of market capitalism – many arguments read more as normative than diagnostic. For instance, reading the tables one gets a “feeling”, but it remains unclear why the author arrives (for instance) in table 9 at the classification of the mindset types of e.g. “dominant sanguin” or “defensive choleric” or in table 12 to the characterization of the mindset of e.g. the minimal state as “moderate sanguin”, “egalitarian individualism” and “balanced practitioner”. The reader just has to belief – which is OK for an essay but not for a scientific publication. Also, this characterization of economic ideologies remains very abstract and superficial which has the further consequence that the characterization of their implications for practical problems remains rather simplistic. The author mentions a huge number of implications, but all are just suggested and nowhere in the article one concrete implication is concretely investigated in detail.  For instance, as a German living in a Nordic country I have serious doubts that the (quite simplistic) characterization of the Nordic and German economic system will be useful for any concrete empirical question  - unless the author really demonstrates it at a concrete example.

Finally, while the paper repeatedly argues that recursive feedback loops exist from the tangible to the intangible or between substructures and superstructures, the arguments (in particular in section 4) reads as a causation from ideology to practice which contradicts the theoretical argument of recursive feedback loops.

I regret my negative conclusion about the submission because the paper touches upon many very interesting topics. To provide a constructive feedback I can think of three alternative publication outlets which are by no means exclusive, i.e. subject to an either – or decision.

First, the author might think of an alternative publication format. Dissemination of scientific knowledge is an important and often neglected task for scientists. For instance a Cultural magazine might be a suitable format for such a kind of essay.

Second, the author might consider to pick up one specific topic touched in the essay and extend it in a more comprehensive manner. For instance, the evaluation of “cultural value tendencies” in section 2.2. with a large language model would be a very interesting and timely topic. Why and how elements of egoism and altruism can be found in different market ideologies is a very interesting matter. Also, using generative AI for scientific purposes is in the beginning but still relatively rarely explored. However, this need to be done more carefully and transparent. To mention a few points: The author mentions incidentally that repeated runs reveal slightly different results. It is well known that also different engines reveal sometimes very different results. For a scientific publication this should be checked and made transparent. Likewise, it need to be made transparent what exactly has been the data basis for the analysis, i.e. what are the primary and secondary sources accidentally mentioned by the author. Concerning the methodology it is most important to communicate what have been the promts for the LLM and in particular what is their scientific justification. Egoism and altruism are not directly found in the texts but a theoretical construct of the author. Also the method of calculating the numerical values need to be mad explicit. I guess it is the distance of some words to this theoretical construct, but this need to be transparent. Scientific accuracy requires that all this has to be made transparent for the reader. In an extended paper on this specific topic, also the discussion of the results can be more detailed.

Finally, the author might consider extending this essay to a book of 300 to 500 pages. Similar concerns of lacking transparency as mentioned in the suggestion 2 above can be found in each section of the paper. A book would leave more space to be more detailed and transparent by expanding each section to a full chapter of the length of an article. Such a book would certainly be highly relevant and innovative.     

Comments on the Quality of English Language

writing is sloppy: there are a lot of sentences with a missing endpoint or which are grammatically incorrect. It reads as if the author changed the way to formulate a certain argument while writing the sentence. Also the reference in the text to the tables are sloppy. Just one example: on p. 44 the text refers to table 16 which does not exist at all. 

Author Response

I thank you for your extended, open and inciteful review of this submission. I am also appreciative of the inherent support you have given to the theme. I thank you for the suggestion that the paper should be turned into a book, but this paper was an aside that originated from a keynote speech at a conference, and it would compete with another book I am in the process of writing.

Let me now respond to specific statements you have made: The length of the paper has been reduced by about a 25% by deleting various unessential elaborating details in the paper and compressing considerations. That it is still long satisfies the need of theory creation and its application, which requires a defining of context, identifying additional theoretical requirements, and then creating and applying the theory. There is novelty in all of these aspects, and dealing with this requires additional space. All changes to the paper have been coloured in yellow.

The writing style has been improved and sloppiness has been eliminated not only by inspection, but also through the use of a spell and gramma check, including the use of Grammaly. Academic style has been strengthened with the introduction of new citations supporting assertions. This includes the argument for the inclusion of spirit. The argument that the market can be considered as a living system is also better supported with citations.

