The morality of capitalism
Can we derive a morality from capitalist ideology or is it an amoral ideology? If we can, what are the ethical rules? And are those rules independent of the capitalist ideology or do they result from this ideology?
Let's take a first stab with a wikipedia definition of capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
If we take Marx, we'd probably look best at his "mode of production" definition, which I'll summarise as follows: private ownership of the means of production, extraction of surplus value by the owning class for the purpose of capital accumulation, wage-based labour and market-based exchange of commodities.
What are the ethical rules we can derive from this idea? I'm only going to mention two for now, to see what other people think is relevant since I'm enquiring here not sharing my rock-solild opinion.
- things become available for ownership either through trade or production
- respect private ownership
- respect transfer of ownership
A first question, what happens to a transfer of private ownership to the State? Ethical rules say ok but the ideology itself resists this. So it has the possibility of an inherent contradiction if enough people would want to transfer their ownership to the State. Unlikely at the national level. On the other hand, this seems to be the self-evident method for most families. We pool our resources and spend collectively, parents are generally trusted to make decisions on behalf of the family unit.
Another question: what is meant with private? Keeping aside for a moment the possible utility of corporations, there doesn't seem to be any reason why a State should promote corporations and allow for shareholding and limited liability. In fact, I suffer a higher liability acting as a person (in principle unlimited) than a corporation. It can also damage the first principle to respect private ownership. If I cause damages as a private person, I must repair those damages. If a corporation does it, it will only have to do so to the extent it has capital - once that's exhausted the damaged party has no recourse and his private ownership is not fully respected.
Another question: what is the effect of the basic immortality of corporations? Instinctually, I'd suspect there's some equilibrium with a large concentration of property and means of production in the hands of corporations, shares in the hands of elites and consumer goods for everyone else.
Considering the above I'm tempted to argue that if you're in favour of capitalism you'd have to argue against the protections afforded to corporations.
EDIT: to answer my initial questions. I think ethical rules can be derived from the ideology but also think they are dependent on the capitalist framework. There could be overriding other ethical reasons to reject economic and political frameworks due to their consequences (inequality) or replace it with another framework automatically rendering capitalist outcomes as "unjust" as the new system would have its own ethical rules presumably at odds with capitalism. Before going into that though I'd prefer to stick to just capitalism in this thread for now and see what "real" capitalism should look like based on its theoretical framework without letting ourselves be too much distracted by the reality on the ground.
Let's take a first stab with a wikipedia definition of capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
If we take Marx, we'd probably look best at his "mode of production" definition, which I'll summarise as follows: private ownership of the means of production, extraction of surplus value by the owning class for the purpose of capital accumulation, wage-based labour and market-based exchange of commodities.
What are the ethical rules we can derive from this idea? I'm only going to mention two for now, to see what other people think is relevant since I'm enquiring here not sharing my rock-solild opinion.
- things become available for ownership either through trade or production
- respect private ownership
- respect transfer of ownership
A first question, what happens to a transfer of private ownership to the State? Ethical rules say ok but the ideology itself resists this. So it has the possibility of an inherent contradiction if enough people would want to transfer their ownership to the State. Unlikely at the national level. On the other hand, this seems to be the self-evident method for most families. We pool our resources and spend collectively, parents are generally trusted to make decisions on behalf of the family unit.
Another question: what is meant with private? Keeping aside for a moment the possible utility of corporations, there doesn't seem to be any reason why a State should promote corporations and allow for shareholding and limited liability. In fact, I suffer a higher liability acting as a person (in principle unlimited) than a corporation. It can also damage the first principle to respect private ownership. If I cause damages as a private person, I must repair those damages. If a corporation does it, it will only have to do so to the extent it has capital - once that's exhausted the damaged party has no recourse and his private ownership is not fully respected.
Another question: what is the effect of the basic immortality of corporations? Instinctually, I'd suspect there's some equilibrium with a large concentration of property and means of production in the hands of corporations, shares in the hands of elites and consumer goods for everyone else.
Considering the above I'm tempted to argue that if you're in favour of capitalism you'd have to argue against the protections afforded to corporations.
EDIT: to answer my initial questions. I think ethical rules can be derived from the ideology but also think they are dependent on the capitalist framework. There could be overriding other ethical reasons to reject economic and political frameworks due to their consequences (inequality) or replace it with another framework automatically rendering capitalist outcomes as "unjust" as the new system would have its own ethical rules presumably at odds with capitalism. Before going into that though I'd prefer to stick to just capitalism in this thread for now and see what "real" capitalism should look like based on its theoretical framework without letting ourselves be too much distracted by the reality on the ground.
Comments (105)
I'd say the primary problem is here. How do we account for the means of production in this rule? The means of production cannot become available through production (that would lead to an infinite regress), nor can they become available through trade (which has the problem of the uncaused cause).
In reality, all property was either appropriated from a state of Nature, or stolen by force of arms, so to be a consistent ethical theory it would have to either allow for both these things (which I think would clash with a lot of ethics), or account for their historical impact in some way. This is where a moral requirement to compensate the dispossessed comes from.
Yes, I think so. I'm a little confused about exactly what you're aiming at here, but is it something like asking whether capitalism makes moral statements? If so, then I think you could only see it as such from an ahistorical perspective. It could only ever provide hypothetical imperatives. If we accept we are where we are, in terms of property ownership, then we should...
Yes, reading your response to Descartes, I think I see where you are going now, something like "for a capitalist, what should capitalism look like morally?". Is that close?
