Capitolism on Trial

[Makalakumu]

Some of the recent postings on this forum have led me to believe that a discussion of the merits of capitolism might interest those who participate. I am very interested in hearing some of the view points expressed by various MT members on all sides.

To start this discussion off, I will post the following essay. It was written by one of my martial arts students who happens to be working on his graduate degree. This was, to my knowledge, published in some of the local news magazines in my home town and is soon to be available on the net. I am using it with his express permission. Hopefully, he'll join in on the commentary. Please feel free to comment...

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

The Only Way

By Jeremiah D.V. Haynes

Abstract

This essay first takes a brief look into a few the more pronounced problems of the capitalistic system and the morals, which govern it. The essay then turns it critical eye into the system of reform described by Marjorie Kelly in her book The Divine Right of Capital in the attempt to discern whether her “(r)evolution” is sufficient enough to topple the reigning inequities in today’s society. Finally I propose a paradigm shift in the moral code which governs the “drive” of humanity, from ethical egoism to deontological moral theory and outlined a vision of the “utopia” which would result.

Keywords

Deontological Moral theory: Moral theory forwarded by Kant which states as its maxim; “Act so that you treat humanity whether in your own person, or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.”

Dylan, Bob: "The poet laureate of rock 'n' roll. The voice of the promise of the '60s counterculture. The guy who forced folk into bed with rock, who donned makeup in the '70s and disappeared in a haze of substance abuse, who emerged to "find Jesus", who was written off as a has-been by the end of the '80s, and who suddenly shifted gears and released some of the strongest music of his career beginning in the mid-'90s.”
– Bob Dylan’s Manager

Capitalism: economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned, characterized by a “free market” that operates largely outside of state control.

Ethical Egoism: Moral theory which holds that each person ought to pursue his or her self interests exclusively.

Fascism: a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator or cabal in concert with business and the suppression of all opposition through terror and censorship, most commonly accompanied by a bellicose foreign affairs agenda, rampant nationalism, and targeted racism.

Kelly, Marjorie: Author and cofounder/publisher of Business Ethics
The Only Way

In this essay I will explore the problems inherent in the capitalistic system. I will then explore whether or not the system of reform described by Marjorie Kelly in her book The Divine Right of Capital is adequate or whether a more aggressive solution is warranted. I will also explore the moral code capitalism ascribes to and question if it is a suitable engine for the drive of humanity.

I. "It don't count 'less it sells."

The first order of business, so to speak, should be a definition of capitalism e.g. an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned, characterized by a “free market” that operates largely outside of state control. Ostensibly this seems like a harmless system, yet when a closer inspection is undertaken, the cracks in the façade proliferate, due mainly to the lack of constraints and inherent greed.

The problems of capitalism are manifold and ubiquitous. In social issues such as the inequality of the distribution of wealth, to the bartering and trading of employees as slaves, capitalisms track record reads like a war crimes indictment at the Nuremburg trials, which incidentally companies like I.G. Farben, Ford, and IBM, to name a few, managed to conveniently sidestep.
Capitalism also has a notorious ecological record in such areas as massive deforestation, global warming, mass species extinction, and pollution of all kinds in the air we breath, and the water which covers over 75% of the earths surface which our existence is dependent upon. At the same time many would argue, “Capitalism promotes growth and wealth. But at what cost does this growth and wealth come, and at whose expense? Who profits if the water is undrinkable? Why the very ones who are poisoning it of course! Kelly cites the case of Texaco, which, drilled in Ecuador for two decades, and dumped four million gallons of contaminated water brought up during the drilling process each day into the Amazon’s rivers and streams. The result was that during the dry season children would come to the clinic doctor “with pus streaming from their eyes and rashes covering their bodies from bathing in the water”(2001, pg.26) As if poisoning children isn’t enough for these economic entities they also conspire with the local governments to privatize the water supplies, and labeled water a commodity in the World Trade Organization. This practice amounts to charging people for the right to live, nothing less. In Bolivia this forced the native people to come down in droves out of the mountains to march, when their complaints weren’t heard violence ensued; “Rocks were thrown, barricades were built, fires were set in the streets; armed police in combat gear fired at the rock-throwing protesters from behind body shields. Many were injured, and a 17-year-old boy was killed”(Kanno 2001). These are just a few examples of many from a system that values greed above all, and the power of the few over the many.

