Lets Talk About The Moral Basis of Capitalism

[DonFrancisco]

Capitalism in its moral and philosophical basis is kinda built on utilitarianism. Our happiness and our well-being is based on utilizes and how useful we are to society. I guess this is where economics comes in and determines what is the proper way to be compensated for our utility to society and the nation. A doctor gets paid much more than a person at Burger King because they have a specialize low supply skill and there skill is deemed to be useful to society.

Our happiness is suppose to be based on productivity and scarcity of our skills (how scares we are in terms of productivity). This is where the theory of utilitarianism comes into play.

This is how I think capitalism is based on or how I was taught in B-School.

 

[GPBear]

No, morals and ethics are used synonymously among people actually working in ethics. You're describing moral realism vs. moral anti-realism.

Not according to University of California, Berkeley.

 

[Blackking]

Not according to University of California, Berkeley.

Or Michigan State University

 

[JahFocus CS]

Where to begin...

First, let's answer the question, "What is capitalism?" Capitalism is a system marked by the ownership and control of the means of production (land, factories, etc.) by a small group of people. This group maintains its control of the means of production through the state. This ruling class employs the working class - the vast majority of humanity - to produce goods and services, for which the working class is paid a wage/salary. These wages/salaries, however, equal only a portion of the total wealth that the working class produces. Capitalists take the difference between the value of what the working class produces and what the working class is paid (at a minimum, it needs to be enough to allow workers to reproduce their livelihoods, i.e. just enough to keep workers alive and able to work another day). This is surplus value. This is the source of profit.

Worker wages/salaries are not a matter of bosses being benevolent or malevolent. Paying workers as little as possible is always a goal. Again, this is the source of profit. Thus, when we speak of "exploitation," it is not, primarily, a moral assessment of the material relations between the bourgeoisie and the working class, but rather a scientific assessment of the reality of the material relations. It is nonsense to speak about "fair wages" or a capitalism "without exploitation." Capitalism renders these notions impossibilities.

@Truth200 @Napoleon @DEAD7

Capitalism is the only moral social system because it is the only system that respects the freedom of the producers to think and the right of the individual to set his own goals and pursue his own happiness.

This is nonsense. Basically every facet of bourgeois society endeavors to atomize producers (i.e., the working class) and lull them into powerlessness and ignorance, lest they develop class consciousness and organize to create a better world.

Bosses try to deskill jobs as much as possible. Record numbers of people feel absolutely alienated at work, unengaged and uninterested in what they spend most of their weeks doing. That is by design.

Capitalists try to put forth an individualist narrative, but production is a social process! If people didn't cooperate and work together, production would fail completely. So we have a situation where production is already a social process, but the wealth is privatized and concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

No country runs entirely on capitalism alone brehs. It's just a tool for prosperity, not the cause of it.

There are some countries that still do have prominent feudal elements, but aside from that, capitalism dominates everywhere. Please refer to my opening paragraph above for the essential features of capitalism. Reforms like welfare, Social Security, and other social services do not at all change those fundamental material relations. Such reforms are not anti-capitalist - in fact, they often buttress capitalism, making it more stable. This isn't to say that those reforms weren't fought for by the working class, but the reforms can be rolled back at any time (see the austerity measures in recent years and the massive rollback of programs in the U.S. in recent decades). Reforms =/= liberation.

As we advance technologically to where we can create our resources and simply make what we need everything will naturally go back to socialism unless technological progress is intentionally hindered.

The logic of capitalism would intentionally hinder the birth of such a reality. Here is an excellent article that details some scenarios like the one you mention. Of particular interest here is the second scenario, which the author dubs "rentism," a future situation of hierarchy and abundance.

 

[DEAD7]

@The way he takes 'private ownership' and turns it into 'a small group of people'.

Paying workers as little as possible is always a goal.

The evidence simply doesnt support this. Less the 8% of today's work force are paid the min wage, or as you put it, "as little as possible"

These wages/salaries, however, equal only a portion of the total wealth that the working class produces.