If so, then I would say that such a hypothetical imperative as I've suggested is ideologically necessary. In order for capitalism to allow inheritance, it must detach acquisition of capital from any sense of moral entitlement. The son of an oil tycoon might be an absolutely reprehensible monster, but he would still rightly 'own' what used to be his father's capital. In that sense, it is a necessary rule of capitalism that you simply have a right to own whatever it has become possible for you to own. The question then, is that what caveats does capitalism itself place on this categorical rule?
It's obviously not that such acquisition must be legal (capitalism doesn't have any constraints on changing the law, so current legality can't be prescriptive).
It's also not that such acquisitions must be approved of by democratic society (as you said, state acquisitions would be avoided, regardless of their democratic approval).
So, I think this is the first question, what might be the rules capitalism implies about the acquisition of property?
Yes, it is. It stems from the fact that Adam Smith was first and foremost a moral philosopher and it seems "economic theory" has been divorced from moral theory and is living a life on its own with all sorts of consequences that are not capitalism "proper". So by rediscovering the moral basis/assumptions of capitalism I suspect quite a lot of critique can be leveled against current political and economic systems. That would be the purpose of this thread.
Tangentially (and out of scope for this thread), I even suspect, based on Marx' attempt to continue Smith's and Ricardo's work on a labour theory of value, that Marx' economic ideas are in many respects not conflicting with capitalism. I also suspect capitalism has a lot of holes by remaining silent on a variety of questions or answers them in ways that are impractical to an extent that they are impossible (legal proceedings, general utilities, the costs of holding principles, army, police and fire departments). Meaning that at a minimum its central position in policy might cause fundamental problems for society as a whole if it focuses too much on its economy.
Quoting Pseudonym
I would say; provided his father transferred it to him by last will. Filial relations aren't grounds for transfer unless the law prescribes them and that's unnecessary for capitalism to work. What happens to his property if he dies unexpectedly without leaving a will. Who owns what in that case? The highest bidder? But paying who?
Quoting Pseudonym
I think we might even stay away from "democratic". In a rights-based liberal approach, rights can be owned so I can transfer my vote to another as well. We could all transfer them to Xin Jiping.
Quoting Pseudonym
Yes, I think that's a good start and we'd need to delve into what property means as well.
I surmise that the moral roots of the esteem in which private ownership is held in a capitalist worldview go back at least to Locke and his notion that everybody has the moral right to ownership of their self. Some (Nozick, perhaps?) have argued from that that what somebody produces through their own effort is a product of their self, and their moral right to their self extends to what their self has produced, thereby giving them a moral right to the product of their labour. Nozick argued that it follows from this that taxation is partial slavery, as it makes the proportion of time that was spent earning the wealth that was removed by taxation, slave labour for the government.
OK, but then what about inherited wealth, which is a primary source of the concentration of ownership of the means of production? I think (or recall?) that the Nozicks of the world would argue that the person who originally produced the wealth has a moral right to it, and thereby to bequeath it to whomsoever they wish. If it is removed from the recipient, by tax or other means, that is depredation upon the moral right of the person that first produced it, and thereby immoral. So inherited wealth morally belongs to the inheritor because to do otherwise would infringe the moral right of the producer of that wealth. This starts to look very tenuous after several generations (if not even after only one), but I could see somebody making the argument that the moral thread still holds.
Lucy Allais wrote a good piece about the problems of extending deontological ethics into the future and the past. Essentially, the person whose rights are being respected doesn't exist, either way. If we can give rights to non-existent entities, then we can give rights to fictitious entities, theoretical entities...
Even if we were to assign rights to non-existent entities and somehow curtail the lunacy that could otherwise entail, it still doesn't quite get us round the problem of first acquisition. I feel as though if capitalism wants to put any moral value at all on the ownership of property it has to address the issues of how the property left a state of nature and became owned. Property that is farmed or gardened could become owned by virtue of the labour used to transform it, but that is not without its issues. I suspect the capitalist would also like to retain rights to property not so transformed (hunting estates, for example) and would like some means of resolution over conflicts of ownership from a state of nature (tribal land claims, for example).
If I allow you to sink or swim, I am allowing nature to bless you with grace born of adversity. In the end you will be strong, flexible, and free (if you don't drown).
The good is whatever ministers to life. We learn from Nature what life requires.
Interesting. How does she deal with any duty of care for later generations? They don't have rights so we just screw the planet and let them deal with the fallout?
Nozick seems quite a logical place to start.
Quoting Pseudonym
How does a capitalist acquire land as property? Is this really possible within a capital system? Is all the effort I have to make to originally acquire unowned land the planting of a flag? It requires a register to really work but capitalism doesn't prescribe the necessity for such registers.
Actually it was Hans Jonas, not Lucy Allais, apologies, I tried to cite from memory, always a risky. Anyway, he doesn't reconcile it at all, he's pretty scathing of all moral systems for their inability to require anything more than a contingent duty to future generations (contingent upon them existing), but without a duty to cause future generations, the contingent duty ceases to have any imperitive power.
His solution, such as there is one, is a vaguely ethical naturalistic stance. We're going to produce a future generation whether we are duty bound to or not. He then derives a duty to them. I tend to go further to say our desire to satisfy their well-being is also a given, and it's the conflict with other given desires that's the problem. It then becomes a conflict resolution problem, not an moral imperitive one. But that's a bit off topic.
Your point about property shows, to my mind, why it is at the heart of the capitalist dilemma. Capitalism (Adam Smith variety) relies on the principle that people will assign a price to a product that ultimately reflects their own self interest in it. It does not properly address the issue of why they must pay a price at all. If the apple is growing wild, why does anyone's self-interested assessment of value even enter into it?