Capitalism has even hijacked democracy and subjugated it into a subservient lapdog. Kelly cites a report which lists the registered state and federal lobbyists for various companies; “Philip Morris had and astonishing 245. At WMX Technologies, the count was 240, and at RJR Nabisco and Dow Chemical, around 100 each”(2001, pg.162). The impact this shadow faction, with greasy hands and deep pockets, has on our so-called democracy is stupendous. The fact is many of these lobbyists are just doling out orders to the senators they bought with their under the table campaign contributions. Kelly goes on to illuminate this problem; “All Americans theoretically have one vote, but unlike the wealthy who own most corporate equity, most of us don’t have hundreds of lobbyists representing our interests”(2001, pg.162). For those of us who can’t be bought, we get steam rolled over, or our votes are conveniently not counted, as was the case in the 2000 presidential election in Florida, and the 2002 national midterm election. As Bob Dylan illuminates, “capitalism is above the law. It don’t count less it sells.” (Dylan 2002)

A diatribe on Capitalism writes itself, and many more eloquent then myself have picked up a pen for this purpose. But before we go any further, I must give capitalism its brief retort. Where would we be without capitalism? Would the industrial and communications revolutions have happened at such a blinding speed were it not for the greed of the companies that fueled them? Is not capitalism a form of freedom closely knit to the American psyche? To all of these defenses I would say emphatically no. In the third section of this essay I shall outline a possible alternative to the selfish greed based system of Capitalism, which would, in my opinion further humanity more rapidly than capitalism ever has without killing it. In the next section I will ascertain whether Kelley’s “(r)evolution” is adequate to reverse the maniacal juggernaut of capitalism.

II. “Masters of War”

Kelly’s Book is a very eloquent overview of some of the major flaws inherent in capitalism today. She does an excellent job exposing the visage of the economic aristocracy, the problem with shareholder primacy and the virtual slavery of the employee. She showcases the problems with the connections of wealth and power in politics, and briefly expounds upon the ills of capitalism in the environment. Kelly supports an employee ownership program in which the employees have as much if not more say than the shareholders. She even puts forth the radical idea that shares should have a finite lifespan. When they have paid back and returned to a certain extent, they would simply expire.

Kelly advocates a “marshaling [of] public resolve for change by stirring up a little rebellion” (2001, pg.173). She adds to her justification by quoting Thomas Jefferson; “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, & as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical”(2001, pg.173). Kelly’s employee rebellion consists of a sort of “pranksters revolt,” which involves forged write in ballots for board elections, a shadow government of the employees, t-shirts with defiant statements on them, and so forth. Kelly admits that exiting employees should pull off these stunts, as they would most likely result in a firing. I find this an interesting if naïve concept. First this type of revolution would take a sort of “waking up” of the working class, which the corporations are quick to squelch. They have broken, gained control, or cowed almost every union, attaining the desired result of making even the concept of unions seems foolish in many workers minds. Those few unions that are strong and stand up for their members, such as the teacher’s unions, are quickly vilified. Using the media, the corporations paint the unions as the bad guys, and the reason for all the ills of the system.
This type of rebellion is inevitably needed, yet not all employees can afford the implications of such an insurrection. Alone this “pranksters revolt” is not panacea for the ills of capitalism, yet interestingly enough, this kind of rebellion is as precursor to a much more serious revolution, an issue Kelly skirts around.

On a larger scale Kelly advocates using the legal system as a tool for change. The war cry of her (r)evolution is: “As it is the right of the people to alter or abolish government, it is the right off the people to alter or abolish the corporations that now govern the world.” Through this system she would invoke the states rights to revoke corporate charters which Kelly claims could be seen as a “warning shot across the bow, a wake up call rather than a tool of governance”(2001, pg.178).

