Is Capitalism Moral?

[hue-man]

Some people, like Ayn Rand's moral objectivists , say that free-market laissez-faire capitalism is moral because it fosters economic freedom and individualism or self-reliance. I believe that this negates two things. One is that freedom is not always synonymous with goodness and it's not always equal for everyone. Economic freedom seems to only benefit those who are fortunate enough to have the odds in their favor. People are born into economic classes and have no choice over what economic class they inherit. You also have issues such as employment and discrimination, which can affect whether or not a person can achieve the economic level of their choosing. The capitalist system is dependent upon economic inequality. Capitalism cannot survive without an economic class system that keeps certain people at a lower level than others. Therefore, capitalism can never be synonymous with equality, fairness, and impartiality.

Individualism or self-reliance ignores the fact that human beings are social animals, dependent upon each other for our long term survival. The scientific facts are on the side of collectivism, not individualism.

"Some problems said to be associated with capitalism include: unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power; a tendency toward market monopoly or oligopoly (and government by oligarchy); imperialism and various forms of economic and cultural exploitation; and phenomena such as social alienation, inequality, unemployment, and economic instability. Critics have maintained that there is an inherent tendency towards oligolopolistic structures when laissez-faire is combined with capitalist private property. Because of this tendency either laissez-faire, or private property, or both, have drawn fire from critics who believe an essential aspect of economic freedom is the extension of the freedom to have meaningful decision-making control over productive resources to everyone. Economist Branko Horvat asserts, "it is now well known that capitalist development leads to the concentration of capital, employment and power. It is somewhat less known that it leads to the almost complete destruction of economic freedom."[123] SMU Economics Professor and New York Times #1 best-selling author, Ravi Batra, has long maintained that excessive income and wealth inequalities are a fundamental cause of financial crisis and economic depression in the capitalist economy." - Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I therefore conclude that capitalism is immoral.

[GoshisDead]

Capitalism cannot survive without an economic class system that keeps certain people at a lower level than others. Therefore, capitalism can never be synonymous with equality, fairness, and impartiality.

This assumes that imparitality etc... is inherently moral. Who says it is inherently moral, equal distribution of that which we value is not inherently natural. If it were all naturally equally distributed it would not be valuable. It is the unequal distribution of the valuable that creates value in any system, Intelligence, Material, Goods, Services, Relationship etc... I don't think capitalism, socialism or any political ism can be considered moral or immoral using these defining traits.

Individualism or self-reliance ignores the fact that human beings are social animals, dependent upon each other for our long term survival. The scientific facts are on the side of collectivism, not individualism.

Individualism and self reliance does not ignore this fact, it is a result of this fact.

"Some problems said to be associated with capitalism include: unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power; a tendency toward market monopoly or oligopoly (and government by oligarchy); imperialism and various forms of economic and cultural exploitation; and phenomena such as social alienation, inequality, unemployment, and economic instability.

Again with the unfairness, this is not addressing the morality of fairness again. Nature is not fair, I was born with no debilitating diseases, my son was. This fact makes me a more fully contributing member of a social group. It also gives me an unfair advantage in any system including a socialistic one. Heirarchy is built into humanity, we are pack animals, there will always be a power structure that unfairly wieghts the more valuable against the less valuable. There will always be a power structure that weights the more pwoerful against the less powerful. I have a village with 9 farmers, one doctor, one charismatic person with leadership skills, and one "idiot". A ala peanut butter sandwitches, we have a hierarchy, a power structure, and an unequal distribution of power.

This is not a defense for capitalism, this is not a defense for any ism, only the morality of political systems. based on the arguments of unfairness and unequal distribution, there are no political systems where unequal distribution of the valued does not exist.

[xris]

Originally Posted by GoshisDead

This assumes that imparitality etc... is inherently moral. Who says it is inherently moral, equal distribution of that which we value is not inherently natural. If it were all naturally equally distributed it would not be valuable. It is the unequal distribution of the valuable that creates value in any system, Intelligence, Material, Goods, Services, Relationship etc... I don't think capitalism, socialism or any political ism can be considered moral or immoral using these defining traits.