I think the strongest support for capitalism, by which I mean the manner in which it can be applied without internal inconsistencies, is as a means for proscribing non-essential economic activity.
- things become available for ownership either through trade or production (that are not essential to survival)
- respect private ownership (of objects beyond those which are essential to survival)
- respect transfer of ownership (of objects not essential to survival)
Essentially its communism for the means of survival and capitalism for the rest.
Capitalists rejected social stratification based on divine right. Capitalists need maximal freedom to operate and so advocate freedom for everyone.
Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
Freedom to what? Freedom is not a thing one can advocate, one had to advocate the freedom to... (something). What is it you think capitalism advocates the freedom to do?
Its ideology has its roots in a conflict with aristocracy. We may forget that historically social mobility was limited. The people at the bottom had no education and no opportunities beyond what custom allowed. This structure was backed by the Church. The social upheaval that produced our norms was fueled by money.
That may be why its hard to see capitalist morality. Everyone in the west is immersed in it. In a sense capitalism created us.
It was fuelled by complex socio-politico-economic factors. Science, dissemination of knowledge and technology also played an important role. Capitalism did not create us.
I believe my point is in line with a Marxist view. It's one of the reasons Lenin thought that morality is for "the little people." He, of course, was a BIG person.
That doesn't make it any more valid.
If we replace the 'we all' by 'many of us' - or possibly 'most of us', although that would be more subject to contestation - the point is solid, and highly relevant.
It gets more ambivalent when we consider rags to riches stories like John Lennon or other creative artists that started with close to nothing and acquired riches by making something that everybody wanted to buy.
That may be why Nozick's most famous example for his 'taxation is slavery' argument was a very rich and successful black basketballer Wilt Chamberlain. Was Chamberlain raised in poverty? Did Nozick deliberately choose him because that avoided the 'illegitimately acquired initial wealth' argument, as well as hoping his argument would resonate better with with people's emotions about America's slave past because of Chamberlain's ancestral roots?
The bourgeoisie, the owners of capital, may profess the morality of Christianity, or another religion, but in general find the demands of an otherworldly faith to be of little value, except for public relations purposes. Naked capitalism is the ruthless pursuit of wealth.
[1] Contracts, for example, to sell something at a certain price, to perform a task for a given rate of payment, or buy something for the stated price at a later date. "We can't do business if people are not honest."
Without the obfuscations of public relations and sentimental or religious decoration, the operation of naked capitalism in the market place causes the religiously, or morally romantic observer to quail in distress.
---
On the other hand...
---
Even if the market is the most powerful force in a society (or on earth in all societies) it isn't the only force. There must be workers to generate new wealth, and a society large and rich enough to buy the created goods on which wealth is based.
Individuals who are not capitalists (most people), the various cultural institutions which people establish, the family, and the government which must seek to contain unrest and maintain order all moderate the raw brutality of naked capitalism.
There are always other interests and other moral systems which weigh against the values of naked capitalism.
I'm going to have a go at answering "What is property?"
When I own something -- be it a parcel of land, a book of family photographs, a company, an insurance policy, a ticket for transit, a certification -- I have a claim of some sorts as to how that owned something is to be used. I may do with it as I please, and can even allow others to do with it as I please. So if I own a sizeable portion of land that is fertile and could produce good crops I may use a portion of that land to feed my needs, and allow the rest of it to lay fallow -- say I enjoy walking through the countryside. Now supposing I have a neighbor who also has fertile land, but not quite as much, because they do not own my land they could not plant in it.
Now suppose one season my neighbor decides that this isn't exactly a fair arrangement, since I'm not doing anything with good land anyway, and they could use said land to benefit themselves and even others (by producing good crops, rather than just let the land go to waste). So they decide to plow my land and plant the crops there, come what may.
What am I to do?
I think that in a positive sense we may direct what we own. But the character of property really comes out when our claims to it are violated by others. Supposing there were no state then I would have to find some means of recourse by negotiating with my neighbor. At the end of the day we may not ever see eye-to-eye, but I'll then have some kind of feeling that I have a claim to that land anyways, and will do what I need to do to enforce said claim -- bandy together with fellow neighbors to apply social pressure, burn the crops of my neighbor when they grow, salt the fields, or by the use of militant force.
In some ways property, of this sort, is before the state. But this kind of property preceded capitalism. Feudalism, for instance -- while it did not always rely upon war to solve issues -- certainly did resolve disputes over property by means of war.
What is especially significant about capitalism is that there is a state to back up said claims. There is a law in place and a process backed up by the eventual use of force to enforce claims. Property, state, and the law are all bound together in a capitalist economy.
In some way, then, property actually becomes a limited dictatorship over whatever set of things owned, but delimited by the power of the state (since the state is what enforces said claims in the first place). How said laws and states are arranged -- and even economies, as even this form of property is not what makes capitalism, but is the kind of property which capitalism relies upon -- can differ dramatically, and need not reflect our current societies.
But the point I want to drive home most is that in order for the kind of property which capital requires to exist there must also exist a state which enforces the claims which make property. Mostly because I think it's naive to look at capitalism, corporation, private ownership, and the whole lot of industry under capitalism as somehow opposed to the state (as is often conceived in popular imagination, but I don't think that capitalists are unaware of this -- just something worth noting because of said popular imagination, and also because 'property' often goes undefined and presumed as well understood)
The divine Gore Vidal.
Sounds like a naive and silly person.
Unless you actually says capitalism NEEDS to cultivate virtue.
Curious statement.
Capitalism is driven by profit; true. I don't think the phrase "capitalist morality" makes much sense at all.