Kelly also advocates a socially conscientious form of investing, where the SEC is pushed for greater social disclosure, and ultimately a change in the rules that regulate corporations. This echoes one of Kelly’s most effective arguments; that if corporations are to have the right of a person, they should then be held responsible for their actions like one.
All in all Kelly’s ideas are a good starting point, yet I feel they fall short of truly understanding the gravitas of the situation. At a time where capitalistic greed is at an all time high and its tentacles have thoroughly penetrated all pressure points of democracy, I would argue that something far more radical must be done to combat the coming maelstrom.

Few would argue that we are at a critical point in history. The question is not if, but why we are where we are. The recently passed homeland security bill included a last minute insurance bill as an addendum, to help the corporations. This bill in one fell swoop turned America into a fascist state, by desecrating the bill of rights. We have a president who was selected by the privileged rather than elected by the governed. A man who has signed into law a secret government, with the ability to spy on, arrest, detain indefinitely, and kill anyone even suspected of being a “terrorist”, all without trial. This fiat efficaciously transforms him and his cronies into the judge, jury, and executioner all rolled into one “big brother”. As we speak information on each of us is being filtered through Carnivore, an email-siphoning program, to the total information awareness program, who aims to monitor everything. Privacy has gone the way of the dinosaur dragging our democracy with it, all without a sound.

Once the “homeland” has been secured, rest assured that the all Seeing Eye will cast its gaze greedily on the rest of the world. If you need corroboration of what I am saying, look at the back of the dollar bill (novus Ordo Seclorum) and take a look at the official seal for your friendly neighborhood total information awareness program.

My point is simply this, Kelly’s (r)evolution is simply insufficient as we near what I call the event horizon. An event horizon is simply the line at which there is no escape from the gravity of a black hole. What may you ask is the connection? The event horizon is the point at which there is no turning back from a global fascist state. In the near future we will see the advent of this event horizon. That is if we haven’t already passed it while most of us were watching “American Idol”.

At this point I believe a quick review of fascism is in order. Fascism is a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator or cabal in concert with corporations (capitalism) and the suppression of all opposition through terror and censorship, most commonly accompanied by a bellicose foreign affairs agenda, rampant nationalism, and surgically targeted racism. Whether you like it or not this is the path America is heading down.

III. “…But I’m Not the Only One…”

Capitalism unarguably functions inherently on the moral theory of ethical egoism. Ethical egoism holds that “each person ought to pursue his or her self interests exclusively” (Rachels 76). This conception of morality is actually more akin to amorality as it violates the tenants of almost every major philosophy, creed, and religion ever conceived of by man. Its creed can literally be translated into; do unto others as you wish. Even a kindergartener could point out the flaws in this line of reasoning, that is unless their last name is Bush, Rockefeller, Windsor etc.... Yet this ethical egoism is the moral gasoline that fuels the engine, which runs our world.
It is my assertion that the main driving force of humanity cannot forever be greed, as it is unsustainable and unethical. We will simply choke ourselves out of existence and risk becoming a stillborn species in a poisoned womb killed by our own gluttony and waste. I propose that the new moral code for all human institutions hereby become deontological moral theory.
Of all the moral theories deontological moral theory is by far the most defensible. Immanuel Kant defines the deontological moral imperative as; “Act so that you treat humanity whether in your own person, or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.” (Racheals 128) Kant’s argument plainly stated then is that it is immoral to treat humans as a commodity as the ethical egoists of capitalism do. Kant therefore believes that the value of a rational human being’s existence is paramount, and that nothing could supersede it.

