An interview with Professor Arnoud Boot It is 2 pm—the first sunny Monday of the year in Amsterdam. As I climb up the almost never-ending stairs of the ABS building, I review my notes—the order of questions I plan to ask and the article structure that can arise from them. Forty minutes later, I leave Professor Arnoud Boot's office with my head buzzing from the information I gained about corporate taxation. What follows is the result of my intellectual adventures at the office of the esteemed professor of Corporate Finance and Financial Markets. With the elections in the US coming up this autumn, the discourse about corporate taxation is heating up again after four years. Economists and business leaders await expectantly and are left considering what the results of this presidential election will mean for their own businesses and the economy. In 2017, Donald Trump introduced a new corporate tax rate of 21%, which marked the most significant cut in three decades. These changes are scheduled to be revised in 2025, and, if victorious in the upcoming elections, Joe Biden is seeking to propose an increase in the tax amount that corporations will have to provide. This brings up various questions: Which is the correct rate? What is the most efficient mix of taxation, and is the current system even sustainable? In this interview, I will use one of Professor Boot's many publications, Corporate Tax Reform, from the Statement of the Financial Economists Roundtable, as a source. In the paper, the authors describe the current corporate tax system in the United States and explore its efficiency. It is an insightful read; I would recommend it to anyone who is looking to improve their knowledge on the topic. Let us begin the interview. In your article, you mentioned that the US is at a relative disadvantage compared to countries with other tax systems. Can you explain why this might be the case and which factors play a role in this situation? A disadvantage is a somewhat negative expression. Yes, on the one hand, the US, with its relatively high corporate tax and low VAT, might hurt the economy's competitiveness, but on the other hand, the country can afford to do so. It is so powerful that this disadvantage can be called a mere nuance. Your paper distinguishes between two types of systems: the worldwide tax system and the territorial system. What are the main differences between the two? The US uses a worldwide system; this signifies that corporations are taxed on all business activities, including those carried out in foreign countries. This works through companies paying a top-up rate, which is equal to the difference between the tax rate of the foreign country and the US. However, the extra percentage is only due for payment if the money is repatriated back to the US. This aspect encourages corporations to have large amounts of foreign cash holdings. On the contrary, a territorial rate means that corporations are only taxed for their activities inside the country's borders. Which of the systems would you say is most efficient? It is difficult to evaluate the net costs and benefits of each system. The US historically uses one worldwide rate, which sounds good and seems reasonable in principle, but being able to hoard money abroad creates problems. In the territorial system, transfer pricing issues are very complicated. In an ideal world (which is most certainly not this one), using the worldwide tax system by all countries involved would seem to be the most logical, considering the transfer pricing effect of a territorial system. Now, we focus on the size of tax rates. Would high corporate taxation drive companies with headquarters in the country out of the US? In theory, a higher US tax rate can lead to tax inversion, the process of companies leaving the country to seek lower obligations; however, in the case of the US, this is not a danger. The government has so many benefits to offer companies that a high tax rate would not drive them out. Having to pay higher tariffs or risk losing American customers for political reasons is much more dangerous for companies than a couple of percent increase in tax bills. I'm slightly turning away from the US and focusing on the general aspects of taxing. What are some other issues you would mention? Well, firstly, it is important to mention competition across countries. Large multinationals find themselves in an advantageous position with respect to tax attributes compared to domestic companies. This arises from their ability to take advantage of different tax amounts. Shifting profits from one country to the other can significantly decrease a firm's tax bill. Furthermore, multinationals can enjoy the benefits of tax havens, while smaller domestic companies cannot. Moreover, it is essential to mention that all kinds of taxes cause distortions. For example, taxing income may reduce people's willingness to consume, or taxing corporation activities may reduce people's sense of investing. What would be the most efficient tax if not income and corporations? Morbidly, taxing the dead is almost the cheapest. Inheritance taxation, for instance, does not significantly increase distortions. While it is no longer in place in the US, it is in Europe. Moreover, taxing real estate is also a better way to limit distortion. VAT is somewhere in between. While it does not put pressure on income and only slightly affects consumption, it can hurt lower-income citizens, which means there is a clear order of efficiency in taxing, starting from the dead and real estate and ending at corporations and income. Now heading towards politics. As mentioned earlier, the two candidates' opinions on corporate taxation differ in the upcoming elections. What would be the impact of a Trump victory on the field? While it is true that, in theory, there is a disagreement between the two presidents, in reality, Donald Trump's actions MAY