What is the “full productivity” of the worker? Why is this “full productivity” any more than what the worker could have done on his own, which is worth [insert wage] per hour? Is the worker not exploiting the capitalist to increase his productivity above what it could have been without the equipment/resources and doubling his income in the process?
To focus solely on what the worker does on a daily basis is to ignore the past effort of the capitalist.
To insist that what happened in the past is not relevant to what happens today will discourage investment, invention and progress. No matter what, promotion of collectivism on a large scale is to advocate for, at best, stagnation and, more likely, regression.
Hence its global rejection.

Moreover, Absent any coercion, all market transactions are beneficial to both parties involved. ... and it becomes a matter of degree.

 

[Claudex]

Dapped for the coherence in your argument but there's quite a bit of it I can not agree with.

Where to begin...

First, let's answer the question, "What is capitalism?" Capitalism is a system marked by the ownership and control of the means of production (land, factories, etc.) by a small group of people. This group maintains its control of the means of production through the state. This ruling class employs the working class - the vast majority of humanity - to produce goods and services, for which the working class is paid a wage/salary. These wages/salaries, however, equal only a portion of the total wealth that the working class produces. Capitalists take the difference between the value of what the working class produces and what the working class is paid (at a minimum, it needs to be enough to allow workers to reproduce their livelihoods, i.e. just enough to keep workers alive and able to work another day). This is surplus value. This is the source of profit.

Just your definition is false. A small group of people may have a large (and very private) control of the means of production but the beauty of capitalism is that this control is not only reserved for the small elite. Which is why Mark Zuckerberg's and others can make their way to the top even as business tyc00ns battle for the expansion of their empires daily.

Worker wages/salaries are not a matter of bosses being benevolent or malevolent. Paying workers as little as possible is always a goal. Again, this is the source of profit. Thus, when we speak of "exploitation," it is not, primarily, a moral assessment of the material relations between the bourgeoisie and the working class, but rather a scientific assessment of the reality of the material relations. It is nonsense to speak about "fair wages" or a capitalism "without exploitation." Capitalism renders these notions impossibilities.

The bolded is only half a truth given that one of the most interesting features of a capitalistic society is the ability of employers to decide on the wage for their employees. Your paragraph is true only so far as when one analyzes the lower ladder of a business hierarchy system, which suffers the bigger exploitation on wages. But even then, within capitalism some enterprises will pay more for their lower workers than others (like Starbucks vs MacDonalds or Burger King) for the specific purpose of emphasizing quality within production/services.

This is nonsense. Basically every facet of bourgeois society endeavors to atomize producers (i.e., the working class) and lull them into powerlessness and ignorance, lest they develop class consciousness and organize to create a better world.

Bosses try to deskill jobs as much as possible. Record numbers of people feel absolutely alienated at work, unengaged and uninterested in what they spend most of their weeks doing. That is by design.

Capitalists try to put forth an individualist narrative, but production is a social process! If people didn't cooperate and work together, production would fail completely. So we have a situation where production is already a social process, but the wealth is privatized and concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

This part of your argument I largely agree with. Especially the part about production being a social process, the one thing that makes capitalism stand out from the other systems is that it's dependent on a specific aspect of social relations that the other systems don't acknowledge. That is "competition". Socialism focuses on cooperation, but as it turns out people are their sharpest when competing rather than cooperating.

So even though all the economic systems survive on the social relations capitalism is the system that motivates people to do better for themselves (which is what they prefer) rather than doing better for the neighbor (which they prefer too but at a much smaller rate).

There are some countries that still do have prominent feudal elements, but aside from that, capitalism dominates everywhere. Please refer to my opening paragraph above for the essential features of capitalism. Reforms like welfare, Social Security, and other social services do not at all change those fundamental material relations. Such reforms are not anti-capitalist - in fact, they often buttress capitalism, making it more stable. This isn't to say that those reforms weren't fought for by the working class, but the reforms can be rolled back at any time (see the austerity measures in recent years and the massive rollback of programs in the U.S. in recent decades). Reforms =/= liberation.

