Capitalism as a moral system

[ala1993]

Might I point out that Spike isn't really reading anyone else's posts. If he/she had been, he/she would have seen that I addressed the question of whether the internet was 'made possible' by capitalism and would have responded in kind.

ala1993 wrote:

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.

[Arising_uk]

...
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.

But built upon software development written by academics and the open-source community is my guess. As these things were around before the web.

[spike]

But built upon software development written by academics and the open-source community is my guess. As these things were around before the web.

But what has generated the jobs for software writers and those who have careers on the web? Why, capitalism! Without capitalism there wouldn't have been the expansion of the web so that so many could be employed by it. Sure, profit has been a motivating factor. But profit is what affords a pay cheques and the capital for future developments.

The web is a voracious beast that needs constant capital to expand. That capital comes from the capital markets that are made possible by capitalism.

It would be wonderful if the web was a product of and driven by a benevolence. But alas it isn't. It has been produced and driven by a darker side of the human condition, echos, individual recognition and self-fulfillment, things that capitalism is all about and why it exists.

[Arising_uk]

But what has generated the jobs for software writers and those who have careers on the web? Why, capitalism! Without capitalism there wouldn't have been the expansion of the web so that so many could be employed by it. Sure, profit has been a motivating factor. But profit is what affords a pay cheques and the capital for future developments. ...

Don't get me wrong Spike, I'm a churchillian marxist and understand the dynamism in Capitalism, plus I'm CofE so usury is not a problem

I agree that profit-driven motive is responsible for a large part of the current Web and Internet expansion and direction. I also think the market is because people wish it. But the development for both these things was not first from a profit-driven motive, the TCP/IP protocol came from the military and the idea of Hypertext and Hypermedia was thought up by Ted Nelson I think and badly realised by Berners-Lee with HTML and HTTP, although in no way am I knocking the achievement as its the difference between having an app or not.

The web is a voracious beast that needs constant capital to expand. That capital comes from the capital markets that are made possible by capitalism. ...

If you mean the capital projects needed to implement larger physical highspeed backbones available to the public, I'd agree. But the web itself can be expanded easily as all it needs is for a person to become a server administrator and host a web server. It was the point originally and the vast bulk of web-servers are still running on open-source software.

It would be wonderful if the web was a product of and driven by a benevolence. But alas it isn't. It has been produced and driven by a darker side of the human condition, echos, individual recognition and self-fulfillment, things that capitalism is all about and why it exists.

Ever thought its turned to this because of capitalism rather than the creative benevolence it was designed in mind with, well maybe not the TCP/IP bit. Not that I think it would not all be sex and shopping regardless but its truer potential is being slanted in my opinion, but I take heart that futurology is pretty much bull.

[spike]

Imagine, some people thinking that the Internet could exist without free market capitalism. What, then, made possible all the hardware and software it runs on? Maybe the people who built the first prototypes of it were not motivated or associated with free market capitalism. But where did the money and know-how come from to get it off the ground so we all could benefit form it, so that it would become another democratic institution?

Two of the Internet's giants - Jobs and Gates, got in computing and its facilitation because they ultimately were motivated by profit and status. They didn't just do it as a hobby.

Back to communism. Communism also had a computing system. But it was rudimentary in comparison. And much of the stuff it had was stolen from the West. Moreover, its anti-competitive economic system didn't allow for or encourage the maintenance and expansion of a web. Communism, thus, eventually collapse because it couldn't keep up with the advancements of the West and its free market principles.

[converge]

Imagine, some people thinking that the Internet could exist without free market capitalism. What, then, made possible all the hardware and software it runs on?

Public university funding, military funding, and research grants. Most of the internet is based on PC's, an open hardware standard, and uses Linux/UNIX, an open source OS. All of the core software is open source and was written by public researchers, not private corporations.

Maybe the people who built the first prototypes of it were not motivated or associated with free market capitalism. But where did the money and know-how come from to get it off the ground so we all could benefit form it, so that it would become another democratic institution?

From scientists in universities, public infrastructure investment by the government, and later by a group of non-profits that work on standardization.

Two of the Internet's giants - Jobs and Gates, got in computing and its facilitation because they ultimately were motivated by profit and status. They didn't just do it as a hobby.

Neither of them had anything at all to do with the invention of the internet. Safari, the Mac browser, was waaaayyyy too slow to market and is still a pretty crappy browser. Internet Explorer only got where it was by directly copying Netscape, and now, it spends most of its time playing catch-up to Firefox, an open-source browser.

Back to communism. Communism also had a computing system. But it was rudimentary in comparison. And much of the stuff it had was stolen from the West. Moreover, its anti-competitive economic system didn't allow for or encourage the maintenance and expansion of a web. Communism, thus, eventually collapse because it couldn't keep up with the advancements of the West and its free market principles.

What the hell are you talking about here?

[spike]

Frank S. Robinson's essay on Capitalism & Human Values in issue 83 of PN reminded my of a passage from Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. : “Democracy is impossible without private ownership because private property — resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state — provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom.”