You have indicated that the way in which various tables have been formulated is unclear, and particular reference has been made to tables 9 and 12. However, these tables have arisen through the publication of at least 2 books and probably 30 academic papers, and citations are provided for the readers to explore why these tables have been constructed as they have. The purpose of this paper is to use existing theory without the need to explain it in more elementary ways, or a new book would be required.

Your comments concerning various schools of capitalism (e.g., Nordic and German) are well noted, may be deemed to be superfluous to the core intention, and I have deleted them.

Concerning the comment “Finally, while the paper repeatedly argues that recursive feedback loops exist from the tangible to the intangible or between substructures and superstructures, the arguments (in particular in section 4) reads as a causation from ideology to practice which contradicts the theoretical argument of recursive feedback loops.”

Reply: I am unable to locate this incite in section 4. Thus, in order to ensure that the reader does not misinterpret the intention in this theory, I have introduced new text in section 3.2 that centres on Dopfer’s theory of evolutionary economics which is the closest theory to that produced here. In doing this I have explained the relationship between ideology, disposition, operative processes and underlined the dual reflexivity that occurs between these.

You note that: “the central objective of the article remains unclear: what is the common thread between issues such diverse as the long term evolution of the economic system, market hegemony through predatory platform capitalism, the epistemology and ontology of the market, the psychology of well-being, or the comparison of neoliberal and stakeholder capitalism? It would be useful to concentrate on one of these issues and investigate it in close detail. Likewise, the author rightly states that “the emergence of different capitalist ideologies in the 20th century can be attributed to a complex set of factors”. However, beside some common sense statements none of these factors (or their interplay) is investigated in detail.”

Reply: I have modified the text in the following way to respond to this: The three actions of the paper are intended as: providing context (action 1), intent and theory deficit and theory creation (action 2), and theory application (action 3). In action 2 I seek to demonstrate that MAT has theory deficit in that it currently unable to recognise that market hegemony is fundamentally damaging to market self-organisational processes and can lead to market failure with consequential social pathologies. The third action is to show that certain forms of stakeholderism have different capacities to respond to the dangers of market hegemony. The paper is novel in that it connects the three classes of market hegemony which are not usually connected, and the only sources for these pathological inputs are individual papers proposing them.

You rightly make the following points:

1. Consider focusing on a specific topic from the essay and exploring it in more depth: e.g., the evaluation of “cultural value tendencies” discussed in Section 2.2 could be expanded.

Reply: The purpose of introducing this material is simply to improve the validation of the approach being taken, as part of an elaborating context. I have written about this at length in my 2021 book which is referenced. While I value this suggestion, I believe it will distract the paper.

2. Investigate the application of large language models to analyse cultural value tendencies, and explore the presence of egoism and altruism in different market ideologies using these models.

Reply: This is a full paper on its own. I have spent considerable time exploring AI modelling for research purposes, and have come to the conclusion that it is not at a sufficiently advanced stage, though may well be with GPT-4o+. Undertaking this new paper without the aid of AI would likely be very time consuming.

3. Acknowledge that using generative AI for scientific purposes is emerging but not yet extensively explored, and ensure careful and transparent use of generative AI in the analysis.

Reply: The problem resolution would also appear to be under development. I have not found it easy to create transparency. This might be due to my lack of technical expertise in coding an AI in say Python or Javascrpt, since natural language does not seem to do the job.

4. Address variations in results due to different runs of the model or engines, and make the data basis for the analysis clear, including primary and secondary sources.

Reply: This is still a transparency question, which has not been solved as far as I can see. I have tried to get the AI to name its sources which it is happy to do in general rather than specific terms. I seem to recall that the AI uses both primary and secondary sources.

5. Clarify that egoism and altruism are theoretical constructs rather than directly found in the texts, and explain how these constructs are identified and measured, ad detail the method used for calculating numerical values related to theoretical constructs, and ensure transparency about how distances of words to constructs are measured.

Reply: I have now explained, with citations, that egoism and altruism are theoretical concepts that can assist analysis. I have also included the method by which these attitudes are assessed by the AI. The AI did not provide detail by which it calculated the %, and getting it to do so probably requires technical know-how since its responses to such queries can vary. I have already noted that the result is at best indicative due to its lack of transparency. To change this, a more extensive paper would be needed on this particular topic.