Individualism and self reliance does not ignore this fact, it is a result of this fact.



Again with the unfairness, this is not addressing the morality of fairness again. Nature is not fair, I was born with no debilitating diseases, my son was. This fact makes me a more fully contributing member of a social group. It also gives me an unfair advantage in any system including a socialistic one. Heirarchy is built into humanity, we are pack animals, there will always be a power structure that unfairly wieghts the more valuable against the less valuable. There will always be a power structure that weights the more pwoerful against the less powerful. I have a village with 9 farmers, one doctor, one charismatic person with leadership skills, and one "idiot". A ala peanut butter sandwitches, we have a hierarchy, a power structure, and an unequal distribution of power.

This is not a defense for capitalism, this is not a defense for any ism, only the morality of political systems. based on the arguments of unfairness and unequal distribution, there are no political systems where unequal distribution of the valued does not exist.

You cant defend capitalism by saying there is nothing better.Humanity has advanced in its attitudes towards government.America made great leaps at the time by rejecting the legality of the crown, is that it? Does humanity claim it has reached the pinnacle of civilisation by its present method of government?It is times such as this that we should all look to a better world where greed is not the highest achievement man can judge a community by.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by hue-man

Individualism or self-reliance ignores the fact that human beings are social animals, dependent upon each other for our long term survival.

And economic theory, whether capitalist, socialist, barter, agrarian, whatever, is a "herd" theory that ignores the individual decisionmaking capacity of everyone in the community. People are beholden by their individual morals, above and beyond the system's impositions, and in any society people can be symbiotic, neutral, or parasitic.

A highly regulated system runs the risk of obliterating individual strengths and weaknesses, and being draconian to the point of being self-defeating. Too much power lies in the regulating body. An unregulated system runs the risk of obliterating recourse by those not in power, and overemphasizes the influence and power of people who are aggressive and parasitic.

Originally Posted by hue-man

The scientific facts are on the side of collectivism, not individualism.

I don't believe that for a second. There are no scientific facts to support any "-ism". We are 1) individual thinking beings, and we are 2) social beings. Beyond that, you can't prescribe any economic system based on science alone, partly because you can't create a system that will fully satisfy ALL desired endpoints (productivity, happiness, individual liberty, fairness).

Originally Posted by hue-man

I therefore conclude that capitalism is immoral.

Capitalism is only as moral or immoral as the people practicing it. By itself it's nothing.

[GoshisDead]

Originally Posted by xris

You cant defend capitalism by saying there is nothing better.Humanity has advanced in its attitudes towards government.America made great leaps at the time by rejecting the legality of the crown, is that it? Does humanity claim it has reached the pinnacle of civilisation by its present method of government?It is times such as this that we should all look to a better world where greed is not the highest achievement man can judge a community by.

As stated it wasn't a defense of capitalism. There was no Implication about progessive evolution of political systems. There is no such thing, There are only political systems that evolve to suit the times and situations. At whatever point that material possession is thought of differently there will be another system that better fits that scenario. It will still however suffer from unequal distribution of whatever is considered valuable. And as far as what I can and cant do, I can do anything I want that is physically possible.

[xris]

Originally Posted by GoshisDead

As stated it wasn't a defense of capitalism. There was no Implication about progessive evolution of political systems. There is no such thing, There are only political systems that evolve to suit the times and situations. At whatever point that material possession is thought of differently there will be another system that better fits that scenario. It will still however suffer from unequal distribution of whatever is considered valuable. And as far as what I can and cant do, I can do anything I want that is physically possible.

Its not about redistributing every last dollar or giving to the lazy their unfair share.Its about the morality of systems that encourage or even values greed.
It is unashamed greed that has left us all exposed.My political feelings have been stirred by these recent events.Socialism is my opinion but it may not be others.I just think we should all be looking at our values and what we should all be striving for after this disaster.