I would take Kant a step further in including the earth and the animal kingdom as being of intrinsic worth, for as any fourth grader would tell you, the eco system is like a house of cards, kill those below us and we to fall. Therefore my revised moral imperative would read “the driving force for humanity should be the improvement and advancement of all humanity, and the preservation of its birthplace and all her creatures. Treat all as beings of intrinsic worth, worthy of respect”

A humanity that runs on the deontological moral theory could still prosper, and most of the freedoms we still enjoy would carry over, that is except the freedom for elite groups to form that enslave the rest of us. This deontological world need not be without corporations or businesses, yet they should serve humanity rather than vice versa. Businesses should also have a cap on how large they can get with a taxation of 100% past that point, to be doled out among charities and nonprofit organizations that promote the betterment of mankind and the earth. All Businesses should be employee owned, with the CEO making a fraction more than the lowest paid employee. Private citizens also would have a net worth cap, which could only be exceeded by a small amount by those who win prizes, which promote the growth of humanity. The corporation shouldn’t get any bigger than the income of the sum of its employees, which incidentally should also have a limit. There can be no satellite companies, no charities controlled by corporations, and no government/business collusions. The death tax should be ¾ of the total net worth, and include no land, though the inheritors get first chance to purchase it. All accounting should be public knowledge, and an oversight committee comprised of a sort of jury duty for citizens, prominent thinkers, and members of the business community. A deontological world would have no usury, no corporate or government controlled media, and advertisement or corporate sponsorship of any kind.

A deontological “welfare” state would include, free health care, education, shelter, clothing and food and basic utilities, including sanitation, and heating. The yearly allowance given to these citizens should be around ¼ the highest cap personal income. The government shall be a democracy where every vote would have equal weight. The constitution would be intricately laced with human/ecological rights. No private campaign finances would be allowed and all candidates who gain a petition of a certain percentage of the population would get equal campaign funds, and of course there would be iron clad term limits across the board.

The taxes collected from companies, persons, and institutions exceeding their cap, would be redistributed to fund the welfare state, education, the sciences, the arts, the humanities, etc…

The inevitable retort to the feasibility of this deontological revolution would be that it is overtly utopian, a fact which I readily concede, given the ethical egoism of the elite. However, I would argue that the majority of mankind follows ethical systems, which are much closer akin to deontological moral theory than ethical egoism. Therefore all that is needed for the masses to “wake up” from the malaise cast upon them by the ruling class of humanity, is the realization that our current modes of economic, political, and religious thinking are not the only way. We basically out number them a thousand to one, why should they control us?

Why as a species have we cast aside all aspirations of a utopia as impossible idealism, settling only for the “pretty good”? Deontological moral theory lays the groundwork for a more socially conscious enlightened humanity, which strives to evolve in a harmonious way with the environment that spawned it. Moreover it would seem to suggest that this revolution is not only warranted but morally imperative.

***

In this essay I have displayed the problems of the capitalistic system and proposed that a revolution is needed that is beyond the scope of the one that which Marjorie Kelly advocates. I have also proposed a paradigm shift in the moral code that governs the “drive” of humanity, from ethical egoism to deontological moral theory. Finally I have outlined what this world could look like and why ultimately it is amoral not to depose the current system and allow it to continue.

References

Dylan, Bob. (2002) “Masters of war” and “Union Sundown” (www.bobdylan.com, Official Website. 2002)

Kanno, A. and H. Kanno. (2001) “We hope this arouses your concern and sense of justice: The Commodification of Water and the Privatization of Water Services and Delivery”(www.saveamericaswater.com/ak091401.html, 2002).

Kelly, Marjorie. (2001) The Divine Right of Capital: Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy (United States, Berrett-Koehler. 2001)

Lennon, John. (2002) “Imagine” (www.hollywoodandvine.com/johnlennon/, Official Website. 2002)

Rachels, James, (1993), “The Elements of Moral Philosophy” 2nd edition, “The Heritage Series in Philosophy.” (United States, Mcgraw-Hill, Inc. 1993)

 

[Ender]

*LOL...too funny....this is so full of holes it's hard to know where to start. Let's just say that what is being advocated here is socialism, and that has failed miserably in every avenue it's been tried. Capitalism may not be perfect, best it's the best system that serves the most people. Every free and capitaitic society has prospered, while those under the yoke of opression of socialism, facism, tyrrany, and communism have floundered or collapsed.