The social reforms are not meant to be be anti-capitalistic. And the more one observes economic systems as tools the better understanding on the shifting priorities within a capitalistic – and pretty much any other system – society. Within a socialist system sometimes capitalistic tools are used to better aid the system too.

The logic of capitalism would intentionally hinder the birth of such a reality. Here is an excellent article that details some scenarios like the one you mention. Of particular interest here is the second scenario, which the author dubs "rentism," a future situation of hierarchy and abundance.

Thanks! Let me get my reading on fam.

 

[JahFocus CS]

@The way he takes 'private ownership' and turns it into 'a small group of people'.


The evidence simply doesnt support this. Less the 8% of today's work force are paid the min wage, or as you put it, "as little as possible"



What is the “full productivity” of the worker? Why is this “full productivity” any more than what the worker could have done on his own, which is worth [insert wage] per hour? Is the worker not exploiting the capitalist to increase his productivity above what it could have been without the equipment/resources and doubling his income in the process?
To focus solely on what the worker does on a daily basis is to ignore the past effort of the capitalist.
To insist that what happened in the past is not relevant to what happens today will discourage investment, invention and progress. No matter what, promotion of collectivism on a large scale is to advocate for, at best, stagnation and, more likely, regression.
Hence its global rejection.

Moreover, Absent any coercion, all market transactions are beneficial to both parties involved. ... and it becomes a matter of degree.

Are you really unfamiliar with the statistics on the concentration of wealth? It is a small group of people.

I didn't say "the goal is to pay workers the minimum wage." I said that the goal is to pay workers "as little as possible." This is dependent on a variety of factors - competition for talent, public relations/image, and other things. Another factor is the need to ensure the working class can actually purchase the goods and services it produces. In the long run, the effort to push wages lower runs up against this reality, creating problems with effective demand and, in turn, contributes to economic crises.

The full productivity of the working class is literally everything you see that has been created in the world.

No, the worker is not "exploiting the capitalist"

Essentially, your whole world view is stuck in this petit bourgeois/small business owner perspective. Yeah, the sweat equity that entrepreneurs put into enterprises is important. But note that sweat equity is labor. The ultimate issue is the logic of capital and how it subjugates labor, not capitalists as individuals.

Look at how capitalism restricts technological progress by stifling open source innovation. This article brings up quite a few good points on socialism and innovation.

Dapped for the coherence in your argument but there's quite a bit of it I can not agree with.

Just your definition is false. A small group of people may have a large (and very private) control of the means of production but the beauty of capitalism is that this control is not only reserved for the small elite. Which is why Mark Zuckerberg's and others can make their way to the top even as business tyc00ns battle for the expansion of their empires daily.

The bolded is only half a truth given that one of the most interesting features of a capitalistic society is the ability of employers to decide on the wage for their employees. Your paragraph is true only so far as when one analyzes the lower ladder of a business hierarchy system, which suffers the bigger exploitation on wages. But even then, within capitalism some enterprises will pay more for their lower workers than others (like Starbucks vs MacDonalds or Burger King) for the specific purpose of emphasizing quality within production/services.

This part of your argument I largely agree with. Especially the part about production being a social process, the one thing that makes capitalism stand out from the other systems is that it's dependent on a specific aspect of social relations that the other systems don't acknowledge. That is "competition". Socialism focuses on cooperation, but as it turns out people are their sharpest when competing rather than cooperating.

So even though all the economic systems survive on the social relations capitalism is the system that motivates people to do better for themselves (which is what they prefer) rather than doing better for the neighbor (which they prefer too but at a much smaller rate).

The social reforms are not meant to be be anti-capitalistic. And the more one observes economic systems as tools the better understanding on the shifting priorities within a capitalistic – and pretty much any other system – society. Within a socialist system sometimes capitalistic tools are used to better aid the system too.