6. In a more comprehensive paper one would provide a detailed discussion of the results and their implications.

Reply: You are correct. A full paper should follow on this theme of egoism and altruism and their role in the evolution of capitalism ideologies. However, this is not currently on my agenda since the approach was simply intended as an elaboration of context.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Maurice Yolles

1.      Assumptions of assessment

Reviewing the paper prepared by an experienced scholar in the field of cybernetics demands a different approach than in the case of beginning and/or less experienced authors. The classical formal approach to reviewing academic papers must be more relevant. At the same time, preparing a full-fledged review of such a study (almost a book-size) would demand pervasive considerations.    

In consequence, I would like to draw the Author’s attention to some aspects of the paper (study) that, in my opinion, need more profound reflection and, perhaps, some additional considerations.

2.      Assessment of the paper

The paper's overall concept and logical structure, or the study, are correct. The main problem is the size of the study. It cannot be treated as a classical academic paper.

The following issues demand further clarification.

1)     The study represents a classical “Big Picture” approach. Usually, the authors of this kind of broad text prepared in the social sciences aim to present a descriptive/normative synthesis of fundamental human development problems. Such a study's main weakness is the impossibility of operationalizing presented problems and solutions. Broadly defined analogies and metaphors are applied, but there are few specific aspects of the problem. The "Big Pictures" must be longer—books, not short synthetic texts.

2)     In the paper under scrutiny, the market economy is described from a cognitive/epistemological/methodological perspective, which the Author declares a meta-cybernetic view. The first question is—what does it mean to be meta-cybernetic? Is it classical second-order cybernetics? Perhaps "third-order cybernetics" is sometimes proposed.

3)      Using the term meta-cybernetic for a specific blend of approaches declared by the Author is too broad: “A meta-cybernetic perspective is adopted, modeling the market as a complex adaptive system with the agency, using Mindset Agency Theory (MAT). MAT distinguishes agency into subagencies of effect and cognition. Recognizing the role of spirit, a spirit subagency is configured into MAT to enable explicit consideration of attributes like ethics and the greater good within the market, relationally improving transparency and promoting sustainable and inclusive economic practices” (l. 14-l.20).

4)     This approach is, to some extent, legitimate in the modern studies of complex systems – beginning with the complexity of human cognition and ending with global social systems. It is reflected in the recently published “Atlas of Complexity” of Castellani and Gerrits. However, such an approach cannot be called “meta-cybernetic." Putting together the idea taken from the classical, Santa Fe-like idea of CAS (Holland and Gell-Mann) with the studies of human cognition can be treated solely as multi-, inter- or perhaps, trans-disciplinary but not meta. The meta-level must show clearly a new linguistic and coherent approach. The blend of ideas does not become the meta-level.

5)     The second doubt derives from linguistic considerations. How can different terms with a broad scope of meaning and/or polysemous be treated as sufficiently precisely depicting the objects under scrutiny? This is a classic example of the weaknesses of the "Big Picture."

6)     The study reflects the Author's very broad and profound erudition in economic theory, social sciences, and psychology. However, the erudition that is essential in such "Big Picture" studies is an obstacle to preparing short synthetic studies.

7)     The next doubts derive from the above ones. How is it possible to justify the causal relationships presented in Figure 2? A conscious/unconscious pattern deriving from System Dynamics comes to mind, but in the original Forrester models, the causal (multicausal) relationships concerning the objects/features were defined more precisely.

8)     Another weak point of this study should be mentioned. Due to its scope, it is challenging to show what issue/issues should be selected to prepare a shorter text synthesis.

 3.      Editorial comment

 The paper is edited carefully. The text is easy to read and logical. References are meticulously edited, although some errors can be found, e.g., Capron, L., Petit, H., “Reconfiguration: Adding, Redeploying, Recombining and Divesting Resources and Business Units,” Strategic Management Journal, pp. 37(13), 54-62, 2016.

 

I did not check the text as a technical editor, but when reading the text, I found the following minor technical problems.

 4.      General assessment

1.      Undoubtedly, the proposed study is original and innovative and could be an important contribution to the discussion on the market economy. However, such a study cannot be included in a classical paper-size text. If the Editors of "Systems" accept the study's size, then my remaining suggestions concerning the text and its improvement are relevant.

2.      If the paper cannot be accepted due to its size, I suggest extending it to book size. In such a case, my recommendations concerning this text are also relevant.

3.      Unfortunately, I cannot show which essential issue/issues will have to be extracted from this text to make it a paper-size publication. The Author could do that.

 

 

 

1.       

Author Response

I firstly thank you for your effort in reviewing this long and difficult paper. Your comments are well taken, and I have made a significant effort to reduce the paper and improve its presentation, including its clarity. Your specific comments are given below with my responses. All changes that result from your suggestions (together with those of other reviewers) are coloured in yellow.