Thanks for the laughs tho...*chuckles..hijacked democracy, redistribution of wealth, ruling class....too funny.

 

[Makalakumu]

*LOL...too funny....this is so full of holes it's hard to know where to start. Let's just say that what is being advocated here is socialism, and that has failed miserably in every avenue it's been tried. Capitalism may not be perfect, best it's the best system that serves the most people. Every free and capitaitic society has prospered, while those under the yoke of opression of socialism, facism, tyrrany, and communism have floundered or collapsed.

Thanks for the laughs tho...*chuckles..hijacked democracy, redistribution of wealth, ruling class....too funny.

The popularity of right wing radio shows is neatly explained by rhetoric that you have laid out. There is no explanation, there is only a claim. Do right wingers not have the patience for the explanation or is it like George Bush says, "I don't care about the numbers I know the facts."

Anytime you would like to back up your assertions. Feel free. Remember, there are lots of people on this board who DO care about the numbers happen to believe that they have SOMETHING to do with the facts.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. When all you're talking about is the Golden Rule, easy on the Kant and the words like, "deontology," which aren't needed to make the argument.

2. Right-wing talk shows are part of what Marx identified as the, "ideological," apparatus of capitalism, a specific aspect of its mechanisms for self-reproduction. The system needs not just to work, but to convince people that it works, so that they help reproduce the way things are day-to-day, and for the next generation.

3. The idea that gee, capitalism is just the niftiest-keenest system EVER, the END of history (see Frances Fukuyama) rests on a couple basic problems: a) to claim that, you have to keep switching back and forth among very limited historical examples (always cite those morons in the now-thankfully-dead Soviet Union, moral certainties (any problems come from individual refusals to Be Moral and Obey My God's demand to Work), vague theory (Ayn Rand; libertarianism; faith in the, "free market"), and attacks on critics (this post will, for example, earn some sort of tirade about my Supporting Stalin); b) a basic utter refusal and/or ignorance when it comes to actually looking at the human results of this supposed niftiest-keenest system ever.

In other words, if this is your idea of the Best Possible World, your either need a tad bit of imagination and hope, or you need to really take a look out the window. Just in the USA, best of the best, eh? Tens of millions living in poverty (I know, They Are All Lazy and Ungrateful, especially the toddlers.) Somewhere around 3 millions in jail. (I know, they are all responsible for their actions, especially the ones who are the products of abuse and/or mentally retarfded.). Education, like health care, moving further and further out of reach for average Americans. (I know, I know, they just need to Get More Jobs.) Soldiers all over the world, largely drawn from minorities and the poor aandd shipped abroad for somee very dubious purposes in undeclared wars.

And let's not even get into minor issues like squandering resources so "adults," who act like spoiled brats can have all the SUVs, Ski-Doos, and silly toys they want. Or the rise in crimes committed out of sheer boredom and despair.

But hey, Everything's Just Fine. And anyway, this is the best we can do.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

The idea that gee, capitalism is just the niftiest-keenest system EVER, the END of history (see Frances Fukuyama).

The "niftiest-keenest system EVER" and "the END of history" are two different things. I didn't bother to finish the whole essay because I can only stand so much rhetoric, but so far I've not read or heard anyone say that capitalism can never be replaced with a better system, just that it's the best so far.

moral certainties (any problems come from individual refusals to Be Moral and Obey My God's demand to Work)

Capitalism is an economic system that doesn't require any particular morality of its participants. God-worshipers and atheists are just as capable of making money in a capitalist system.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dear Neither Random Nor Phantom:

Of course you believe that.

And of course, "god-worshipers and atheists," are equally capable of economic prosperity in capitalist society--though it is odd that we always seem to get Presidents who thump the Bible to some degree.