not change corporate decisions significantly. He emphasizes that cutting the taxes on corporations would increase the willingness to invest, thus resulting in economic growth; however, the reality might be different. The situation is more likely that Trump would like to give benefits to the rich, which he can achieve with a decrease in taxes. His story does not make sense, as he wants to decrease corporate taxation while not increasing other forms of government revenues. If not taxation, what would you say is the most significant difference between the presidential candidates? It is all about market power. While Donald Trump is a fan of large, dominating corporations, Joe Biden is not and emphasizes the need for competition more. Circling back to taxing, this aspect can also mean a flaw in the Republican president's logic. Reducing corporate taxes only impacts investments by firms with low market power, meaning that a tax reduction would be more efficient in Joe Biden's system. What really matters is the mix, not only corporate taxation. How do you see the upcoming elections? The decisive factor of the upcoming elections will not come down to economic policies enacted during Biden's term. The current president cannot be blamed for his implications, as the US economy has been excellent during his term. Rather, social and cultural issues will be of great significance. As we slowly approach the end of our interview, I would like to ask you about the effects of the US on European policymaking. Given the country's trend-setting aspect, how does the largest economy in the world impact the European continent and the EU with respect to corporate taxation? Overall, the US has positively affected European decision-making on tax. In a sense, the country motivated Brussels to go after tax-avoiding corporations and so-called tax havens. However, with respect to taxing policies in general, nothing conclusive can be argued. Undoubtedly, the US has a huge amount of soft power, but given the vast differences along many decisions, it is not really significant in the sense of corporate taxation. Having mentioned positive effects, can you mention any adverse impacts of the US concerning corporations? Most certainly. It is always worth mentioning market power. The European Union needs help fighting giant US corporations in big tech. These companies have excessive market dominance, from which concerns of abusing power arise. The EU is trying to decrease the power of these companies with partial success. Furthermore, it is essential to mention the earlier agreed corporate compliance policies, like SOX (Sarbanes Oxley Act), back in 2022 and, more recently, the public company accounting oversight board (PCAOB). These actions are adjustments in the US legal system to contain corporate misbehavior; European corporations were also brought into the topic. For example, by having to meet US reporting rules, the country has effectively an extraterritorial impact on European companies. We are closing our interview with politics. What impact would a possible change of US presidential administrations have on Europe? Donald Trump views the US trade deficit as a disadvantage and a sign of weakness. While it is debatable, he blames the European surplus for his country's alleged disadvantage. In my opinion, this needs to be corrected. The US can afford a trade deficit, and blaming Europe or its tax system for it is simply wrong. To sum up, the knowledge acquired from speaking with Professor Arnoud Boot highlighted the complicated subject of corporate taxation and its consequences for the US and Europe. Political leaders' decisions have an important effect on the business community and society as a whole as we navigate the complicated landscape of tax laws. The upcoming US presidential elections cast a shadow of uncertainty over the future trajectory of corporate taxation. While the debate between worldwide and territorial tax systems persists, the potential impact of tax rate changes also remains a subject of contention. As Professor Boot aptly notes, the efficacy of taxation systems cannot be examined in isolation; instead, a nuanced understanding of market dynamics, government policies, and global economic forces is imperative. Essentially, Professor Boot's conversation highlights how interconnected the world's economic systems are and how intimately politics, taxation, and market forces interact. The knowledge gained from these conversations is vital in helping us form policies and promote cross-border communication as we set on the path toward economic recovery and sustainable growth.

Earlier this year, the Financial Times published an article claiming that recent years have shown a widening ideological gap between young men and women. Historic patterns suggest that because of their shared formative experiences, members of the same generation tend to share similar beliefs and move as one on the political spectrum, regardless of gender. However, recent data indicates that this assumption does not hold true for our generation, with young women becoming increasingly progressive while young men remain more conservative. Given the remarkable progress towards women’s equality of the last decades and the impact of the #MeToo campaign that started in 2017, the fact that young women tend to lean towards the left is hardly surprising. In the meantime, the fact that young men increasingly shift towards the right or even the far-right is a rather striking and concerning pattern. But what are the causes of this emerging gender divide, why is it almost exclusive to Gen-Z, and what does it have to do with Andrew Tate and the Barbie movie? First, let’s look at the data! Source: Financial Times, 2024 The graphs presented by John Burn-Murdoch in the Financial Times shows the political ideology of 18–29-year-olds over time in South Korea, the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom. While