Thanks! Let me get my reading on fam.

The definition isn't false. The fact that there is some porosity between classes doesn't at all undermine what I previously described. An individual can move from the exploited to the exploiter class... okay. There were also some enslaved individuals who paid their way out of enslavement and went on to enslave others in the antebellum U.S.

It isn't a half truth, I touched on this a bit in my response above to @DEAD7.

I think you misunderstood my point. My point is actually precisely that production requires cooperation, already, even under capitalism. It requires coordination. Go to work and say, "I'm not working or communicating with anyone, I'm just going to do whatever I want here The assertion that "people are their sharpest when competing rather than cooperating" is rather vague and unsubstantiated. Not to mention, if your view is that people are naturally selfish, greedy, and competitive, you are completely ignoring that all you're going off of is what you observe under capitalism... a system which promotes those behaviors and dispositions. Not only are the behaviors and dispositions socially conditioned by the dominant class, in favor of its material interests, but so, too, is the very concept of what human nature is.

Salute for engaging in discussion breh.

 

[DEAD7]

The assertion that "people are their sharpest when competing rather than cooperating" is rather vague and unsubstantiated. Not to mention, if your view is that people are naturally selfish, greedy, and competitive, you are completely ignoring that all you're going off of is what you observe under capitalism

Ya, this is gonna have to make the podcast.

 

[JahFocus CS]

Ya, this is gonna have to make the podcast.

I welcome it.

 

[tmonster]

we'll bring you the baker and the baker's wife

 

[Claudex]

The definition isn't false. The fact that there is some porosity between classes doesn't at all undermine what I previously described. An individual can move from the exploited to the exploiter class... okay. There were also some enslaved individuals who paid their way out of enslavement and went on to enslave others in the antebellum U.S.

It isn't a half truth, I touched on this a bit in my response above to @DEAD7.

I think you misunderstood my point. My point is actually precisely that production requires cooperation, already, even under capitalism. It requires coordination. Go to work and say, "I'm not working or communicating with anyone, I'm just going to do whatever I want here The assertion that "people are their sharpest when competing rather than cooperating" is rather vague and unsubstantiated. Not to mention, if your view is that people are naturally selfish, greedy, and competitive, you are completely ignoring that all you're going off of is what you observe under capitalism... a system which promotes those behaviors and dispositions. Not only are the behaviors and dispositions socially conditioned by the dominant class, in favor of its material interests, but so, too, is the very concept of what human nature is.

Salute for engaging in discussion breh.

to you too fam. It took me a while to get back to you on this, my bad.

The difference between the antebellum and today is that this mobility I speak of can be found in greater numbers nowadays. Not only because of democracy but also due to technology which makes entrepreneurialism more feasible to a much larger sect of the populace, what with the ease in communication and all that.

As for your point, I very much agree with it as my own point simply emphasized competition over cooperation. Both aren't mutually-exclusive as far as I know, and you obviously know it too.

Moreover my view isn't necessarily that people are naturally selfish/greedy. Instead I believe that given the limit of human's more valuable resource (time) + a willingness to make the most out of one's lot + human needs AND wants = competition becomes a very natural part of the human experience. And it can be found on any system really. Capitalism just places a very interesting emphasis on it, which appears to be very effective.

As for the dominant class conditioning behaviors and dispositions for its material interests, I believe that to be an unavoidable reality of the human experience. A reality that stops me from exalting democracy as the greatest human achievement, but yet does not stop me from accepting it's contribution to the aggregate of human growth in many frontiers.
I also believe that the non-dominant class also conditions some of the behaviors and dispositions for its material interest. Do you disagree?

 

[Kritic]

For 40 years, or was it longer, I can't remember, I did all I could to give people houses, hospitals, schools, and when they were hungry, I gave them food. I even made Benghazi into farmland from the desert, I stood up to attacks from that cowboy Ronald Reagan, when he killed my adopted orphaned daughter, he was trying to kill me, instead he killed that poor innocent child. Then I helped my brothers and sisters from Africa with money for the African Union.