The, "end of history," reference was to a very well known work by the historian (and in my opinion, apologist for capitalism), Francis Fukuyama, titled, "The End of History," whose most famous point was that since history was composed from the struggle to reach the logical development of human economics, capitalism, history was pretty much over.

As for not requiring any ethic--well, there is a little thing called, "the Protestant work-ethic." Capitalism doesn't erase ethics--it defines the ethical wholly in terms of production, exchange, accumulations, etc., which is probably what you're mistaking for an utter absence of ethics.

I'd be curious, too, as to why you think it would be good to have an utterly amoral economic and social system?

 

[Tgace]

The "niftiest-keenest system EVER" and "the END of history" are two different things. I didn't bother to finish the whole essay because I can only stand so much rhetoric, but so far I've not read or heard anyone say that capitalism can never be replaced with a better system, just that it's the best so far.

Oh no!! You actually want somebody to present an idea?? The name of the game around here is criticism and how your point is wrong/idiotic/ill thought/yadda yadda if you havent noticed....

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Dear Neither Random Nor Phantom:

Was there a point to this? I certainly missed it.

Of course you believe that.

That's why I said it.

And of course, "god-worshipers and atheists," are equally capable of economic prosperity in capitalist society--though it is odd that we always seem to get Presidents who thump the Bible to some degree.

And this has what to do with our society being capitalist? Let me take a guess: our capitalist system allows the Biblical conservatives to somehow buy out the presidency, and if we'd had a wonderful bliss-like socialist system, that wouldn't happen? Like I said, just a guess.

The, "end of history," reference was to a very well known work by the historian (and in my opinion, apologist for capitalism), Francis Fukuyama, titled, "The End of History," whose most famous point was that since history was composed from the struggle to reach the logical development of human economics, capitalism, history was pretty much over.

I've heard reference to him, but haven't read his work. Sounds like an arrogant claim to make, considering history isn't over yet. Of course, even if Fukuyama's discredited, that doesn't eliminate capitalism as a possible final system.

As for not requiring any ethic--well, there is a little thing called, "the Protestant work-ethic." Capitalism doesn't erase ethics--it defines the ethical wholly in terms of production, exchange, accumulations, etc., which is probably what you're mistaking for an utter absence of ethics.

Oh yeah, by Max Weber, I read that a year ago. If I recall, the religious themes in Protestantism leant themselves to the good ole' capitalism commodification setup. I don't see why, though, that this work ethic is required for capitalism.

I'd be curious, too, as to why you think it would be good to have an utterly amoral economic and social system?

I'm curious as to where you see me saying that. I really can't answer this right now since I'm not sure what you mean by an amoral economic and social system.

 

[Makalakumu]

Oh no!! You actually want somebody to present an idea?? The name of the game around here is criticism and how your point is wrong/idiotic/ill thought/yadda yadda if you havent noticed....

I suggest you read the rest of the essay (if you haven't). I asked my students permission because he proposed an alternative which followed his criticism. Please don't associate yourself with those right wingers who care nothing for the subtance of any argument...

upnorthkyosa

PS - I realize that you may have only been making comment on some recent arguments on this forum. :asian: Faith anyone...

 

[someguy]

I have yet to see a truely capitalistic system. Pure capitalism =anarchy pure socialism =anarchy. pure = bad simple as that.

 

[loki09789]

Capatolism is an economic 'theory' (which means that it isn't ever going to exist in a pure or complete sense) that basically - in it's best presentation - is a claim that competition will inspire the production of the best possible products by the best educated/payed/benefited workers in the best market......
basically competition brings out the best in everyone, so it is way of improving social constructs because market competition/survival will motivate people to strive for personal best. I think we have seen through history how that theory is full of holes and assumptions about 'human nature.'

Socialism is an economic 'theory' (same as above) that basically - in it's best presentation - is a claim that people will strive for fairness and equallity and that people's 'civic' motivation of the good of the group will be more powerful than their 'keep up with the jone's' egos. That people will subvert self interests, desires, dreams.... for the good of the group. I think we have seen through history how THAT theory is full of holes and assumptions about human nature as well.