there are some discrepancies amongst the countries, we can clearly see that in all these cases there is an emerging gap between women and men based on their alignment along the liberal-conservative binary amongst 18–30-year-olds. One thing I found interesting is that in all of these countries, the existence of the divide in which women tend to be more liberal than men is fairly new. Actually, for much of history, the exact opposite was the case, as traditionally, women were found to be more right-leaning. However, as the diagrams show, from around the 1990s, this ‘ideological gender gap’ has reversed, which could be attributed to structural changes that have fundamentally altered women’s role and position in society. These include variables such as increased participation of women in the labour market, greater economic independence and improved educational opportunities. As women became more integrated into the workforce and more educated, their ideological alignment also started to skew more towards the left, eventually surpassing that of men. This pattern was further accelerated by the outburst of the #MeToo campaign in 2017, which was especially impactful amongst younger women. Source: Ruth Dassonneville, 2021 During the same timeframe, the political leanings of young men remained relatively stable, experiencing less drastic shifts than their female counterparts. However, since 2017, there has been a notable departure from this trend, with young men actively gravitating towards more right-wing ideologies, further widening the ideological gap. This trend is the most pronounced in South Korea, where the values of young men have undergone a significant transformation, with a nearly 40 percentage point difference observed in just the past six years. Although less drastic, similar trends are present in Europe and the United States as well. This is evident in the increasing support among young men for far-right political parties such as Germany's AFD, Poland's Confederation party, Hungary's Mi Hazánk, and even the political camp of Donald Trump in the US. So then, the data reveals an emerging trend since the 2010s which is characterised by dual shifts. On the one hand, the #MeToo movement catalysed a growing liberal stance among young women, which is not entirely surprising. More intriguing, it also triggered a substantial number of young men to be more right-leaning, marking an unexpected counterbalance. Furthermore, as data by Change Research shows, it seems that the emerging polarisation of women and men is either exclusive to or far more pronounced in younger generations than older ones. So then why is it that young people are more divided than ever? What really drives this gendered polarisation of our generation, and why are other age groups less affected by it? I believe that the ‘Great Gender Divide’ boils down to two important factors: economics and technology. Let’s break it down! The Economic Factor To put it lightly, Gen-Z has a rather pessimistic economic outlook compared to other generations. In light of the 2008 economic crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, this is hardly surprising as both of these events resulted in economic stagnation. Combine that with inflation, soaring living costs, unaffordable housing, political turmoil, and the looming threat of climate change, and the dream of a secure future feels like wishful thinking. Many young people worry that they’ll never be able to own a home, retire comfortably, or break free from the cycle of living paycheck to paycheck. But why is Gen-Z more negative about the future than other age groups? Research shows that those who experienced economic growth in their youth are more likely to believe in the possibility of shared prosperity. So, while the effects of economic stagnation are felt across all age groups, people who have lived in the ‘good times’ are less anxious about economics and tend to be more hopeful about the future. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that other generations had it any easier in their youth than us; growing up wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows for them either. In fact, many of the challenges that we face now are quite similar to what our parents and grandparents had to overcome. However, what is rather different is how we perceive our future. Generation X, for instance, witnessed significant transformations with the regime change, yet they held onto a sense of hopefulness amidst these shifts. Millennials, on the other hand, were sold the dream of prosperity and were only confronted with harsh realities later on. And as for Gen-Z? Well, we’ve grown up in a world where economic disillusionment is the norm rather than the exception. Our generation has no illusions about the challenges ahead, facing economic uncertainty head-on from the start. This sense of economic insecurity and hopelessness for the future breeds feelings of resentment and frustration amongst our generation, which provides fertile ground for radicalisation. Additionally, amid globally rising income-inequalities, economic frustrations are further amplified by zero-sum mindsets, where one’s success is inadvertently seen as another’s loss.  