Re: The morality of capitalism

The bourgeoisie, the owners of capital, may profess the morality of Christianity, or another religion, but in general find the demands of an otherworldly faith to be of little value, except for public relations purposes. Naked capitalism is the ruthless pursuit of wealth.

Capitalist morality is driven by profit. The purpose of capitalist morality is to facilitate the operation of the market place and the creation and accumulation of wealth by individuals operating alone or through a corporation of individuals.

The use of property to create more value is its highest and best use.
The pursuit and possession of property is the fulfillment of capitalist morality.
Productive capacity is the measure of human value.
Profit is a fundamental good.
Contracts must be honored. [1]
Beyond the efficient operation of markets, individuals have no responsibility to the larger population.

Individual pleasures, diversions, relationships, and interests are subservient to the market.

Society is the setting in which the market operates and the good of the market defines the value of society.

[1] Contracts, for example, to sell something at a certain price, to perform a task for a given rate of payment, or buy something for the stated price at a later date. "We can't do business if people are not honest."

Without the obfuscations of public relations and sentimental or religious decoration, the operation of naked capitalism in the market place causes the religiously, or morally romantic observer to quail in distress.

---

On the other hand...

---

Even if the market is the most powerful force in a society (or on earth in all societies) it isn't the only force. There must be workers to generate new wealth, and a society large and rich enough to buy the created goods on which wealth is based.

Individuals who are not capitalists (most people), the various cultural institutions which people establish, the family, and the government which must seek to contain unrest and maintain order all moderate the raw brutality of naked capitalism.

There are always other interests and other moral systems which weigh against the values of naked capitalism.

.

Yes, I think that's a good start and we'd need to delve into what property means as well. — Benkei

I'm going to have a go at answering "What is property?"

When I own something -- be it a parcel of land, a book of family photographs, a company, an insurance policy, a ticket for transit, a certification -- I have a claim of some sorts as to how that owned something is to be used. I may do with it as I please, and can even allow others to do with it as I please. So if I own a sizeable portion of land that is fertile and could produce good crops I may use a portion of that land to feed my needs, and allow the rest of it to lay fallow -- say I enjoy walking through the countryside. Now supposing I have a neighbor who also has fertile land, but not quite as much, because they do not own my land they could not plant in it.

Now suppose one season my neighbor decides that this isn't exactly a fair arrangement, since I'm not doing anything with good land anyway, and they could use said land to benefit themselves and even others (by producing good crops, rather than just let the land go to waste). So they decide to plow my land and plant the crops there, come what may.

What am I to do?

I think that in a positive sense we may direct what we own. But the character of property really comes out when our claims to it are violated by others. Supposing there were no state then I would have to find some means of recourse by negotiating with my neighbor. At the end of the day we may not ever see eye-to-eye, but I'll then have some kind of feeling that I have a claim to that land anyways, and will do what I need to do to enforce said claim -- bandy together with fellow neighbors to apply social pressure, burn the crops of my neighbor when they grow, salt the fields, or by the use of militant force.

In some ways property, of this sort, is before the state. But this kind of property preceded capitalism. Feudalism, for instance -- while it did not always rely upon war to solve issues -- certainly did resolve disputes over property by means of war.

What is especially significant about capitalism is that there is a state to back up said claims. There is a law in place and a process backed up by the eventual use of force to enforce claims. Property, state, and the law are all bound together in a capitalist economy.

In some way, then, property actually becomes a limited dictatorship over whatever set of things owned, but delimited by the power of the state (since the state is what enforces said claims in the first place). How said laws and states are arranged -- and even economies, as even this form of property is not what makes capitalism, but is the kind of property which capitalism relies upon -- can differ dramatically, and need not reflect our current societies.

But the point I want to drive home most is that in order for the kind of property which capital requires to exist there must also exist a state which enforces the claims which make property. Mostly because I think it's naive to look at capitalism, corporation, private ownership, and the whole lot of industry under capitalism as somehow opposed to the state (as is often conceived in popular imagination, but I don't think that capitalists are unaware of this -- just something worth noting because of said popular imagination, and also because 'property' often goes undefined and presumed as well understood)

Deirdre McCloskey argues that capitalism both requires and cultivates virtue. You might look into her ideas for another perspective.

Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. — CuddlyHedgehog

The divine Gore Vidal.

:up:

Deirdre McCloskey argues that capitalism both requires and cultivates virtue. You might look into her ideas for another perspective. — Thorongil

Sounds like a naive and silly person.
Unless you actually says capitalism NEEDS to cultivate virtue.

Capitalist morality is driven by profit.

Curious statement.
Capitalism is driven by profit; true. I don't think the phrase "capitalist morality" makes much sense at all.

Can we derive a morality from capitalist ideology or is it an amoral ideology? If we can, what are the ethical rules? — Benkei

Perhaps, but why would we do that? In the US, many of the staunchest capitalists are found among the religious right who adopt a communal ethical theory (love they neighbor), yet they do not impose it on their economic ideology.