Capitolism is about individual ownership, socialism is about social good. Both, if you take them in a vacuous, stand alone sense can look good. Take them out into the real world and they can't stand alone.

Blend, blend blend. We have socialised capitolism (remember Union's?) and other possible combined -isms depending on your POV....

What is the point? The best blend of "-isms" depends just as much on the conditions of the time as anything else. Feudalism gave way to the market when the plague made labor a hot commodity instead of easy pickings. The middle class emerged....they wanted to live like lords (literally) and became industrial "nobles" who cared more about profit/'fief' (business kingdom) than the welfare of their labor force (new "peasants"). When the laborers became a pain because of strikes/protests and unionizing (the new words for 'revolt', 'plea' and 'militia') the business owners realized that it was good business in the long run to invest in the welfare of the labor force to keep them happy and productive...... big cyclical pattern with a bunch of different names along the way but inevitably just the same things.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dear Neither Random Nor Phantom:

First off, I mentioned amorality because you wrote: "Capitalism is an economic system that doesn't require any particular morality of its participants." Was it that you meant that you weren't required to be, say, a follower of some faith as long as your work, produce, accumulate, etc.?

Second, the link among Fukuyama, Reagan's Bible-thumping, and the work ethic is that they are all part of the ideological support system for capitalism, so far as I am concerned. Perhaps they are not required--but here on this planet, they were (and are) the fact of things.

As for the notion of some cyclical history expressed elsewhere--nope, not unless you buy the old idealist/Gibbon history. And the plague was far from the only reason that feudalism mutated--the central reasons had to do with the accumulation of wealth.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Dear Neither Random Nor Phantom:

Cute.

First off, I mentioned amorality because you wrote: "Capitalism is an economic system that doesn't require any particular morality of its participants." Was it that you meant that you weren't required to be, say, a follower of some faith as long as your work, produce, accumulate, etc.?

Essentially, yes. In the post that I was responding to, you had written the following: "any problems come from individual refusals to Be Moral and Obey My God's demand to Work", and I presumed that you meant this to be the capitalist's response. I was trying to point out that, while the capitalist economic system and biblical culture are certainly both part of American society, obeying God and being moral are not integral or necessary for the economy to run. As I said, God-worshipers and atheists can both be economic actors.

Perhaps they are not required--but here on this planet, they were (and are) the fact of things.

Ok, but is this any reason to disregard the theory of capitalism? Unless I've misunderstood you, this sounds like saying you don't want to use an invention because the inventor was a racist and you don't want to support him/her.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dear Not Random (because well-determined elsewhere) and Not Phantom (because you have a real name):

"Obeying God and being moral," are clearly not part of immediate economic life (if they were, we might see very different behavior that the usual dog-eat-dog, and screw the next guy, Jack, I've got mine)--I believe what I wrote was that they are a vital, perhaps even the central, aspect of the ideology that keeps the system running more or less smoothly.

I see we agree about the system's not being in and of itself moral.

And as for disregarding the theory of capitalism--actually, as far as I can see, I'm about the only person here who understands and appreciates it. Without erasing its consequences for billions of people, though, which appears to be the major bone--for me, the consequences are part of how the system works, for others they are mere errors, or results of individual bad behavior, or something to be explained right out of existence.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Dear Not Random (because well-determined elsewhere) and Not Phantom (because you have a real name):

Ooooh, impressive. *sarcastic golf clap*

"Obeying God and being moral," are clearly not part of immediate economic life (if they were, we might see very different behavior that the usual dog-eat-dog, and screw the next guy, Jack, I've got mine)--I believe what I wrote was that they are a vital, perhaps even the central, aspect of the ideology that keeps the system running more or less smoothly.

So somehow, obeying God and being moral are vital and central parts of the capitalist ideology? This seems to be what you're saying, but seems to conflict with your critiques of capitalism.