This perception is reinforced during periods of economic stagnation, as limited resources enhance the underlying assumption that societal output is limited,  and that efforts and exchanges  merely redistribute rather than create value. What’s the link between gender and this kind of all-or-nothing mentality? Zero-sum mentality can foster support towards both the left and the right. On the one hand, it is associated with support for social welfare policies, income redistribution and awareness of racial and gender discrimination. But this all-or-nothing mentality also fosters xenophobia and sexist resentment. The latter particularly stands true amongst men who may perceive themselves as being disadvantaged or left behind in a rapidly changing economic landscape. In a society where men's traditional role as providers is challenged more and more, some men may react by clinging to traditional gender norms and resenting women's advancements in education and the workforce. It’s a vicious cycle – when men struggle to get ahead and perceive unfair treatment, they're more likely to resent the gains made by women. This modern form of sexism is often strongest among men who perceive state institutions as unfair and live in regions with rising unemployment, because these factors hinder them from getting ahead and securing their patriarchal role. Simply put: guys who became rich and successful through their own efforts tend to perceive the system as fair and are less likely to think that they have anything to lose by women’s success. Conversely, those facing economic adversity might argue that the advancement of women’s and girls’ rights has gone too far because it threatens their opportunities. In fact, arguments like this are especially widespread in the Korean ‘manosphere’, where 80% of men in their twenties believe that they are discriminated against because of their gender. A pattern is evident: while women advocate for gender equality and increasingly adopt progressive stances, some men, under internal and societal pressures to succeed, find themselves at odds with these changes. Under a ‘zero-sum’ mentality, resentful hostility makes sense. Economic stagnation and intense competition foster jealousy, which drives right-wing support, especially among young men. Source: Financial Times, 2020 The Role of Social Media So then, economic frustrations have clearly fuelled status insecurity and resentment, but it can only explain so much. The other big cultural shift that coincides with the growing gender divide is technology and the rise of social media, which offers further insights into why the trend is most prominent in younger generations. This correlation comes as no surprise. I think it’s fair to say that by now most people have heard of the myriad of research on the effects of social media on self-esteem and mental health. The algorithms powering social media platforms are meticulously crafted to engage users, creating echo chambers known as filter bubbles. These bubbles reinforce righteous resistance and groupthink, as individuals are exposed to content that aligns with their existing beliefs. This contributes to polarised media consumption and fuels distorted misperceptions. Essentially, what it all boils down to is this: people who are only exposed to stories that appeal to their own frustrations and reinforce their beliefs fuel resentment towards those who think differently, creating a distorted view of what the other side really stands for. Young women who only see content about tearing down the patriarchy might themselves start to believe that all men are inherently toxic. In the meantime, men who are exposed to sites preaching the ‘alpha-male’ mindset and patriarchal values will themselves start to resent progressive women. Thus, by creating these filter bubbles, algorithms invertedly exacerbate polarisation amongst users, promoting a self-sustaining cycle and thus widening the ideological gender gap of young people by the minute. These examples show that filter bubbles themselves don’t adhere to a pre-ordained ideology. They can be both left- or right-leaning. Rather, they serve as fertile ground for various cultural entrepreneurs and content creators who utilise social media to capitalise on the existing economic frustrations and hopelessness of Gen-Z. Even though none of us are exempt from falling into the biased traps that algorithms create, young people are especially impressionable to them. While posts and stories targeted to girls and young women – at least in my experience – are often about empowerment and self-acceptance, a lot of the ‘alpha-male’ content tailored for guys tends to emphasise the significance of patriarchal expectations of success and status. Sure, through unrealistic beauty standards, social media puts a lot of pressure on girls as well, but even the Kardashians brand themselves as successful businesswomen who fight against the patriarchy, thus embodying the epitome of strong independent women. On the other hand, influencers like Andrew Tate preach misogyny and the superiority of men, putting immense pressure on their followers. As a millionaire, Tate, the ‘king of toxic-masculinity’, embodies many men’s idea of success of endless private-jet flights and women falling to their knees. However, the standards of ‘manliness’ and ‘masculinity’ that Tate and all the other ‘alpha-bros’ embody are virtually impossible to fulfil, thus putting even more pressure on young men to achieve status that is inevitably met with disappointment. Upon failure to meet the external and internalised pressures of the ‘manosphere,’  young men then become even more frustrated with their own situation, thus falling deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole and further widening the gender divide. Looking into the future: Is there a way to reverse the polarisation? To briefly conclude, I argue that the political gender gap among Gen-Z stems primarily from economic uncertainty and technological factors. Economic stagnation breeds resentment and a zero-sum mentality, while social media algorithms exacerbate polarisation, which widens the ideological divergence of young men and women. The consequences of this divide are multifaceted and warrant careful consideration, especially in light of the upcoming elections in the US and in the EU, as polarisation between genders presents significant implications for Western democracies. So, what steps can we take to address this issue? While there is no easy answer, I believe that it is important that we try to foster