Perhaps, but why would we do that? In the US, many of the staunchest capitalists are found among the religious right who adopt a communal ethical theory (love they neighbor), yet they do not impose it on their economic ideology. Quoting Benkei
I agree that these are notions consistent with capitalism, but it seems a matter of degree than of type when comparing it to Marxist theory. Obviously no Marxist believes I have the right to rip his (our) shirt off his back when I'm ready to wear it. I'm just wondering to what extent you find these notions distinct to capitalism.Quoting Benkei
This confuses me a bit. The right to eminent domain exists in the most capitalist of countries and the taking of the property must be accompanied by just compensation. Taxation is another method of transfer of wealth from the private to the public. Neither of these are antithetical to capitalism, at least not how it's practiced. Even the staunchest libertarian would acknowledge some role for the state and therefore some need for taxation and sharing of wealth. Again, this turns into a matter of degree as opposed to to type. I just don't really know how your Marxist society will be structured and how it can adhere to extreme forms of non-ownership. Even should there be no private right to own land, I'd suspect that the government must provide some possessory right to land (you've got to be somewhere) that cannot be removed without some legal basis. Quoting Benkei
This strikes me an diversion from your original question, which was how we were to derive an ethical theory from analysis of capitalism. There is nothing inherently capitalistic about corporations in principle. A corporation could be non-profit and could be committed to protecting the public good (the American Heart Foundation for example). A corporation's liability is limited to its assets, just like yours, meaning it's no more or less vulnerable in principle than an individual. I don't follow your suggestion that you would be liable even after your assets ran dry. Sure, I'd rather sue you personally than the shell corporation you might have set up, but I'd rather sue the major corporation you work for than you personally should you be negligent. I'd also say that it's entirely possible within a capitalistic framework to limit individual liability, which has been the push behind tort reform measures, where limits on liability would be imposed for individuals.Quoting Benkei
This question overly tips your hand, not that it was hard to decipher the bias, but it detracts from the objectivity of the conversation. The question assumes corporations are immoral. I'd hold that only people are immoral or not, and the great injustices brought about by corporations were caused by immoral people with large financial influence. A rich son of a bitch of any stripe, whether he sits atop family money or as CEO of a major corporation is equally immoral. The corporate status does nothing to confer immorality.Quoting Benkei
And yet most capitalists favor corporations. I don't follow what special protection they are afforded that you find offensive to the capitalist. I would suspect that large corporations feel they are much bigger targets to lawsuits than average citizens. In fact, the way the typical citizen of even moderate worth reduces his exposure to liability is by purchasing insurance, which is nothing more than hiring a corporation to accept his potential financial burdens. And what is insurance other than the private enterprise solution to communal burden sharing?
I'd submit this suggestion is lazy. It simply rejects the declarations of faith by the capitalists as not being heartfelt (and perhaps ironically proclaims the avowed Marxist atheists the truly religious). I am quite certain that those declaring their Christian faith truly believe, which means the object should be in figuring out how they can consistently reject the idea of providing the public good through an institutionalized economic system yet truly believe the public should be cared for. The answer lies in the capitalist's profound distrust for government, believing that any good that ought be doled out to the public ought be done privately, voluntarily, and with as little government intervention as possible.
And I get you reject all this, but I think it's a fairer description of the capitalist than simply calling him a hypocrite.
Yes, good points.
Yours is a far more charitable, and likely the more accurate view of the typical capitalist believer.
Quoting Hanover
No, I don't think marxists are the truly religious ones. Some marxists are good people, some capitalists are good people. Hypocrisy is universal, afflicting marxists and capitalists alike.
Immortality. Not immorality! :rofl: I'll reply more in depth when I'm behind a computer but thanks so far.
I'm pretty sure I'm missing the point of your question. Maybe you could expand. But my answer would be: it's an expectation that formed as a result of an extended period of growth and prosperity in the USA.
Anyway, the biggest moral argument made in favour of capitalism over socialism is freedom -- hence the colloquial phrase for capitalism is free market.
Also why liberalism (in the classical and philosophical sense) is in favour of capitalism.
Well, make your Ts more prominent if you want a meaningful response.
No. Socialism is a moral response to the immorality of capitalism.
To some extent, yes. But for the most part the relationship is that capitalism occasionally breaks down. Socialism is imported as a fix.
Socialism was born out of societies in Europe in which death through poverty was common. People were worked to death, on wages to small to buy enough food.
That is unmitigated capitalism.
What you, in your life, have experienced is a society in which the basis needs of people have been met by the socialist policies on the state; free education, social housing, progressive taxation, public health provision, town planning, police, fire service, minimum wage, and even free prisons (yes back in the old days you even had to pay your way in chokey).
When, what you laughingly call "occasionally breaks down", is risible.
-Benkei
The concepts of 'good' and 'evil' only work when defined within an ideology, but really don't work when judging an ideology itself since you have to use another ideology, but of course that would be biased in a way depending on which ideology we choose to subscribe to when making such judgement. Although it may be cheating, as a rule of thumb when it comes to the question of whether an particular ideology is 'good'/'evil', I instead usually look at whether it is believed and/or used by many people and if it also has a lot of problems. Since many people believe in the powers of 'capitalism' it at least works in the way certain religious/social ideologies work, but since it both doesn't resolve certain issues that other ideologies also had before it as well as create additional ones as well, I think it is safe to safe that it is not without issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A first question, what happens to a transfer of private ownership to the State? "
"Another question: what is meant with private?"