[GoshisDead]

I was not arguing that greed in natural, although I think it is. The argument is that value is defined by its unequal distribution, or scarcity, any sort of value be it material or otherwise. All things have a natural unequal distribution of that which is considered valuable. In fact we recognize the virtue of unselfishness as valuable. One need not be greedy to recognize the unequal distribution of that which is valuable, and one also need not be greedy to act as if that which is valuable is valuable, however the unqual distribution of that which is valuable in any of its senses creates unequal distribution of power and prestige. In any form of govt. this function will be expressed.

[xris]

Originally Posted by GoshisDead

I was not arguing that greed in natural, although I think it is. The argument is that value is defined by its unequal distribution, or scarcity, any sort of value be it material or otherwise. All things have a natural unequal distribution of that which is considered valuable. In fact we recognize the virtue of unselfishness as valuable. One need not be greedy to recognize the unequal distribution of that which is valuable, and one also need not be greedy to act as if that which is valuable is valuable, however the unqual distribution of that which is valuable in any of its senses creates unequal distribution of power and prestige. In any form of govt. this function will be expressed.

Its the examples that describe its details.I have no desire to take what is rightfully theirs but it is the manner of their acquiring that we should study.
Can you honestly say you have never found an act by certain corporate business immoral and have never thought there should be law against that.We are faced every day by the cruelty and injustice of certain companies towards those who cant retaliate.The system appears to acknowledge the necessity, it requires a change in mind set by us all.

[Elmud]

I sometimes think that maybe any form of government could be moral whether it be capitalism, socialism, a benevolent monarchy, so on and so forth. Maybe the lack of individual responsibility in a collective sense, is what makes any form of government immoral.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by hue-man

One is that freedom is not always synonymous with goodness and it's not always equal for everyone.

Name a manner in which a free person can suffer injustice.

Economic freedom seems to only benefit those who are fortunate enough to have the odds in their favor.

Economic freedom is rooted in mutual benefit.

It makes no sense for two free men to enter into an agreement that helps one and harms the other. The only way in which two men will enter into such an agreement is if one is indeed subservient.

You also have issues such as employment and discrimination, which can affect whether or not a person can achieve the economic level of their choosing.

Employment is a real can of worms, but if you wish to explain how capitalism suffers inherently more from unemployment, I would be glad to address your argument.

As for discrimination, if discrimination becomes such a problem within capitalism as to prohibit the achievement of discriminated groups, the introduction of central control over economic agents will merely institutionalize the discrimination.

The capitalist system is dependent upon economic inequality. Capitalism cannot survive without an economic class system that keeps certain people at a lower level than others. Therefore, capitalism can never be synonymous with equality, fairness, and impartiality.

This is likely nonsense. Perhaps you will surprise me and offer some critique of capital that shows it can only be possible under those circumstances and not under a free system, but I am willing to wager money that you simply assume that Western economy is a good and true example of capitalism.

Individualism or self-reliance ignores the fact that human beings are social animals, dependent upon each other for our long term survival. The scientific facts are on the side of collectivism, not individualism.

Absolute nonsense. One of the foremost voices of capitalism and individualism said these quotes:

"The greater productivity of work under the division of labour is a unifying influence. It leads men to regard each other as comrades in a joint struggle for welfare, rather than as competitors in a struggle for existence. It makes friends out of enemies, peace out of war, society out of individuals."

"... liberal social theory proves that each single man sees in all others, first of all, only means to the realization of their purposes, while he himself is to all others a means to the realization of their purposes; that finally, by this reciprocal action, in which each is simultaneously means and end, the highest aim of social life is obtained - the achievement of a better existence for everyone. As society is only possible if everyone, while living his own life, at the same time helps others to live; if every individual is simultaneously means and end; if each individual's well-being is simultaneously the condition necessary to the well-being of others, it is evident that the contrast between I and thou, means and end, automatically is overcome."

The individualist does not propose that men become anti-social islands to themselves, rather the individualist proposes that the person is social because he wishes to and chooses to.

What collectivists often don't realize is that there is no man who less socially inclined than the man forced to be social.