Capitalism as a moral system

[spike]

Capitalism, with its free market principles and the innovations it inspires, gave us the plastic water bottles that saturate the world. It seems to have been invented for moments like this — the earthquake in Japan, where water is needed. The water bottle can easily be made, shipped and distributed.

Like the Internet, capitalism has created back-up systems and alternatives routes to bypass and ameliorate problems. If one system of communication is down there is another. As a matter of fact, if it wasn't for capitalism we would not have the Internet.

'Necessity is the mother of invention'. Capitalism has created many needs and thus many invention. Not only has it inspired and financed inventions, it has been the means of developing those inventions and distributing them so that we can all benefit from them. The technology that capitalism helped bring along has made us smarter and wiser. Television and the Internet have made us wiser to the ways of the world, wiser to racism, corruption and other human abuses.

After the atomic bomb was invented and dropped during WW 2 capitalism found a way of make commercial use of what was unleashed by atomic fission. It harnessed that energy for peaceful purposes, creating electricity and discovering uses in medicine.

Capitalism is a two headed creature, one bad and one good. The good outweighs the bad. Capitalism creates problems. But as somebody once said, problems makes us better. Without problems we would stagnate. Problems force use to work together, seek solutions and reinvent ourselves.

[converge]

Capitalism, with its free market principles and the innovations it inspires, gave us the plastic water bottles that saturate the world. It seems to have been invented for moments like this — the earthquake in Japan, where water is needed. The water bottle can easily be shipped and distributed.

All of the disaster relief in Japan is being done by their public workers (socialism) and volunteer organization (non-capitalist). Anything being sent to them (like plastic bottle) is being sent in spite of capitalism, not because of it. The corporations are not sending them the bottles; helping another country in need does not increase profits.

Like the Internet, capitalism has created back-up systems and alternatives routes to bypass and ameliorate problems. If one system of communication is down there is another. As a matter of fact, if it wasn't for capitalism we would not have the Internet.

The internet was created by scholars in publicly funded universities (socialism) with the help of the U.S. military (socialism). It's currently maintained by government organizations (socialism) and a group of non-profits (non-capitalist). The internet exists in spite of capitalism, not because of it. The corporations want to block and limit access to the internet, to compartmentalize it so that access is not free and all of it is gated by corporations.

'Necessity is the mother of invention'. Capitalism has created many needs and thus many invention. Not only has it inspired and financed inventions, it has been the means of developing those inventions and distributing them so that we can all benefit from them. The technology that capitalism helped bring along has made us smarter and wiser. Television and the Internet have made us wiser to the ways of the world, wiser to racism, corruption and other human abuses.

History has shown that the number one driver of invention has generally been the military, which is a national, publicly funded, and thus socialist organization in almost every country. Most research and development that amounts to actual useful things is publicly funded and guided by the universities. The U.S., since its gradual move to put money into the hands of the rich instead of the researchers, has slid way down the charts on innovation and research. We are trailing far behind more socialist countries like Sweden and Norway when it comes to cutting edge research.

Again, as I said, how are you judging what is "good"? We do sell lots of iPhones. Is having iPhones or Xboxes or Kindles that measure of a country's success? What about health, longevity, intelligence, freedom, peace, etc., all of which the U.S. ranks very low in? And how are you judging what is moral?

After the atomic bomb was invented and dropped during WW 2 capitalism found a way of make commercial use of what was unleashed by atomic fission. It harnessed that energy for peaceful purposes, creating electricity and discovering uses in medicine.

No, again, the bomb and all the research that went into it was done by the universities and the military, funded publicly. There was no free market "Atomic Bomb" private business. Nuclear power plants are owned and operated by cities as public utilities, held to socialist policies essentially. You can't go buy your own private nuclear plant from a private nuclear power plant business on the internet.

Capitalism is a two headed creature, one bad and one good. The good outweighs the bad.

So far you've been straight up wrong on pretty much everything you think is capitalist. It's kind of ridiculous because every single example you use of something "good" is actually something socialist. Are you sure you actually know what capitalism and socialism are?

Capitalism creates problems.

I'll agree with that!

But as somebody once said, problems makes us better. Without problems we would stagnate. Problems force use to work together, seek solutions and reinvent ourselves.

I think it was me who said that, in the earlier post. So you would agree then, that slavery is a good moral system, since it forced us to work together to end slavery? Is war a good moral system since it forces us to seek peace? Is genocide a good moral system since it forces us to ponder racial equality?

[spike]

Well, when you think about it capitalism is socialism. It is generally for the social good. That what gives it its sticking power.

So you would agree then, that slavery is a good moral system, since it forced us to work together to end slavery? Is war a good moral system since it forces us to seek peace? Is genocide a good moral system since it forces us to ponder racial equality?

The bad had to happen first before we could realize it or behave otherwise.

