Capitalism as a moral system

[converge]

Capitalism is about free market principles. Communism was not. People like freedom to choose and determine their own course. Under communism people could not. People have needs and aspirations. In a free market system people can strife to fulfill them. Under communism they could not.

I don't know if you're just trolling or if you just ignored my post. My post was about how you have invented these two black and white extreme ideas of "capitalism" and "communism" and that there is actually much more out there, a whole spectrum, and other systems of economy and government that fall completely outside the two. But then your reply is a black and white extreme comparison of "capitalism" and "communism" that have almost nothing to do with what the two words actually mean. You seem hell bent on defending capitalism; you should go look it up on wikipedia and read about what it actually is before you keep going on about how much you love it.

You sound like a McCarthy era conservative, or, more likely, someone who has McCarthy era conservatives for parents. You seem to have a very limited view of what the world is like... you have a very vague notion of the old Soviet Union, which you're envisioning as some kind of hell on earth where all bad things come from, and "capitalism", which you're envisioning as... everything else in the entire world that you've ever heard of. But that's not what "capitalism" means. If all you mean by "capitalism" is "every other thing in the entire world I've ever heard of other than my vague nightmare version of the USSR" then of course it sounds great! But again, that's not what "capitalism" actually means.

[chaz wyman]

As one may notice countries that practice capitalism, where the majority participate in it, are quite stable. Stability is at the core of democracy. Without economic stability democracy is not possible. Capitalism generates and causes stability. Haiti and Iraq are examples of counties that lack stability because of the lack of genuine free market principles.

Haiti is capitalist all the way to the poverty stricken crisis. Saying a country does not practice capitalism is like saying it does not practice buying and selling.
The only distinction is that between countries that use democracy to control their capitalism like the USA, and those that do not like Brazil and Argentina.
Where capitalism is modified and controlled the state takes resources from the profiteers to buy infrastructure and education, and those that allow the capitalist free reign. Where democracy controls capitalism , capitalism benefits from stuff like security, roads and an educated work force.
Countries that do not rein in the worst excesses of capitalism find that the ruling minority are super rich and the populace are poor; a perfect example of unfettered capitalism is Saudi Arabia.




China practices capitalism and is stable but politically it is not democratic. Nevertheless, I think China is heading towards democracy in the same way that Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Portugal, Spain, Taiwan and South Korea did, countries that first got their economic houses in order in anticipation of democracy. Also, China wants to be a leader in scientific research. Such an endeavor requires democracy because it only can facilitates the free exchange of ideas, which bona fide scientific research demands.

You can't even see the idiotic contradictions on your own observations.


"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."

After the attacks of 9/11 there was an insecurity and chaos in the world. Nevertheless, in a matter of a few weeks and months the world reverted to a stability. Civilization did not fly off in different direction as some had predicted. What kept things together and helped bring back a normalcy was the world's engagement in capitalism and free trade. Capitalism and free trade was the gel that kept the world together and stable. Capitalism and free trade has brought a resilience and stability to the world.

[spike]

When people come together voluntarily and of their own volition to engage in economic activity it is called free market capitalism. When people are forced to come together against their will to engage in economic activity it is called communism. These two systems were devised to facilitate and realize humankind's common needs and aspirations. Free market capitalism has been the successful one because in reaching human goals it has gone with the flow and done it naturally, unlike communism which manipulated, suffocated and almost killed the patient.

"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."

Private property also includes an intangible, one's own labor. Under communism one's labor wasn't one's own. It belongs to the state. The same was true for intellectual property; it was owned by the communist state. This state of affairs thwarted development and advancement because under communism people didn't have the incentive or will to think originally or come up with alternatives or solutions to inevitable socioeconomic problems, like pollution (under true communism pollution was hidden and a crime to discuss). Communist China has been an anomaly since it now recognizes private ownership, tangible and intangible, but still remains politically undemocratic.

More than 40 years ago China recognized that under communism economic wellbeing was unattainable. The State realized, after many years of tinkering with all kinds of economic gimmicks, it alone did not have the wherewithal to provide for its citizens. In comparing itself to the West, which was far more productive and healthier, it further realized that economic wellbeing also depends on individual responsibility and ingenuity, and that the chains that stifled vitality had to be removed. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Today the Chinese are more advanced and less dependent of crushing state welfare than ever before, so much so that China has become the second largest economy in the world, plus a more responsible global participant.