"Another question: what is the effect of the basic immortality of corporations? "
-Benkei
The ideas of "states", "corporations", and "private individuals" are abstract concepts used for business and legal needs but certain organizations and/or assets labeled as one of these three could often easily be changed to one of the others (or possible either two of the other three) and more or less operate the same way. It might be an over simplification to say that it has more to do about management, auditing/accountability, etc. than ideology, but I think it is safe to safe there are other qualitative and quantitative at work here so whether something is thought of a "state's", "corporation's", and "private individual's" isn't the only thing at work here and could be even moot in certain cases where other issues are much more pressing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Considering the above I'm tempted to argue that if you're in favor of capitalism you'd have to argue against the protections afforded to corporations"
-Benkei
I think modern "capitalism" suffers from many of same problems that ll other ideologies suffer from is that when people subscribe only it and think it is a panacea for all our problems, they tend to get upset/frustrated at the things it is not good at doing and just ignore those problem and just move on. In many ways this similar to the saying "when your a hammer, everything in the world looks like it is a nail."
If I allow you to sink or swim, I am allowing nature to bless you with grace born of adversity. In the end you will be strong, flexible, and free (if you don't drown)."
-frank
These sentences look like they are merely cut and pasted from a couple of those stupid motivational posters corporate america likes to hang in the halls of some office since they are too cheap/lazy to bother to with hanging real artwork for their employees to look at.
Most of the poor and the working class more or less realize that nobody can catch EVERY bird that falls from the sky, but they also know there is a double standard in our society where some of us get the respect they deserve and resources needed to survive while others have neither even if they did everything in their power to pay their fair share to society as all of us are expected to do.
IMHO, it is almost always these people that are without want that believe in the so called "rugged individual" and wish the other half would either shut up and/or "go away" so that they wouldn't have to deal with the inconvenience/threat that their existence presents to them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The good is whatever ministers to life. We learn from Nature what life requires"
-frank
There is no objective "good" that we know of. Morality is the merely metrics that we use judge actions against whatever ideologies we choose to invent and subscribe to; however outside of any particular ideology they don't mean the same thing. Or another way to put it, "We do what we do, because that is the way that we do it".
-CuddlyHedgehog
You got that right, although it might be more accurate to put it as planned economy for the elites in Western societies and Darwinism/"survival of the fittest" for everyone else.
-René Descartes
Although human beings are able to better control/manipulate our environment than other animals, our sentience doesn't exclude of from many of the threats that any and all other animals face so more or less we are the same contrary to your statement.
As to the issue as why some people are fat, that is a problem not really relevant to this thread although I think it could be easily resolved by understanding a combination of various issues in modern society as well as the problems with the human condition.
Get glasses, old man.
Quoting Hanover
I think taxation and other types of enforced transfer to the State do not result from capital ethical rules and are defendable on other grounds, so in that sense they're out of scope for this thread.
As to the confusion, I'm merely pointing out that if capitalism is private ownership of trade/commerce/production and if private ownership means I can do whatever I want, I can certainly willingly transfer my ownership to the State. But if everybody would be willing to do so, I don't have capitalism any more. So the rules allow for it but the basic ideology of capitalism seems at odds with such an outcome (theoretical as it may be).
Does that contradiction need to be resolved? Since I like consistency I would answer yes so we'd either have to fix the rules, add a rule or amend the ideology. Some options:
1. Add a rule: You're not allowed to transfer ownership to the State. That in itself is a limitation to property rights so seems a bad choice given the framework.
2. Add a rule: A duty on the State to minimise public ownership. That could work (and raises practical issues but let's leave that for now).
3. Amend the ideology: it's not about private ownership but about respect of ownership in itself regardless of whether this is public or private. This could work too.
What that seems to indicate is the moment when it stopped being the American Reality.
I think the morality of capitalism depends on there being a frontier. As long as there are untapped resources out there, the accumulation of property cannot be said to be depriving anyone. We all slave on @Jamalrob's estate here, but if anyone feels unhappy, they are free to carve out their own philosophical homestead further down the internet highway.
But there is no land left to clear; no free space to invest my labour in and grow my food and my capital. The landless peasant is doomed to remain forever landless, because all the land is already owned. And at this stage it becomes apparent and significant that to own property is to deprive others of its use.
So then, not only must one pay for the social enforcement of property rights through police, army, justice system, etc, one also ought to pay compensation to those one has deprived of the world. This is called Socialism, and it is not opposed to the morality of private property, but is a modification of it that responds to reaching the limits of the frontier of freedom.
Someone mentioned recently that data is the new oil. Oil was a new untapped resource available to anyone prepared to get their hands dirty, and then it wasn't any more. It turns out that data is likewise a finite resource, and has lead to monopolies in the same way. And data, it seems to me, really is the final frontier; once we have exploited our own psyches, there is nowhere else to go.
What does the verticle axis represent?
TO provide the sort of infrastructure capital needs to work it is vitally necessary to run most services at cost through the public sector taxation. Without this capitalism would not thrive. Think roads, police fire, schools. The state preserves the power to seize what land it needs for these activities.
That would be absurd. It's recipe for fall and decline.
What is property? Property is theft.
"Theft" implies taking someone else's property. If property is theft, then who is being stolen from?
1. Dedication of private lands to the state occurs regularly when homes are developed and the developer then deeds the roadways to the state for upkeep and traffic enforcement. If that weren't the case, you'd burden each neighborhood with road and rain drainage upkeep and you'd limit access only to those who owned the roads. So, Rule 1 pretty much fucks up neighborhood development. Good job.