[converge]

Well, when you think about it capitalism is socialism.

I give up.

[artisticsolution]

Well, when you think about it capitalism is socialism.

I give up.

[spike]

[ala1993]

Capitalism, with its free market principles and the innovations it inspires, gave us the plastic water bottles that saturate the world.

If I may step onto the bridge, dear goats ...


This is the classic fallacy put forward by those who wish to justify a 'system' which is itself about as systematic as a car with toothache. A simple prod of logic will suffice: it is the case that plastic water bottles exist within a so-called 'capitalist' context; however, it does not follow from this that there is a direct, or even indirect, causal relationship between the context and those products which exist within it. The incentive was profit, so perhaps we can - at the very most - claim that plastic water bottles exist because of an incentive; this could have been other than profit.

Like the Internet, capitalism has created back-up systems and alternatives routes to bypass and ameliorate problems.

Perhaps, but such 'creation' has not been easy. Deleuze writes that all power is resistance - capitalism, in its creations, is resisting rather than 'beginning'. These 'back-ups' and 'alternatives' operate through the courts and the legal scaffold in general; they do not function smoothly but are more like a car that refuses to start with an obsessed driver at the wheel. Capitalism resists, it does not create. It would not need to use legality if it was legitimate.


Capitalism, along with its twin brother communism, is dogmatic. It attempts to tell us what is the case. We refuse such dogmatism with a truely scientific (i.e. critical) approach to experience. Capitalism's apologist resorts to cliche and proverbs and wilfully ignores the evidence which, every second of every day, disproves their attempt at a harmonious logic. Ultimately, if we are to come out of the closet and admit that we are, in fact, a capitalist, we must ask ourselves whether we would be willing to die for a system which itself would paint over our death as if it were nothing more than a stain on an otherwise pristine wall. Would we be willing not only to suffer but to accept our suffering as just because it is nothing more than the inevitable suffering within a system which not only depends upon, but produces and maintains, a dichotomy of the worthy and the damned? Put simply, if you are willing to lose your job and put your family into poverty for the sake of another man's profit, you are a capitalist. If you are not, then you're not.

[spike]

True, the Internet was invented by scholars in universities. But what allowed it to flourish? It wasn't the good intentions of scholarly or some bureaucracy. No, it was the entrepreneurs and the free market afforded by capitalism that brought it to market — the equipment and know-how, so that it could expand and become mutually beneficial.

Capitalism created the mass market and demand in which the Internet flourishes. The self-interest and initiative that capitalism and the free market spirit generated is what gave us the pleasure and luxury of the Internet.

When scholars invented the Internet they hadn't envisioned its grand possibilities. The inventors of the commuter hadn't envisioned its grand possibilities. The inventors of the laser and fiber-optics, which connect the Internet, hadn't envisioned their grand possibilities. The possibilities of those inventions were realized and brought to life by by the free market spirit of capitalism and those who partake in it.

[converge]

Spike, you just seem to label pretty much everything you can think of as "capitalism". Seriously, you consider socialism to be capitalism, and non-profits to be capitalism, and civilization to be capitalism, and morality to be capitalism... it sounds like you've just got a bad case of capitalism on the brain. Almost nothing that you're talking about since page one has anything to do with capitalism. It sounds like you just did something shady like scammed some people out of their home in the name of capitalism and now you're trying to justify it by imagining there's some sort of great higher purpose to it all.

[spike]

Well, capitalism is not communism!

Francis Fukuyama was reluctant to use the word capitalism because of the bad connotation he felt it had. So when he presented his theory as to the system of governance that triumphed after the fall of communism he called it liberal democracy, liberal meaning and standing in for capitalism — free market principles, after the classic idea of liberalism presented during the Enlightenment.

Capitalism means a liberal, open system of economics. The openness it fosters is known as the free market in which people can freely exchange and develop ideas, goods and services. No other system of economics is as liberal or open as capitalism no matter how much one might detest it.

This forum, like other sites on the Internet, is most likely made possible by capitalism, a system where capital is raised on the open market in order to finance and keep it going. Its magazine division was most likely started and financed the same way.

[Enhanceism81]

Capitalism means a liberal, open system of economics. The openness it fosters is known as the free market in which people can freely exchange and develop ideas, goods and services. No other system of economics is as liberal or open as capitalism no matter how much one might detest it.

Isn't the problem unregulated captialism, Liberalism ie the policy of the Liberal Democarts in the UK, is to encourage enterprise .... but to also protect the poor ( you may say obvious that they are doing none of this at the moment with the present goverment ) i.e. captialism with a human face !

Rather than the workers being explotied for rampant profit and destroying the planet, it can be tamed !

But I feel this has contradictions also, as the general level of wealth is stuck at a certain amount, we are more or less equal in poverty, as only a small number of people can really earn millons / billons and the lifestyle that goes with it, that we should all have.