mixed-gendered socialisation and friendships as they can help break down barriers and promote understanding. This is especially the case when such interactions occur offline, as they tend to be more balanced since the veil of anonymity provided by online platforms is no longer present. While I don’t have all the solutions to the issue,  I would argue that perhaps even watching the Barbie movie could prove to be a great start to bridging the gender divide. Sure, as entertaining as it is, it might not be the most profound cinematic experience and its portrayal of feminism could certainly be more nuanced. Still, quite paradoxically, I think that the movie offers a lot to learn especially to those men who are the most vocal of their dislike towards the film. I think that this is because of the way Ken is portrayed in the movie, who goes through similar challenges and frustrations as many young men face nowadays. While for a swift moment, the doll also embraces sexism and the patriarchy, he realises that by doing so, he just puts extra expectations on himself that fuel his resentment and dissatisfaction. Ultimately, I think that the answer to reversing the gender divide boils down to the message of the song “I’m Just Ken”. Rather than clinging on to outdated ideas of masculinity and status, it would be so much easier for everyone to just let go of these internalised expectations and embrace the idea that perhaps life is not a zero-sum game and we could all thrive together by embracing our differences.

I believe that we do not have free will. Yet, I believe that this is both completely neutral and actively bad. This article explain this somewhat paradoxical position. To offer a hint: the term determinism describes not one but several concepts, that all have very different implications for how we should lead our lives. The goal of this piece is to disentangle two of these concepts, namely that of causal and that of structural determinism. I will show why I believe both of them to be true, compare their implications, and describe how to adequately respond to these very implications. A couple definitions, so you know where we’re starting from: Free will has many different definitions, of which I chose one: “An entity has free will if they could have chosen differently”. This condition is not already satisfied through having multiple options but necessitates a theoretical possibility of choosing something else. My definition is far from perfect, but I believe it suffices for the purposes of this essay. Causal determinism has been defined as “the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature” (see here). This view has gained increasing popularity in recent years, as our modern, rational world leaves arguably little room for something like free will. Structural determinism can be defined as the thought that society is fundamentally structured by systems of power that influence different groups differently and to some extent determine the range of possible outcomes in their lives. Unlike the individual focus of causal determinism, structural determinism adopts a macro-level stance, implying that for entire groups of people their life outcomes are determined. To sum it up shortly: According to causal determinism you are reading this article because the exact conditions of the big bang led you hear through an inescapable causal chain. According to structural determinism you are an engaged university student with a certain interest in philosophy and thus were very likely to read this article. What Concepts Do These Determinisms Describe? Why Believe In Them? Causal Determinism Causal determinism posits that every event, including human actions, is the inevitable result of preceding events and natural laws, creating a continuous chain of cause and effect. This perspective is deeply rooted in the empirical successes of the physical sciences. For instance, classical mechanics presents a universe governed by predictable laws, where objects follow specific paths determined by initial conditions. This scientific materialist lens which many people understand the world through, necessarily is a deterministic one. One may illustrate this type of deterministic view by the hypothetical scenario of rewinding time: if we were to turn back the clock to the universe’s inception, the idea is, the same set of laws and initial conditions would lead to an identical unfolding of events. Everything would have to be the exact same – else, at some point, we would find the causal chain broken. This thought experiment underscores what is meant by the belief that the laws of nature govern all phenomena, and why this leaves no room for events to occur differently. One common objection to determinism is the feeling of personal agency – “but I can do whatever I want.” Determinism contradicts this claim instead positing that this feeling is just an illusion because while one may act according to one’s desires, these desires are themselves shaped by a prior sequence of causes, i.e., “one can do what one wants, but not want what one wants”, to paraphrase Schopenhauer (quoted from here). I will illustrate this more at a later point. Should the reader take these arguments to be convincing, they must concede that the notion of free will is at least substantially undermined, if not an impossibility all together. Structural Determinism At the heart of structural determinism is the recognition of complex, often deeply ingrained systems of power and hierarchy that operate within societies. These systems – be they economic, legal, political, or cultural – create a framework within which individuals and groups interact. The nature of these interactions and the distribution of power and resources within these structures can profoundly influence life trajectories, shaping everything from educational opportunities to professional success, social mobility, and even