I did all I could to help people Understand the concept of real democracy, where people's committees ran our country. But that was never enough, as some told me, even people who had 10 room homes, new suits and furniture, were never satisfied, as selfish as they were they wanted more. They told Americans and other visitors, that they needed "democracy" and "freedom" never realizing it was a cut throat system, where the biggest dog eats the rest, but they were enchanted with those words, never realizing that in America, there was no free medicine, no free hospitals, no free housing, no free education and no free food, except when people had to beg or go to long lines to get soup.

No, no matter what I did, it was never enough for some, but for others, they knew I was the son of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the only true Arab and Muslim leader we've had since Salah-al-Deen, when he claimed the Suez Canal for his people, as I claimed Libya, for my people, it was his footsteps I tried to follow, to keep my people free from colonial domination - from thieves who would steal from us.

Now, I am under attack by the biggest force in military history, my little African son, Obama wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our free medicine, our free education, our free food, and replace it with American style thievery, called "capitalism" ,but all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the countries, run the world, and the people suffer.

So, there is no alternative for me, I must make my stand, and if Allah wishes, I shall die by following His path, the path that has made our country rich with farmland, with food and health, and even allowed us to help our African and Arab brothers and sisters.

I do not wish to die, but if it comes to that, to save this land, my people, all the thousands who are all my children, then so be it.

Let this testament be my voice to the world, that I stood up to crusader attacks of NATO, stood up to cruelty, stoop up to betrayal, stood up to the West and its colonialist ambitions, and that I stood with my African brothers, my true Arab and Muslim brothers, as a beacon of light.

When others were building castles, I lived in a modest house, and in a tent. I never forgot my youth in Sirte, I did not spend our national treasury foolishly, and like Salah-al-Deen, our great Muslim leader, who rescued Jerusalem for Islam, I took little for myself...

In the West, some have called me "mad", "crazy", but they know the truth yet continue to lie, they know that our land is independent and free, not in the colonial grip, that my vision, my path, is, and has been clear and for my people and that I will fight to my last breath to keep us free, may Allah almighty help us to remain faithful and free.

@theworldismine13

my people dap this and get repped.... c00ns don't touch me. i'll neg you.

 

[theworldismine13]

@theworldismine13

my people dap this and get repped.... c00ns don't touch me. i'll neg you.

good riddance, another decrepit dictator bit the dust

 

[Kritic]

good riddance, another decrepit dictator bit the dust

the day after 09 inaguaration when i showed up at work in that one plantation i used to work at and them cacs asked me "why you show up barack won. none of us was expecting you". why would i not show up without calling anyway
them cacs used to take out their frustrations in life on barack running to me about it. despite me telling them all year in 08 i don't fuq with barack at all.


when the zios get rid of barack life will just be normal too. in fact, i'm gonna have to kill some cacs because they'll think i want to kill them and so i'll just kill them to play safe just in case..

after borack killed my man ghadaffi that sealed it for me. there's absolutely nothing he can do for me to fuq with him. i don't fuq with zio c00ns.

 

[theworldismine13]

the day after 09 inaguaration when i showed up at work in that one plantation i used to work at and them cacs asked me "why you show up barack won. none of us was expecting you". why would i not show up without calling anyway
them cacs used to take out their frustrations in life on barack running to me about it. despite me telling them all year in 08 i don't fuq with barack at all.


when the zios get rid of barack life will just be normal too. in fact, i'm gonna have to kill some cacs because they'll think i want to kill them and so i'll just kill them to play safe just in case..

after borack killed my man ghadaffi that sealed it for me. there's absolutely nothing he can do for me to fuq with him. i don't fuq with zio c00ns.

when barack won, i said nothing to people at my job, i dont talk politics at work, you should try that