[spike]

What ever you think, capitalism is not unregulated. Look around you. There is anecdotal evidence everywhere, from the food you buy to the cars you drive to the toilet paper you use to the crapper you utilize. It is in finance and banking where regulations were dropped too much, at great expense to all. If capitalism was totally unregulated as you think it is it would certainly destroy itself and everything in its way, because of things like bad food, dangerous buildings and an unbearable poisonous environment. Unregulated capitalism would be too high octane to endure. (Look at the cooperation that occurs around you. That is also part of capitalism.)

There is more of a human face to capitalism than you realize.

Yes, capitalism is contradictory and conflictive. What isn't in life? Ironically, though, it's that contradiction and conflict that keeps things humming and delivering the goods and services we depend on. Communism tried to eradicate that contradiction and conflict (competition) but in so doing hallowed itself out and atrophied.

[Enhanceism81]

I agree captialism without regulation would destroy the planet and ourselves, while just creating a large amount wealth to a small number of people.

But just look at the options, Communism made us equal yes, but grinds us down, so we cannot produce a half decent wealth for ourselves, while captialism creates a class system that means for no reason other than fortune of intelligence you have more life opportunity through money to live a different, if you say better life.

I think there is a space for a new philosophy and I'm trying to do this through a economic theory which can be put into practice .... would mean that we could live our life desires, through wealth for all, and also as a general tool to get the message out through music also.

[converge]

Well, capitalism is not communism!

Communism is a type of socialism. If socialism is capitalism, then communism would be capitalism.

I'm curious what specific part of communism doesn't fit into your all-consuming notion of capitalism. Don't be vague and say "freedom". People can have freedom in a communist state and they can be brutally oppressed in a capitalist state.

Francis Fukuyama was reluctant to use the word capitalism because of the bad connotation he felt it had. So when he presented his theory as to the system of governance that triumphed after the fall of communism he called it liberal democracy, liberal meaning and standing in for capitalism — free market principles, after the classic idea of liberalism presented during the Enlightenment.

Capitalism is not a form of governance (despite what teabaggers seem to think). Liberal democracy is a form of governance; it is a way of governing people and setting up the hierarchy of law. A democracy can support capitalism, but that doesn't mean a democracy is capitalism. You can have a social democracy as well; most of Europe and Canada lean more towards social democracy than neoliberal democracy.

Capitalism means a liberal, open system of economics.

That's not what it means though. You can't just change the definitions of words. Capitalism means something very specific. Specifically, it's a system where the means of production are held by the people with the most capital. Dictionary.com says capitalism is "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." That's what capitalism is. You can have a vast totalitarian umbrella corporation that monopolizes all trade, maintains secrecy from the entire world, and rules with an iron fist over a penniless horde of slaves, and it would still be capitalism. Conversely, you could have an open and liberal paradise where everyone is running around in rainbows and swimming in piles of gold, but if the grocery stores are all co-ops, that would not be capitalism.

The openness it fosters is known as the free market in which people can freely exchange and develop ideas, goods and services. No other system of economics is as liberal or open as capitalism no matter how much one might detest it.

You don't seem to know what capitalism is, and you don't seem to actually know anything at all about any other system of economics, except for a very vague McCarthy era "red scare" idea that Communism is the devil. There is more to life than capitalism and communism; and those two things are not the same as God vs Satan, or white vs black, or good vs evil. They are not even the same as U.S.A. vs U.S.S.R.

This forum, like other sites on the Internet, is most likely made possible by capitalism, a system where capital is raised on the open market in order to finance and keep it going. Its magazine division was most likely started and financed the same way.

Part of it, surely. But the internet isn't. The infrastructure supporting your connection is probably partly owned by the government. The code that runs the board is probably open source. And philosophy, which is really the center of the forums, has been around waaay before Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan were born, and far before the word "capitalism" ever came into being.

[ala1993]

Spike (who is probably a troll) wrote:

capitalism is not communism!

Both are sustained by an identical dogmatic logic i.e. one of exclusion and exclusivity. Alongside this, both rely on an individual self-sacrifice in order to exist in the first place (i.e. the acceptance of the 'system' as greater-than-I).

Morality is a problem for dogmatic logic (whether capitalist or communist in form); morality creates and maintains a distance between the individual and the non-human economic apparatus. As such, any such logic attempts to align previously existing moralities with its own needs; there is a 'capitalist morality' but it is consumed, regurgitated and reformed. The moral individual is an anomaly for dogmatic logic; it must either reject or assimilate it, although it cannot help but do the latter because it cannot annihilate it through rejection.

'Capitalism' is a form of dogmatic logic; it is not 'absolute' because if it were then it would be invisible. It is not everywhere but it wants us to believe that it is. Some seem to be more susceptible to this than others