[FrankGSterleJr]

Producing cheap or free adequate housing for the homeless is indeed better than naught; however, it is still not enough.
Those who are homeless and/or impoverished have a sometimes-great nemesis in mainstream society, its political officials and in many prominent news-media figures, whom generally are fiscal conservatives and social (e.g., abortion and homosexual rights) liberals. Such ideology is replacing the polarized left- and right-wing camps of the past -- all of which translate into ‘welfare’ and ‘social services’ becoming dirty words.
B.C.’s current government seems to be the antithesis of a friend to the very poor, allowing cuts to the social safety net during hard times, because it knows that society is, at best, apathetic towards any form of ‘welfare bum.’
In its fundamentalist form, this ideology basically translates into the survival of the richest and the fully employed.

[converge]

Spike, who are you trying to convince? Us? Or yourself?

[ala1993]

Democracy is impossible without private ownership because private property — resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state — provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom

Schlesinger is wrong, insofar as he seems to imply an either/or distinction between private and state ownership and does not accept that it can be weighted in favour of one without excluding the other (indeed, for laws to function at all there must be at least some compromise of private freedom). Alongside this, his claim overlooks the possibility that a small group of private individuals can gain greater power than a state and come to maintain a disproportionate influence over a so-called 'democracy'. Legislation, if it is to operate in such a way as to maximise individual political influence, must prevent any one person or group from gaining a greater influence than any other. The apologist for capitalism proposes that government should be 'small'; however, small government increases the possibility of disproportionate influence (which is contradictory to democracy). We have seen this happen in many different cases. Alongside this, we have seen - and currently live within - a socio-political environment which limits 'intellectual freedom' to those ideas and actions which assist financial growth.

[spike]

Schlesinger is wrong, insofar as he seems to imply an either/or distinction between private and state ownership and does not accept that it can be weighted in favour of one without excluding the other (indeed, for laws to function at all there must be at least some compromise of private freedom). Alongside this, his claim overlooks the possibility that a small group of private individuals can gain greater power than a state and come to maintain a disproportionate influence over a so-called 'democracy'. Legislation, if it is to operate in such a way as to maximise individual political influence, must prevent any one person or group from gaining a greater influence than any other. The apologist for capitalism proposes that government should be 'small'; however, small government increases the possibility of disproportionate influence (which is contradictory to democracy). We have seen this happen in many different cases. Alongside this, we have seen - and currently live within - a socio-political environment which limits 'intellectual freedom' to those ideas and actions which assist financial growth.

Sorry, I really don't understand how you think Schleinger is wrong. Nor do I see him as an apologist of capitalism, no more than I am.

One doesn't have to apologize for a system that grew and evolved out of humankind's natural dispositions and propensities.

[converge]

Sorry, I really don't understand how you think Schleinger is wrong. Nor do I see him as an apologist of capitalism, no more than I am.

One doesn't have to apologize for a system that grew and evolved out of humankind's natural dispositions and propensities.

Tell that to the victims of the holocaust.

[Arising_uk]

... One doesn't have to apologize for a system that grew and evolved out of humankind's natural dispositions and propensities.

How so Spike?

And if so why does this not apply to any socio-economic system?

[chaz wyman]

My argument is that capitalism is the best teacher of moral values and how we ought to conduct ourselves. Some might find this weird and despicable because they view capitalism as a destroyer of morality.

I argue, though, to be morally inclined one has to be engaged and participate with others in common practices. No other system engages more people in common practices than capitalism. It is from such an engagement that we develop the moral codes and laws that ultimately benefit and protect all (utilitarianism). Adam Smith, the supposed founder of capitalism, thought as much in his treatise The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

It is a ridiculous claim to suggest that Smith founded capitalism. That would be like saying Darwin invented natural selection.
Capitalism starts with the ability to store capital. For that we have to think ancient Athens' invention of coinage.

Capitalism is neither moral or immoral. Capitalism is amoral. In its purest form it is an identification of a mechanism, like evolution is the result of natural and domestic selection; capitalism is the result of the economic interaction of humans in a system of abstract value exchange.
Smith was elucidating the natural mechanisms; but his prescription was not the for progress of the individual in relation to this mechanism but it was a series of suggestions by which the WEALTH OF NATIONS can be promoted by engineering this system. In this Smith flies against the natural market but seeks to identify the means by which we can manipulate it. This is contrary to libertarian market capitalism as he suggests control, and rejects the mantra: let the market decide.

So the morality is not to be found in the mechanism but in those that would seek to control it. Communism, socialism and Keynesianism may all face the charge of morality as they all seek to control the market.

But Smith's focus is not on producing a morality for all but his focus is the promotion of the state. Thus, when he recommends free men against slavery he does so for purely economic reasons with NO consideration for personal freedom.
The moralist might want to use his words to support abolition but Smith is utterly disinterested in this cause.

[ala1993]

... One doesn't have to apologize for a system that grew and evolved out of humankind's natural dispositions and propensities.

How so Spike?

And if so why does this not apply to any socio-economic system?

Here here!