Another reason you might want to give your land to the state is when they have significantly devalued it by their development of adjacent land, like when they run an interstate through your back yard. You would have the right to seek inverse condemnation, arguing they have taken your land by devaluing it, and you'd force the state to compensate you for it. That's a basic Constitution right under the "takings" clause. So, you have now violated the Constitution with Rule 1. You are really fucking shit up.
There's also another issue you're not considering, which is that just because one has the right to give their land to the state doesn't mean that the state must keep it. They could resell it and make it public again, so we don't need to prohibit dedicating land to the state in order to protect capitalism for fear everyone will do it. We must assume that the state would be able to find a buyer when all these folks start giving up their land.
2. State ownership of public land is limited by public policy, based upon what the good folks in our thriving democracy want. Nevada, for example, has massive portions owned by the federal government, and there are many national, state, county, and city parks owned by the government. The US is a huge country with plenty of land for all, and we love our parks and natural preserves. Stop fucking that up. I just got back from Glacier National Park with my kids. Why do you want to deprive future generations of that and the memories of seeing nature and wildlife? Do you hate families and nature?
3. I agree with this, which is what I was alluding to before. Where "ownership" begins and other less expansive possessory rights begin is not a crystal clear distinction.
Are you making an association between "religious" and "good people"?
Private property is stolen from the commons.
Are you experiencing deja vu? It's odd that the only way to say that in English is in French. ?
So it was the property of the commons prior to being stolen? If not, then it's not theft (as no unlawful seizure of property has occurred). If so, then the commons stole it (because property is theft). (Recall that the post to which I initially responded said that "property is theft." You have tacked on the qualifier "private".)
Then the commons stole it, if we accept the premise that "property is theft."
Don't get snippy with me if you can't follow an argument with 2 premises to its logical conclusion.
- René Descartes
I more or less agree. However this isn't a new issue as it has many of it's root back to the being of the industrial age when the robber barons of those time would ruthlessly seek to obtain any asset that would enable them to make money and would only leave enough scraps for other people to survive.
If you can either take American History II at a local college or read up on the time period from about the American Civil War to modern time. In it there should be some discussion about how and why workers started forming into unions in order to have some leverage against robber barons, corporations, etc. . I also recommend watching the following video:
Poor Us: an animated history - Why Poverty?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxbmjDngois
-Arkady
The point of unenlightened's I think you missed is that commons can not steal whatever "it" is because the commons is neither owned by ANYONE nor a entity in and of itself like a corporation is, so it isn't really owned by anyone/anything including itself.
Think of a wild animal somewhere out in the jungle somewhere just living it's life and doing it's thing. In theory it owns itself in some way but because it is just part of nature and has no idea of property such ideas and rules are not really applicable to it in it's natural state. However if someone comes along using a tranquilizer dart to knock it out, burns a bar code into it's backside, and then throw it into a cage, it is no longer in it's natural setting and it is now the "property" of whomever did it to them and trying to sell the animal to someone else or keep it for themselves for whatever reasons.
I just noticed you were talking to me. If you select text from a post, a quote button will appear. Push the quote button. That will make it easier for people you address to notice your post.
I think you misunderstood my post as personal admonition or something. I was expressing what I believe to be capitalist morality. It's along the lines of master morality, but actually less brutal.
It's interesting to observe otherwise leftist, possibly pacifist people operating by master morality. :)
-frank
While it might be a crime in some places for workers and protesters to occupy a factory or some other area without proper permission, to use the word "atrocity" to describe such actions is an exaggeration since it is reserved for things like mass murder, genocide, etc. or at the very least violence and physical injury to one or more people.
Also since the Putin and/or the Russia state can seize entire oil companies and/or other corporate entities merely because they are being accused of working with Western organizations to undermine the current administration, I somehow doubt that the threat of workers merely interfering with operations worry Russian capitalists that much if ALL of one's assets can be seized as well they themselves being arrested on whatever charges and thrown into the gulag at the drop of a hat if the rub the powers that be in the existing regime if you happen to rub them the wrong way.
Mere angry workers may be threatening to some, but they can't do that much as groups that have the power or threat of those who have tanks, armies, ships, fighter jets, etc. behind them.
Ok, I'll try to do that although I kind of don't like posting something without the context of what it is arguing with nearby.
When you say "master morality" are you talking about master–slave morality from Nietzsche or in reference o something else?
You can do that too.
Then appropriating it for personal use isn't theft, as theft is the unlawful appropriation of someone else's property. If it's not "owned by anyone/anything including itself," then it's not property, and if it's not property, then its appropriation for private use does not constitute theft, contra the thesis that "[all] property is theft."
Ok, I'll have to read up on that in order to understand it better but for the sake of speed assume it isn't that different for thing like Machiavellianism and/or Ayn Rand's Objectivism, but will be careful not to assume they are the same and/or creating straw-men with such assumptions.
Just so you know where I'm coming from it might be helpful to know that a lot of my arguments (for economies at least) are based of the works of Martin Heidegger or at least the morality that I interpret from his works. If you have a chance I would recommend either getting a pdf copy or book from Amazon called "Heidegger For Beginners", since it is a decent way to get a crash course into some of his beliefs and thoughts.
As a person who is Nihilist/Machiavellian I can accept that "morality" is merely a social construct and may not apply when push comes to shove, BUT one needs a certain...finesse when dealing with complex situations such as one of Machiavellian's princes might be required to handle. Robber barons and/or capitalists who raid and plunder without regard to those who are their lesser might think risk inciting riots and rebellions even if the end does justify the means in some way.