health outcomes. One of the arguably most fundamental structures of our modern society is capitalism. It will partly be the angle of analysis in this essay. Capitalism, as an economic system, not only structures the distribution of resources and opportunities but also cultivates a specific culture that emphasises values such as competition, efficiency, and productivity. Yet capitalism does not maintain its influence solely through material and institutional control but also wields significant influence on the cultural and ideological levels, as argued by Antonio Gramsci. This process of “intellectual and moral leadership” is what he calls cultural hegemony (source). This influence manifests in the collective consciousness, subtly embedding the capitalist ethos as the natural order of things. The result is a societal landscape where values aligned with capitalist interests – such as relentless productivity, competition, and material success – are not only normalised but admired. The capitalist influence on culture transcends the boundaries of work, permeating various aspects of life and shaping the societal narrative about what is desirable, attainable, and worthwhile. It is this cultural aspect that I will focus on most. Structural determinism suggests that while individuals may make technically free choices, the context in which these choices are made is heavily influenced by overarching societal constructs. This does not imply that individual agency is non-existent, but rather that the agency is exercised within a set of possibilities that are pre-structured and often limited by these larger forces, including the pervasive cultural norms shaped by dominant economic systems like capitalism. For further reading on this, I would suggest looking up Foucault’s panopticon (I unfortunately have neither the space nor the expertise to go in-depth here). A simple analogy to make matters clear: Suppose you decide to save money in a bank account. Did you ever choose to want to save that money? A structural determinist might argue that one’s cultural and socio-economic background create such behaviours. Causal determinists would go further. After all, could you, if you so pleased, choose to want to waste it? And even if you could choose to want to waste it, you would have to want to want to do that. All choices, though felt as free, are ultimately the end product of a long causal chain of preceding events. Every effect must originate from a preceding cause – following the principle of causality*. This idea is crucial to the causal determinist position. *... if there was somehow no preceding cause, as some advocates for free will might assume, how could one then ever affect anything? What Does That Mean for Us? Causal determinism is neutral and removes agency. In the contemplation of determinism’s impact on our lives, it becomes essential to discern how these underlying forces shape our existence and the scope of our freedom. Causal determinism, by its nature, presents a neutral force in the universe. Being neutral means that causal determinism does not inherently guide human actions towards any particular end or value; it simply posits that every event is the result of preceding events in accordance with the laws of nature. This framework suggests that while our actions are determined, they are not predetermined by any teleological, purposeful force. This understanding allows for the pursuit of happiness within the deterministic framework. The previously introduced notion that one can still “do what one wants to” remains valid under causal determinism. This is because the perception of choice and the pursuit of desires are not negated by the deterministic nature of the universe; they are simply understood to be the result of prior causes. We can of course not save human agency and omit the already mentioned and quite impactful subclause attached to it (“... but not want what one wants”). Importantly, the introduction of determinism only challenges the notion of meaning if one presupposes that meaning is derived exclusively from unfettered agency. This notion is, however, quite an unusual one – most people would likely rather say the derive meaning from the pursuit of happiness. However, even if agency is deemed essential for meaning, the subjective experience of making choices and pursuing desires – the feeling of agency – remains intact; we still very much feel like we have control over what we are doing in life. So while causal determinism does take away agency, this does not have to inherently be a problem for us. Indeed, this control that the laws of nature have about us are not directed towards any direction. They are neither inherently harmful nor beneficial paths; rather, it presents life as an amazingly engaging movie, that makes us experience it as if we are active participants. This perception does not diminish the quality of our lives but is instead a neutral force. Structural determinism is not neutral (right now even harmful) but allows some agency. Contrastingly, structural determinism operates on a different plane, embodying a directional force that significantly influences our collective and individual lives. Unlike causal determinism, structural determinism does not strip away our agency in the straightforward manner of causal determinism. Instead, it channels our decisions and actions within a pre-defined framework of societal and systemic constraints. This structure is not neutral; it is imbued with the values, inequalities, and power dynamics of the systems that constitute it, such as capitalism. Let us examine this in detail. In structural determinism, individual agency remains intact, but it is exercised within a constrained set of possibilities. Thereby its main influence on agency happens on a macro level, shaping the actions of the collective and over a long period of time. While we might be initially relieved