Communism, like Islam, is a one theory system. Thus, all means of human governance and activity fall under a single umbrella, whether it be religious, political or economic. There is no clear separation or variation between those activities. That is what makes those systems authoritarian. It is the single theory of human governance what makes authoritarianism. In contrast, we in the West reside in multiple and conflicting theories of human governance, like capitalism, democracy and secularism, which counterbalance each other and keep authoritarianism at bay.

Because in the West capitalism and democracy have paralleled, cohabited and competed with each other the question was raised, Do capitalism and democracy together constitute the DNA of the modern world? I would say so. Communism did not have such a DNA, which every organic, fluid system needs to exist. Communism was a one trick pony, hence its collapse.

[chaz wyman]

More of the same SPAM garbage........

When people come together voluntarily and of their own volition to engage in economic activity it is called free market capitalism. When people are forced to come together against their will to engage in economic activity it is called communism. These two systems were devised to facilitate and realize humankind's common needs and aspirations. Free market capitalism has been the successful one because in reaching human goals it has gone with the flow and done it naturally, unlike communism which manipulated, suffocated and almost killed the patient.

"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."

Private property also includes an intangible, one's own labor. Under communism one's labor wasn't one's own. It belongs to the state. The same was true for intellectual property; it was owned by the communist state. This state of affairs thwarted development and advancement because under communism people didn't have the incentive or will to think originally or come up with alternatives or solutions to inevitable socioeconomic problems, like pollution (under true communism pollution was hidden and a crime to discuss). Communist China has been an anomaly since it now recognizes private ownership, tangible and intangible, but still remains politically undemocratic.

More than 40 years ago China recognized that under communism economic wellbeing was unattainable. The State realized, after many years of tinkering with all kinds of economic gimmicks, it alone did not have the wherewithal to provide for its citizens. In comparing itself to the West, which was far more productive and healthier, it further realized that economic wellbeing also depends on individual responsibility and ingenuity, and that the chains that stifled vitality had to be removed. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Today the Chinese are more advanced and less dependent of crushing state welfare than ever before, so much so that China has become the second largest economy in the world, plus a more responsible global participant.

Communism, like Islam, is a one theory system. Thus, all means of human governance and activity fall under a single umbrella, whether it be religious, political or economic. There is no clear separation or variation between those activities. That is what makes those systems authoritarian. It is the single theory of human governance what makes authoritarianism. In contrast, we in the West reside in multiple and conflicting theories of human governance, like capitalism, democracy and secularism, which counterbalance each other and keep authoritarianism at bay.

Because in the West capitalism and democracy have paralleled, cohabited and competed with each other the question was raised, Do capitalism and democracy together constitute the DNA of the modern world? I would say so. Communism did not have such a DNA, which every organic, fluid system needs to exist. Communism was a one trick pony, hence its collapse.

[spike]

I have had this theory that we develop and advance through perversity, meaning that from our bad, irrational nature comes our good behavior and rational, from our immorality comes morality. Well, the other day I was quite surprised to learn of the Perversity Theses introduced by Albert O. Hirschman in his book The rhetoric of reaction, which posits very much the same thing.

Hirschman refers to Adam Smith's notion of self-interest as perversity, perversity being the opposite or unintended consequence. The notion of self-interest seems to be backwards, that from it come the broader social good. One would think that it would be the other way around, the striving for the social good would be promoted first for best results, before the striving for self-interest. Not so, as seen in the comparison between capitalism and communism, the former promoting self-interest first and the latter promoting the social good. Under communism individual self-interest was shunned but surprisingly (an unintended consequence) social existence was drab, full of shortages, inefficient and dreadfully corrupt. In contrast, capitalism, which promoted self-interest, societies thrive, are reasonably efficient, corruption is kept to a minimum and they have an abundance of everything, all due to individual self-interest being paramount. The world does works in perverse, mysterious ways.

Another thing that developed in this so called backwardness is trust. Surprisingly under the socialism of communism people rarely trusted each other, while trust between individuals and institutions flourished under 'selfish capitalism'. The reason I think trustworthiness developed under capitalism and not communism is that capitalism engage people to come together, openly, whereas communism didn't allow such things. Experience creates trust. Under communism people rarely experience each other on an honest level. Obviously, and from experience, open society foster trust on a broad scale while closed societies don't.

Something else I learned from Hirschman's book is that Adam Smith introduced the Invisible Hand as a secular concept, substituting it for Divine Providence which had been hitherto used to explain the teleological order of society. He substituted it because the latter had a flighty faith-ism about it that rarely explained reality.