Also what I wonder with Nietzsche's master-slave morality is what happens if we end up with everyone wanting to be the 'chief' and nobody wanting to be an just an indian since it would require them to serve under a tyrant? For what little I know of such situations where an organization employs too many competitive individuals is that it risks tearing itself apart with endless infighting. And although it is possible for a place to exist where "everyone is their own master" (because they are artistically, mathematically, etc. gifted) in most places this doesn't happen ever, nor is there any assurances that such places could effectively govern themselves. In the video game Bioshock, an eccentric billionaire named Andrew Ryan creates an underwater city named Atlas in which he hopes to escape much of the "slave" mentality of the world around him and in the process of him mishandling much of the social upheaval that occurs when everyone is down there for while the entire place dissolves into anarchy with nearly everyone trying to kill each other. Although the story of Atlas may not be exactly what would happen in a society populated and ruled by those who had a "master" mentality, I believe it is effective commentary of many of the potential problems of what such a society would have to deal with.
No. You are misreading what I said..
In the social context theft can only occur when someone else's property is stolen but in theory if something isn't someone else's then it isn't technically theft. However the problem with this is that it is only in the legal context of things as doesn't account for the issue of "thing in and of itself" having rights (property or otherwise) which need to be respected. For example, hundreds of years ago (and maybe even in some places now) when human rights where no so universal one person could be bought and sold to someone else much like any other property.
Since certain societies of the time respected the individual who owned the paperwork detailing such ownership over the claims of such individual without any paperwork detailing themselves as a citizen or free person in anyway; it was a given that person didn't even own their own body and/or life and was subjugated to the will of the one that did. However today in most societies we would recognize such behavior as theft (as well as several other crimes) since it is a given that everyone has rights to their own body and mind even if they don't have the documentation to prove they are a free citizen or whatever. If you extend some of the rights of human beings to other "things in and of themselves" you get some of the general idea behind why all property is theft of one form or another.
In the meantime, I'll just say that every social arrangement carries the seeds of its own undoing.
Nietzsche points out how the practice of master morality comes to a bitter end.
Then you may claim that appropriating, say, mineral resources somehow "disrespects" the Earth or whatever, but it doesn't follow that it constitutes theft, in which case you've simply changed the subject. Furthermore, this would require defending the rather tendentious claim that, for instance, the Earth is something deserving of respect and having rights "in and of itself." The Earth is an accretion of rock and metals, with a thin scum of gravitationally-bound gases, with some trace amounts of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur, oxygen, and phosphorus, some agglomerations of which believe themselves to be the center of the universe.
I don't see that the planet is something which inherently deserves respect or which can "own" anything, any more than my wristwatch is inherently deserving of respect, or can own property. We disapprove of the misallocation of resources for its impact on people, not because it takes what rightfully "belongs" to Mother Earth.
If statements such as "property is theft" signify something like "I don't approve of the notion of private property," "people are too greedy or materialistic," or "people should share more," then perhaps one ought to simply defend those positions instead of engaging in sloganeering.
Why don't you think about it? Even you can work that one out.
LOL.
What a waste of time. Who does this shit?
How is each instance weighted?? Was it just the written word or would that include a film since they are mostly scripted?
Did the survey count each mention in every article book and film? Or did they consider each article, book and film with regard to its circulation? If so, did they weight films over books and books over academic articles?
Is the graph adjusted for population increase? Is the graph adjusted for the increase in printed media?
You might get the same result for any phrase.
The only thing of interest is the origin, which is later than I expected. But I do not think the rest of the graph is meaningful without understanding how the numbers are reached.
I think this is close to how capitalism functions, but not quite. My point of view is that capitalism works by outsourcing exploitation, just like life works by decreasing its own internal entropy by increasing the entropy of its environment (by more than it decreases its own). So for capitalism to work, there must be an "out there" that we don't care about - the Chinese, the Africans, etc. - let them produce everything for us cheaply, we don't care how they live so long as we have what we need back home.
So in this manner, life becomes materially better for the capitalist countries. Today, even the poor from the UK live better than ever in the past. However, some people in the world, for example in Syria, live worse than they have ever lived in their entire history. And these aren't proportional - we live somewhat better than ever before, but they live a lot worse than ever before.
The reason we have so much money invested in space travel and space exploration recently is because capitalism is looking for new places to export exploitation to. Can you imagine what a golden age it would be for Earth if we found another planet with somewhat intelligent aliens that we could exploit?
But in the absence of this external "enemy", "victim", etc. capitalism cannot work.
Quoting unenlightened
Skyscrapers? :P On the same surface area of Earth live more and more people. We're not yet at the point where we have a land shortage, though in certain parts of the world, this is becoming a problem.
There are capitalists who produce by their own labor and who offer generous income and benefits to their labor force. You're just describing a particular type of industry and type of capitalist where production requires little skill and the owner is trying to maximize his own profits at the expense of his employees being provided very little.
If I own a clothing business, maybe it would be cheaper to outsource to China where the workers will make very little. If I'm starting a plumbing business, it might behoove me to treat my best plumbers very well. In a capitalist system, the worker is a commodity, so the greater his skills and talents, the better he will be treated, which is why you should stay in school, be hardworking, and make yourself valuable.
Scotland is not an overcrowded place, but most of the land is owned in very large estates by a few individuals. So most of the population is landless. There was a concerted effort to depopulate these estates by evicting subsistence farmers, (crofters), in favour in the first instance of sheep.
And this is how property works as theft. And now get off my planet, peasant! Property is a claim, and theft is an accusation of violation of that claim, and so dependent on the claim. But property is appropriated, and that too can be a violation of other rights, of use of habitation, etc, so Proudhon's paradox has bite.
But perhaps that might be worth a thread of its own, Ecosophy is a bit neglected round here.