to hear that we can keep our individual agency, reality is much harsher. In contrast to the strong controlling grip of causal determinism, structural determinism has softer touch but indeed pushes us persistently toward direction. I believe this direction of structural determinism is currently a harmful one, especially within the capitalist framework. Capitalism, by design, encourages certain behaviours and lifestyles, pushing individuals towards relentless productivity and overwork (I wrote an article about this some time ago!). The system values economic success and material accumulation above all, often at the expense of personal well-being, societal health and community. Thus, the capitalist imperative drives us as a society toward a direction that is actively harmful to us. How Should We Deal With This? In navigating the complexities of determinism, our responses to causal and structural determinism must diverge to address the distinct challenges each presents. Acceptance and action become the dual paths forward, each tailored to the nature of the determinism we confront. Accepting Causal Determinism Causal determinism, rooted in the immutable laws of nature, dictates a course of acceptance. The inexorable chain of cause and effect that governs the universe leaves us with little choice but to acknowledge our position within it. This acceptance does not imply passivity or resignation but rather an acknowledgment of the reality that shapes our existence. As we “navigate” life’s complexities, understanding that our desires, choices, and actions are part of a larger causal chain may bring a form of peace. Thereby, it can make us feel freed from the burden of trying to assert an impossible autonomy against the fundamental laws of nature. This perspective aligns with Albert Camus’ exploration of absurdity in “The Myth of Sisyphus”. Camus argues that recognising the absurdity of seeking meaning in a meaningless world does not lead to despair, but rather to a liberated state of mind. In accepting causal determinism, we encounter a similar form of liberation. The absurdity here lies in mankind’s refusal to accept the all-encompassing natural order that surrounds us. Embracing the absurd, then, means accepting our place within this deterministic framework and finding meaning within the limitations it presents, much like Sisyphus finds resolve in his eternal task. Revolting Against the Current Structural Determinism Conversely, structural determinism presents a scenario where acceptance morphs into complacency, and action becomes necessary. The harmful effect of the capitalist system is not an inevitable outcome of human nature but a consequence of specific societal structures of governance; however, unlike the laws of nature that dictate our lives elsewhere, the structures that define our societies are mutable. They are the result of human actions, decisions, and they can be restructured to prioritise different values and outcomes. It follows that revolt is our duty. What is needed for that is a collective will to reimagine and reconstruct the societal frameworks that bind us. It is not just about resisting or reforming certain aspects of the system; it is about envisioning and working towards a fundamentally different society that prioritises human welfare and nature over economic gain. How exactly such a society would look like and whether it can forcefully be acquired or must be the result of a process of evolution (or indeed is unattainable at all) these are questions part of a different debate. It rests with me to solely emphasises our collective ability of evoking change. For the individual structural revolt is not the only hope. As agency, as earlier explained, stays intact on the individual level, we can aim to free us from the structural influence of capitalism, at least to the extent that this is theoretically possible. Capitalisms influence is manifold. For one, it affects the economic opportunities of different groups to flourish in life. This is to some extent “a hard fact” which individual from such a group cannot feasibly escape from. Other effects are more cultural though. They shape the choices we make, the types of desires we have, and thereby also the lives we live. These cultural binds of capitalism are not less powerful than the economic ones, but they are more within our realm of influence. We can do so by first questioning the origins of our desires and then evaluating which are healthy and which are not. Of course, causal determinism restricts who will ever truly want to (want to, want to, ...) free themselves from these binds, yet a reader of this essay might have relatively decent chances to be on the right path. Conclusion It would be ironic, were I to end this piece with a call to action; a call about “freeing yourself from the capitalist chains that bind you”. Though it may be epic, it would also no doubt be foolish. Of course, in a very real sense this text (like any other entity, be it even the most insignificant) will necessarily shape the world. One might think that, therefore, I would very well be in the right, was I to attempt and persuade the reader. After all, even if our actions (including the writing of this text) are predetermined, a text that was predetermined to be very persuasive would indeed still be very persuasive, even if the reader never choses to be persuaded. Having now almost finished writing it, I hope this rather abstract and unusual conclusion is indeed a persuasive one. If only one reader were to believe my argument, critically examine their life, and alter this life’s path to its always predestined path (on the way, maybe even tell another person about it) – if only one reader were to do so – then this might indeed result in collective action that changes the world. “Is this Utopian? A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.” (Oscar Wilde in "The Soul of Man")