[chaz wyman]

I have had this theory that we develop and advance through perversity, meaning that from our bad, irrational nature comes our good behavior and rational, from our immorality comes morality. Well, the other day I was quite surprised to learn of the Perversity Theses introduced by Albert O. Hirschman in his book The rhetoric of reaction, which posits very much the same thing.

Hirschman refers to Adam Smith's notion of self-interest as perversity, perversity being the opposite or unintended consequence. The notion of self-interest seems to be backwards, that from it come the broader social good. One would think that it would be the other way around, the striving for the social good would be promoted first for best results, before the striving for self-interest. Not so, as seen in the comparison between capitalism and communism, the former promoting self-interest first and the latter promoting the social good. Under communism individual self-interest was shunned but surprisingly (an unintended consequence) social existence was drab, full of shortages, inefficient and dreadfully corrupt. In contrast, capitalism, which promoted self-interest, societies thrive, are reasonably efficient, corruption is kept to a minimum and they have an abundance of everything, all due to individual self-interest being paramount. The world does works in perverse, mysterious ways.

Another thing that developed in this so called backwardness is trust. Surprisingly under the socialism of communism people rarely trusted each other, while trust between individuals and institutions flourished under 'selfish capitalism'. The reason I think trustworthiness developed under capitalism and not communism is that capitalism engage people to come together, openly, whereas communism didn't allow such things. Experience creates trust. Under communism people rarely experience each other on an honest level. Obviously, and from experience, open society foster trust on a broad scale while closed societies don't.

Something else I learned from Hirschman's book is that Adam Smith introduced the Invisible Hand as a secular concept, substituting it for Divine Providence which had been hitherto used to explain the teleological order of society. He substituted it because the latter had a flighty faith-ism about it that rarely explained reality.

You are on your own matey.

[spike]

Going back to theperversity thesis, which entails a perverse argument. Adam Smith did not intentionally make a perverse argument when he made his most famous statement "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” But he made a counterintuitive argument, which amounts to the same thing. That statement is counterintuitive and has a perverse sense to it because it was contrary to human intuition and to common-sense expectations.

Next I would like to explore capitalism and the complementarity principle. For instance, capitalism and democracy complement each other. Most probably neither could exist without the other. In sensing that Francis Fukuyama paired them together in his most famous book "The End Of History" and called the duo liberal democracy.

Fukuyama's The End Of History was spurred by the discrediting of communism in the late 1980s as a governing system, coupled with the simultaneous ascendancy of liberal democracy, a.k.a capitalism/democracy. He was certainly interested in why it happened and wanted to get to the bottom of it. One of his conclusions was that liberal democracy represented "the only viable alternative for technologically advance societies". It seemed clear that communism couldn't keep up with the modern world and its advances. It also had to do with the fact that communism was a one theory system, the state, which by practice became authoritarian and reviled. Liberal democracy on the other hand is of two theories, the free market and the state coexisting side by side, each counterbalancing the other so that neither would or could become authoritarian. The complementarity of liberal democracy keeps society open and vital, as is the way of the complementarity principle.

[Wootah]

I have had this theory that we develop and advance through perversity, meaning that from our bad, irrational nature comes our good behavior and rational, from our immorality comes morality. Well, the other day I was quite surprised to learn of the Perversity Theses introduced by Albert O. Hirschman in his book The rhetoric of reaction, which posits very much the same thing.

Hirschman refers to Adam Smith's notion of self-interest as perversity, perversity being the opposite or unintended consequence. The notion of self-interest seems to be backwards, that from it come the broader social good. One would think that it would be the other way around, the striving for the social good would be promoted first for best results, before the striving for self-interest. Not so, as seen in the comparison between capitalism and communism, the former promoting self-interest first and the latter promoting the social good. Under communism individual self-interest was shunned but surprisingly (an unintended consequence) social existence was drab, full of shortages, inefficient and dreadfully corrupt. In contrast, capitalism, which promoted self-interest, societies thrive, are reasonably efficient, corruption is kept to a minimum and they have an abundance of everything, all due to individual self-interest being paramount. The world does works in perverse, mysterious ways.

Another thing that developed in this so called backwardness is trust. Surprisingly under the socialism of communism people rarely trusted each other, while trust between individuals and institutions flourished under 'selfish capitalism'. The reason I think trustworthiness developed under capitalism and not communism is that capitalism engage people to come together, openly, whereas communism didn't allow such things. Experience creates trust. Under communism people rarely experience each other on an honest level. Obviously, and from experience, open society foster trust on a broad scale while closed societies don't.