• The paper’s concept and logical structure are correct, but its size is problematic as it exceeds typical academic paper length.

Reply: I thank you for your perseverance in reviewing this paper. The length of the paper has been reduced by about a 25% by deleting various unessential elaborating details in the paper and compressing considerations. In rewriting it I have tried to ensure that the structure is easier to follow through its three actions. However, as a theory creation and application paper, greater length is often the case.

 

• The study is too broad and resembles a descriptive/normative synthesis, which is better suited for a book than a short paper.

Reply: That it is still long satisfies the need of theory creation and its application, which requires a defining of context, identifying additional theoretical requirements, and then creating and applying the theory. There is novelty in all of these aspects, and dealing with this requires additional space.

• The term "meta-cybernetic" is used broadly. The paper needs to clarify if it refers to second-order or third-order cybernetics.

Reply: The term metacybernetics originated with Von Foerster in the 1970s, but fell into disuse. Your valid criticism that the term is not defined until much too late has been acted on. The particular use of the term now refers to a cybernetics paper published in 2021.  I now also clarify that the Mindset Agency Theory (MAT) framework, which is one of a metacybernetic family, is third order cybernetics.

• The terms used in the paper are too broad and imprecise, which weakens the "Big Picture" approach. Combining ideas from complex systems and human cognition is valid but doesn't constitute a new meta-level approach. Justifying the causal relationships in the study’s figure is problematic. They lack precision compared to traditional models. The broad scope makes it difficult to identify which issues to focus on for a shorter synthesis.

Reply: Thank you for this observation. The big picture approach can be problematic especially when new theory is required as a small picture. I hope that the revisions have been able to improve on this relationship. An attempt has been made to make terms more precise. Concerning causal relationships, in the field of cybernetics the model is well known and its causalogical nature. However, I have introduced text that explains the antecedence of MAT since its early appearance in 1988 by Eric Schwarz. In some of those publication (cited), the causal relationships are well explained, as well as in my own cited books. As I now provide an antecedence for the framework.

• The paper is well-edited and readable with meticulously edited references, though there are minor errors.

Reply: Thank you. I have sought to correct the errors.

 

• The study is original and innovative but too lengthy for a classical paper. If accepted, the study should be expanded to book length. The reviewer cannot determine which issues should be extracted for a shorter paper, suggesting the author should make those decisions.

Reply: I have reduced the size of the paper by about 25% by eliminating or compressing ideas and rephrasing to reduce word size.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of “Diagnosing Market Capitalism…”

This is a long and quite confusing paper that attempts to tie different types of capitalism with different cognitive schema or mindsets, including a mindset referred to as “spirit” (roughly translated as transcendent ethics). There is an attempt to incorporate systems thinking in the discussion, and what one ends up with is a typology of mindsets that are associated with different varieties of neoliberal capitalism and stakeholder capitalism. There are several fairly serious problems with the presentation which I will address below.

First, there is a problem of poor organization (actually, very poor organization). The paper is 68 pages long and it is not even double-spaced. This taxes the reader’s patience if nothing else. Further, there appear to be parts of it that attempt to reinvent the wheel – there are definitions in some portions of the manuscript, but not others, and they are randomly placed throughout – hence basic definitions of what the author means by certain terms might appear in the middle of the presentation or later for words that have been used repeatedly prior to that time. To take but one example, coherent definitions of what constitutes substructure, superstructure, and metastructure don’t appear until well into the page 20’s (my notes say around page 24), but these terms have been used repeatedly before that without any reference to what they actually mean (other than the terms are not derived from Marxism).

Second, the paper suffers from malignant “systems and structure” cancer. Literally almost all social activity is either a system or a structure, there are layers of structures, there are layers of systems, etc. there appear to be no individuals or subgroups here at all. This begs two questions – systems/structures created by whom and for what?? The figures are almost unintelligible, in part because the prose in the boxes is too long and every box is a system or structure.

Third, there is not a positive relationship between altruism and egoism (per Figure 1) and altruism is declining rather than rising. The only reason there would be a net positive relationship here is because both are declining in the 1920s and 1930s. In fact, Altruism has declined from .8 to .4 in the last half of the graph.