I see we agree about the system's not being in and of itself moral.

Do not twist my words. I said there was no particularly moral aspect to capitalism.

actually, as far as I can see, I'm about the only person here who understands and appreciates it.

Of course you think that.

Without erasing its consequences for billions of people, though, which appears to be the major bone--for me, the consequences are part of how the system works, for others they are mere errors, or results of individual bad behavior, or something to be explained right out of existence.

This really didnt make sense the first time I read it. I'm assuming the consequences you speak of are the typical Marxist accusations--commodification of the worker, reduction of all values to that of profit, creation of elitist class structure, etc.

What exactly do you propose we replace capitalism with then? A socialist regime where a centralized government says what we need in the name of egalitarianism? I'm sure you'll consider this an ignorant question from a victim of the Evil Capitalist Pig rhetoric, but hey, humor me.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Aww, fiddle-dee-dee.

Why should'st I humor you? Who art thou? (Warning warning--Shakespeare reference.) You've not even given to airy nothing a local habitation and a name.

Ain't proposing nuffin'. (Note: this has always been the lacuna in marxist analysis--either they propose nothing in the sight of history--Bible/Stephen King reference--or they do, and it turns out to be Stalin or Pol Pot. Makes one respect Emma Goldman, don't it?) Would your argument be that our society DOESN'T push commodification, reductionism, class society? Is we or is we ain't on a martial arts forum, in which bemoaning the profit motive, the decline of arts, is the sine qua non of discussion? Eh?

Thanx and a tip o' the hat for missing the joke; thanks and a tip o' the hat for the hommage of, "Of course you think that."

Twisting your twist of my alleged twist of your words, we agree: capitolism is not in and of itself moral.

As for the work-ethic, didn't you yourself proclaim having read Max Weber unto all people, who saith that, "obeying God and being moral," was precisely central to capitolist ideology?

So--what is it that you're advocating, anyway, nyaah, nyaah. Is it that we continue to abuse and enslave tens of millions if not more, or is it that we jes' overlook that sort of trivial thing? Or is it that hilarious fantasy: sure, we built the world this way, but what happens to people ain't our fault. It's all theirs.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I'll respond to the parts of that post that actually had substance.

Ain't proposing nuffin'.

Figures. I guess it was too much to expect that someone who knows and claims so much about how capitalism is a terrible thing would actually have something to say about how to fix things. My bad.

Would your argument be that our society DOESN'T push commodification, reductionism, class society?

'Spose it does. But "our society" is a pretty ambiguous suspect to be charged. Those who accuse capitalism of all the woes in the West seem to want to blame the whole system for the actions of corrupt corporate executives. Sounds like blaming guns for shootings.

Twisting your twist of my alleged twist of your words, we agree: capitolism is not in and of itself moral.

I was just clarifying that I believe capitalism is ammoral, not immoral. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for the work-ethic, didn't you yourself proclaim having read Max Weber unto all people, who saith that, "obeying God and being moral," was precisely central to capitolist ideology?

Sure, I've read it. If I agreed with everything I've read, we wouldn't be arguing, would we?

 

[rmcrobertson]

"Amoral," only has one, "m," in it.

There is a considerable difference between blaming an individual and reporting upon the way a system works, wouldn't you agree?

Musta missed the part of my post in which I mentioned what happens when marxist analysts start pushing their theoretical solutions in advance of historical conditions. (It resembles the differnce between arguing using one's own good name, and arguing behind an alias.) Had you seen it, doubtless you'd have written differently.

The question isn't whether one agrees with Weber. It's whether it's possible to argue that a religiously-based work ethic is central to economic structure. It is.

I was glad, tho' to see you agreeing with the Typical Marxist Accusations, aka Typical Leftist Inconvenient Observations of Reality.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Whatever, I'm done here. Like it or not, the capitalist system is what we got. I really don't have the knowledge to take this **** any further.

And by the way, I don't give two ***** how many m's are in the word amoral. You got my point.