Something else I learned from Hirschman's book is that Adam Smith introduced the Invisible Hand as a secular concept, substituting it for Divine Providence which had been hitherto used to explain the teleological order of society. He substituted it because the latter had a flighty faith-ism about it that rarely explained reality.

You are on your own matey.

Chaz, Spike's posts seem quite good food for thought. Even if he is on his own or not.

[Wootah]

Going back to theperversity thesis, which entails a perverse argument. Adam Smith did not intentionally make a perverse argument when he made his most famous statement "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” But he made a counterintuitive argument, which amounts to the same thing. That statement is counterintuitive and has a perverse sense to it because it was contrary to human intuition and to common-sense expectations.

Next I would like to explore capitalism and the complementarity principle. For instance, capitalism and democracy complement each other. Most probably neither could exist without the other. In sensing that Francis Fukuyama paired them together in his most famous book "The End Of History" and called the duo liberal democracy.

Fukuyama's The End Of History was spurred by the discrediting of communism in the late 1980s as a governing system, coupled with the simultaneous ascendancy of liberal democracy, a.k.a capitalism/democracy. He was certainly interested in why it happened and wanted to get to the bottom of it. One of his conclusions was that liberal democracy represented "the only viable alternative for technologically advance societies". It seemed clear that communism couldn't keep up with the modern world and its advances. It also had to do with the fact that communism was a one theory system, the state, which by practice became authoritarian and reviled. Liberal democracy on the other hand is of two theories, the free market and the state coexisting side by side, each counterbalancing the other so that neither would or could become authoritarian. The complementarity of liberal democracy keeps society open and vital, as is the way of the complementarity principle.

Spike similar arguments can be made about the benefits of survival of the fittest and competition. I agree with them. The more competition the better the service. To my mind I regard it as part of how God works. You can either serve with love or serve from competition but you will serve.

[spike]

I am ready "Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx" by Robert Tucker.

In his preamble Tucker talks about Kant's dualism. From it I learned more about Kant's idea of man's twofold nature of noumenon and phenomenon. "The former is a godlike self of man: the latter, his merely human self." Noumenon is the inner face man portrays to himself. Phenomenon is man's outward appearance. This is the origins of Hegel's idealism and Marx's materialism and the dialectic that arises between the two.

From the noumenon and phenomenon, the inner idealism and outward materialism of man, it is logical to say that out of them grew democracy and capitalism.

[dawnmathieson]

Capitalism was responsible for slavery, destruction of the planet, war, animal cruelty, poverty, starvation, death....do i need to keep going? I guess you are trying to play devils advocate because it is clear that capitalism brings out the worst in human morals. It is a successful economic system but it is not in anyway a moral system. Although I do admit that the argument can be dragged out with reference to things like the NHS in Britain which it could be argued was expanded to keep its workers healthy but i think you would be struggling in face of counter arguments and a variety of actual moral systems at play. For example the NHS was originally started by the Church and most of its early expansion was necessary due to the amount of people dying in the streets from a variety of diseases. Diseases that had been mainly picked up as a result of capitalism as an increase in farming technology caused many people to lose their jobs as capitalism is all about maximising profits. These jobless starving people had to move to the cities looking for work. cities that were over crowded and unsanitary - which caused the diseases that led to the early expansion of the NHS. And we are back to square one x

[spike]

Capitalism was responsible for slavery, destruction of the planet, war, animal cruelty, poverty, starvation, death.

Get real! People was responsible for that. Why, they did that without capitalism.

[John]

For example the NHS was originally started by the Church

I take it you mean free health care dispensed on a charitable basis and not actually the UK's National Health Service?

[Typist]

The contest between socialism and capitalism is over. The issue has been decided.

Pure versions of both systems have been tried on large scales and both led to calamity.

All major countries now use some blend of the two systems, and the debate that remains is about the details of the blend.

[dawnmathieson]

Capitalism was responsible for slavery, destruction of the planet, war, animal cruelty, poverty, starvation, death.

Get real! People was responsible for that. Why, they did that without capitalism.

None of these obviously immoral acts are out with the concept of private enterprise. Slavery of course does increase profits, mining the ocean for oil is also a nice piece of private enterprise, selling weapons and arms is yes you got it fine in a capitalist society, as is owning large amounts of land that contain the majority of the food in an area. Yes of course people were responsible for these things but they did them under capitalist ideals and were not condemned by capitalism because capitalism is not and was never intended to be a moral system. That is impossible to deny x