Fourth, it is not at all clear who has the mindsets. In some places, it looks like a mindset is an ideology. At other times they appear to be ideal-type mindsets or implied cognitive schema the economic system rewards. At all times, it isn’t clear who has the mindset and who doesn’t. If everyone had the mindset, there would still be problems, but even if they don’t (and they certainly don’t) the problems would be different.

Fifth, the author(s) have (essentially) rediscovered the thinking of Max Weber (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism), Emile Durkheim (Economy and Society, the Division of Labor in Society) and Karl Polanyi (The Great Transformation), combined with the varieties of capitalism perspective from Peter Hall (supplemented by Gosta Esping-Anderson). These are much simpler renderings that suggest the following (and the essence of what you’re saying):

(1)    There are no pure economic values or motives;

(2)    Economic activity is shored up and depends on community values and norms;

(3)    (in well-functioning economies) institutions are a reflection of (2);

(4)    The laisse-fare world is a fantasy and abstraction

 

I don’t see citations to any of these scholars, all of whom tackle the same question.

Sixth, each of these different conceptions of capitalism developed in concert with others or ( especially in the Smith case) with forms of economic activity they were against. Smith’s ideas were directly contrary to the merchantilist, royal-monopoly style of government and economy reflected in the British Empire. The post-World War II social economy was possible because laisse faire capitalism had been discredited by the Great Depression and it was used as an anti-communist tool. Reagan/Thatcherite neoliberalism developed after the stagflation of the 1970s, etc. Stakeholder capitalism developed in response to shareholder capitalism. Interestingly enough, some of the government officials in the U.S. and U.K. that were once strident neoliberals have changed their minds rather radically (Paul Craig Roberts; Stiglitz, etc.).  

Seventh, globalization makes a brief appearance and then virtually disappears from the presentation. But, in the globalization mindset, who sets the mindset? The U.S. version of globalization (championed somewhat by others) seems to impose free markets on others while rent collecting themselves, running a neoliberal economy abroad while running a modified hybrid economy at home. Part of what are defined as norms of reciprocity in economic systems depends on who that reciprocity is directed. Globalization, when tied to neoliberalism, sought to (and succeeded) in breaking norms of reciprocity between workers and corporations by (a) hiring others from places where reciprocity norms did not need to be followed while (b) selling the same products produced through (a) in a first world market with consumption norms of reciprocity. So again, the question it – culturally, whose in and whose out?

Finally, it is one thing to claim that neoliberal capitalism and stakeholder capitalism appeal to different mindsets (see the citations above). It’s quite another to describe how you turn one of these into the other one, especially if you think that stakeholder capitalism is better. If people who have sustainability values lack market power as consumers or producers, does it matter what their value system is?? If sub-segments of the population have neoliberal mindsets, but sets of powerful actors do not, what good is the neoliberal mindset? But the problem is actually worse than this – most of us don’t have a neoliberal mindset, and yet that’s what we’re dealing with. The paper offers no mechanism for economic change other than a change in values, but those values have already changed and not very much has happened.

Overall, I think the paper needs a major re-working. The goal would be (1) a vastly shorter presentation (30 pages or less), (2) better organization, and (3) incorporating scholarship that has already addressed these issues.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing and organization need a lot of help. There is lots of jargon. The tables have descriptions in them that are longer than those that appear in the text. 

Author Response

I wish to thank your perseverance in this long paper, which has now been reduced, and where all changed sections are coloured in yellow.

• The paper is overly long (68 pages, single-spaced) and poorly organized. Definitions and key concepts are inconsistently placed, which complicates understanding. For instance, terms like substructure, superstructure, and metastructure are defined only midway through the paper despite being used earlier.

Reply: I thank you profoundly for making this effort for such a long and not so easy paper. I have reduced the paper by about 25% to 52 pages. The length is required since it is a theory creation paper, and I have written a number of these in developing the theory since 1998. By the term organisation I understand that you are actually referring to its logical flow and coherence. To address this observation, I have sought to bring definitions much earlier in the paper and make them clear.

• The paper heavily emphasizes systems and structures, neglecting individuals and subgroups. This focus leads to confusion about who creates and benefits from these systems/structures. Figures are unclear due to lengthy descriptions and a lack of clarity.

Reply: The issue here is rather a deep one. Since the angle of the theory is to discuss not individuals and subgroups, but agents (who may be individuals or subgroups) and agencies. I have passed through the paper to ensure that there is less confusion in this. There are two figures in the paper, and I have sought to reduce the description and create greater clarity.