No, I'm describing the capitalist system as a whole. There are industries which are less affected by this, but overall, even those industries will ultimately rely on those industries that require exploitation in order to be possible (at the scale that they are possible). And look, even relatively lean internet businesses, like Amazon FBA stores, outsource like crazy - customer service is outsourced, production is outsourced, shipping is outsourced - the entrepreneur ends up not doing very much of the actual work except providing the capital, supervising, sales & marketing and making sure that all the parties are working together smoothly.
All economic activities will ultimately rely on the production of the basic goods like food, clothes, raw material mining, etc. I rely on the exploited Chinese worker to get my Mac for example. Make no mention of my clothing, toothbrush and on and on.
Quoting Hanover
When production and money is the only criteria, then someone's value is always tied to their productive capacity. That is wrong from a moral point of view. If one's wife, for example, doesn't work, do you reckon they should consider her a useless piece of trash because she's not "productive"?
The "stay in school and be a slave" is not something I buy into as a way of making yourself valuable from an economic point of view. Quite the contrary - the school graduate is not valuable, that's why he gets paid so little. And I'm saying this as someone who is moderately successful in the current system, and who values entrepreneurship and people producing on their own, creating new businesses, creating value etc. I'm an entrepreneur myself. I'm saying this because I know that school is bullshit - it will train you to be a good slave, not to be a business owner. I've had the good fortune to attend a good university, so it's not like I'm jealous or anything. I've also done incredibly well in schooling.
But I agree with Marx on this. This is false consciousness, the proletariat thinking that by going to school, etc. he is freeing himself and obtaining a better life - while in truth, he is merely training to become a good slave for the capitalist. If you want to be the capitalist, then school isn't where you need to be. It doesn't take much to see - just pick a copy of Forbes.
And if I am to judge what I learned in school, but really, judge it authentically, I will come to the conclusion that I could have learned the same things I learned in 4 years of university, in a single year of serious study. Lacking seriousness is not good for an entrepreneur, and people are taught to lack seriousness in universities - party party party, learning just a little bit and very slowly.
What the capitalist system (not individual capitalists) isn't saying is that they are purposefully dumbing down people through school, public education, etc. in order to get them to be good slaves later on, and not be capable to be independent. They will be dependent on the 9-5 their entire life. If the common man discovered that he could provide value without working under terrible conditions for the capitalist, you reckon he would do it? Of course not.
I am an entrepreneur because I recognised that I don't need school, degrees, and on and on to provide value. This is what made me an entrepreneur, and gave me the freedom to start out on my own. Yes, I do have drive and persistence, and I do work hard, and I am not a dumb guy but that is all secondary. Some people work hard at digging ditches their entire lives - merely working hard won't take you anywhere.
So what upsets me is that some people keep this to themselves - only they should be the entrepreneurs and the business owners - the secrets should be kept from everyone else, everyone else ought to be their slave. That's what I take issue with. Most of the entrepreneurs of today are the rebels of yesterday. The drop outs - Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg etc. It is almost that you have to be a dropout to be a billionaire :rofl:
Making money is actually not difficult once you get the hang of it. Once you learn what you really need to learn (which is how to sell mostly), then it's easy. I would never work for anyone 9-5 for a single day - even if they said, we will give you $100 million per year, I would not work for them. I think that anyone with intelligence ought to refuse to live like a slave.
Now I'm sure that you will say, well you're a particular case, not everybody is like you, and on and on. Truth is that when I started out everyone thought I was crazy, and nobody believed in me. That's just how it works. The world tries to keep you a slave, you have to break the chains yourself, no one can do it for you. But I remain firmly convinced that this is possible and available to everyone, and not merely to a select few who are "gifted", "intelligent", "lucky" and whatever other positive adjectives.
Oh dear... hopefully you don't become an @apokrisis version 2.0. :joke:
Dryness of the Sea.
Warmth of Ice.
Darkness of Light.
You've never seen such an example.
Capiitalism is global. You forget the all the starving under $1 a day people also live under the yoke of capitalism. Given a random placement the likely hood is that you would be one of those living under a $1 per day.
Maybe you should take your head out of your bum once in a whilst and try to see the bigger picture?
The other thing you might like to consider is the thread subject.
The morality of it , not whether or not you happen to live in a country where you benefit from Capitalism's immorality!
Yes, I am aware that this thread is discussing the morality of capitalism. I do not think that capitalism is more immoral than the alternatives that have been tried so far, let's put it that way. I don't think capitalism is perfect. It's definitely not, and I am very much opposed to consumerism and pretty much the whole modern culture (Hollywood, etc.).
This works on some computers and not on others. It always works on my home computer, which is Firefox on Mint Linux, but only works intermittently on my work computer which is Internet Explorer on Windows 10.
I have inferred by looking at the style of others's posts that others encounter this problem too. That is, I see people who I know from experience know how to use the quote feature sometimes either not using it where it would be the natural method to use, or doing 'manual quotes', which is where you hit reply, then paste the text you wanted to quote under the reply link in the new post, manually typing in the quote delimiters.
I don't know why this is. It's irritating but it's never been enough of a problem to complain about.
BUT - now feeling guilty about posting off topic - I feel that some softened version of communism may be the best way out of this decline into robber baron social Darwinism that countries like the US and Russia are experiencing, which will only be exacerbated by the rise of AI making all jobs that are not highly skilled - and hence beyond the reach of at least half the population - redundant.
But I have nothing against people that like capitalism. Some of them are quite nice.
Bitter Crank's point is well taken that the super wealthy will probably have to be property taxed at some point. I think it would take a depression to open the door to that though.