• The paper’s claim of a positive relationship between altruism and egoism is flawed. Data shows that altruism is actually declining, not rising, which contradicts the presented relationship. The only reason there would be a net positive relationship here is because both are declining in the 1920s and 1930s. In fact, Altruism has declined from .8 to .4 in the last half of the graph.

Reply: The problem here is that if Sorokin is correct, sociocultural turbulence occurs as cultural values tend from the sensate to ideational. This would suggest that one can expect ascending and declining values for altruism and egoism during the period of value transformation until cultural stability is achieved. This means that one cannot simply look at local values, but rather need to examine possible trend lines. I have modified the text to make this clearer.

• The paper lacks clarity on who possesses the different mindsets—whether they are ideologies, cognitive schemas, or economic rewards. The ambiguity over who holds these mindsets affects the analysis of their impact.

Reply: Thank you for this important observation. I have made the following insertion early on in the paper: “The core of MAT is its mindsets. As we shall explain in due course, mindsets have three dimensions of affect, cognition and spirit each with seven traits, giving 21 traits in all to describe the character of a mindset holder. The value states lie on a continuum between tangible and intangible polar states. Two of these traits are cultural, three are dispositional and two are operative. Capitalist ideologies are responsible for promoting the different values states that mindset holders adopt. Given capitalist ideology types are responsible for promoting given types of mindsets. There is a correspondence between a given capitalist ideology and the mindsets that support them.”

• The paper seems to revisit ideas from Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Karl Polanyi, and Peter Hall, among others, without citing them. The theory overlaps with established concepts about the interplay between economic values, community norms, and institutions.

Reply: Thank you for this. I did not realise that the paper revisits the ideas of these authors. I adopt Sorokin's ideas on culture, as opposed to those of Weber and the Protestant ethic. Sorokin’s ideas set within cybernetic principles also reflect on Derkhheim's considerations of social cohesion under complexity, especially when considering the stability of cultural values and the implications for social cohesion. There is a consequence from this for social change, for instance cultural instability is consistent with Bauman's idea of liquid society, and the ideas just coincide with those of Polanyi. I have not drawn on the ideas of Hall since institutional change was not an intended direction for the paper.

• The paper does not adequately address how different forms of capitalism evolved in response to historical and economic contexts. For example, neoliberalism emerged from stagflation, and stakeholder capitalism developed in reaction to shareholder capitalism.

Reply: Thank you for this observation. The paper intends to diagnose capitalist ideologies. The way it does this is to establish a set of characteristics (21) that define a particular ideology, and show that some are more susceptible to dealing with pathologies arising from, say, market hegemony, than others. Your suggestion is an excellent one, but would ideally be excercised in a follow-up paper.

• The discussion on globalization is brief and superficial. It fails to explore how globalization influences mindsets and economic norms, particularly the disparity between U.S. domestic and international economic practices.

Reply: This is quite correct. However, the paper is not intended to discuss globalisation. Nor is the paper intended to compare different mindset types with different countries. While this would be an excellent extension of the paper, it is already long.

• The paper lacks a clear mechanism for transitioning between neoliberal and stakeholder capitalism. It does not address the practicalities of changing economic systems beyond shifts in values, especially when existing values have not led to significant changes.

Reply: This is correct. However, the paper was not intended to establish a specific mechanism for how mindset holders might transition from supporting neoliberal capitalism to embracing stakeholder capitalism. Instead, its primary focus is on examining how different capitalist ideologies correspond with particular mindsets and exploring the influence of values and ethics within these frameworks. While the paper highlights the significance of value shifts, it intentionally refrains from outlining the practical steps for transitioning between economic systems, acknowledging that such an analysis would require a more detailed and focused study beyond the scope of this work.

• The paper needs substantial revisions to improve its organization, reduce its length, and incorporate existing scholarship on related topics.

Reply: I have undertaken substantive adjustments including a reduction in length by about 25%. I have not included comments concerning the authors you have referred to since while they are highly relevant, the paper comes from a different direction.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Only two remarks:

1. The Author does not inform about the sources of tables and figures. I understand that by default it means the Author's research. I do not know whether this format is acceptable for the journal.

2. There are still some small editorial omissions, e.g. entry no. 147. I suggest to check the text. Just in case. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find the revised paper much improved. The author(s) have taken great pains to define their terms in a clearer fashion, to distinguish between terms as used by others and their definitions (or adaptations, in some cases), and the writing is a bit clearer.

I think the paper will stimulate more research and theorizing as well. 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor copyediting is needed here.