What are the ethical rules we can derive from this idea? I'm only going to mention two for now, to see what other people think is relevant since I'm enquiring here not sharing my rock-solild opinion.
- things become available for ownership either through trade or production
- respect private ownership
- respect transfer of ownership — Benkei

I agree that these are notions consistent with capitalism, but it seems a matter of degree than of type when comparing it to Marxist theory. Obviously no Marxist believes I have the right to rip his (our) shirt off his back when I'm ready to wear it. I'm just wondering to what extent you find these notions distinct to capitalism.

A first question, what happens to a transfer of private ownership to the State? Ethical rules say ok but the ideology itself resists this. So it has the possibility of an inherent contradiction if enough people would want to transfer their ownership to the State. Unlikely at the national level. On the other hand, this seems to be the self-evident method for most families. We pool our resources and spend collectively, parents are generally trusted to make decisions on behalf of the family unit. — Benkei

This confuses me a bit. The right to eminent domain exists in the most capitalist of countries and the taking of the property must be accompanied by just compensation. Taxation is another method of transfer of wealth from the private to the public. Neither of these are antithetical to capitalism, at least not how it's practiced. Even the staunchest libertarian would acknowledge some role for the state and therefore some need for taxation and sharing of wealth. Again, this turns into a matter of degree as opposed to to type. I just don't really know how your Marxist society will be structured and how it can adhere to extreme forms of non-ownership. Even should there be no private right to own land, I'd suspect that the government must provide some possessory right to land (you've got to be somewhere) that cannot be removed without some legal basis.

Another question: what is meant with private? Keeping aside for a moment the possible utility of corporations, there doesn't seem to be any reason why a State should promote corporations and allow for shareholding and limited liability. In fact, I suffer a higher liability acting as a person (in principle unlimited) than a corporation. It can also damage the first principle to respect private ownership. If I cause damages as a private person, I must repair those damages. If a corporation does it, it will only have to do so to the extent it has capital - once that's exhausted the damaged party has no recourse and his private ownership is not fully respected. — Benkei

This strikes me an diversion from your original question, which was how we were to derive an ethical theory from analysis of capitalism. There is nothing inherently capitalistic about corporations in principle. A corporation could be non-profit and could be committed to protecting the public good (the American Heart Foundation for example). A corporation's liability is limited to its assets, just like yours, meaning it's no more or less vulnerable in principle than an individual. I don't follow your suggestion that you would be liable even after your assets ran dry. Sure, I'd rather sue you personally than the shell corporation you might have set up, but I'd rather sue the major corporation you work for than you personally should you be negligent. I'd also say that it's entirely possible within a capitalistic framework to limit individual liability, which has been the push behind tort reform measures, where limits on liability would be imposed for individuals.

Another question: what is the effect of the basic immortality of corporations? Instinctually, I'd suspect there's some equilibrium with a large concentration of property and means of production in the hands of corporations, shares in the hands of elites and consumer goods for everyone else. — Benkei

This question overly tips your hand, not that it was hard to decipher the bias, but it detracts from the objectivity of the conversation. The question assumes corporations are immoral. I'd hold that only people are immoral or not, and the great injustices brought about by corporations were caused by immoral people with large financial influence. A rich son of a bitch of any stripe, whether he sits atop family money or as CEO of a major corporation is equally immoral. The corporate status does nothing to confer immorality.

Considering the above I'm tempted to argue that if you're in favour of capitalism you'd have to argue against the protections afforded to corporations. — Benkei

And yet most capitalists favor corporations. I don't follow what special protection they are afforded that you find offensive to the capitalist. I would suspect that large corporations feel they are much bigger targets to lawsuits than average citizens. In fact, the way the typical citizen of even moderate worth reduces his exposure to liability is by purchasing insurance, which is nothing more than hiring a corporation to accept his potential financial burdens. And what is insurance other than the private enterprise solution to communal burden sharing?

The bourgeoisie, the owners of capital, may profess the morality of Christianity, or another religion, but in general find the demands of an otherworldly faith to be of little value, except for public relations purposes. Naked capitalism is the ruthless pursuit of wealth. — Bitter Crank

I'd submit this suggestion is lazy. It simply rejects the declarations of faith by the capitalists as not being heartfelt (and perhaps ironically proclaims the avowed Marxist atheists the truly religious). I am quite certain that those declaring their Christian faith truly believe, which means the object should be in figuring out how they can consistently reject the idea of providing the public good through an institutionalized economic system yet truly believe the public should be cared for. The answer lies in the capitalist's profound distrust for government, believing that any good that ought be doled out to the public ought be done privately, voluntarily, and with as little government intervention as possible.

And I get you reject all this, but I think it's a fairer description of the capitalist than simply calling him a hypocrite.

I am quite certain that those declaring their Christian faith truly believe, which means the object should be in figuring out how they can consistently reject the idea of providing the public good through an institutionalized economic system yet truly believe the public should be cared for. The answer lies in the capitalist's profound distrust for government, believing that any good that ought be doled out to the public ought be done privately, voluntarily, and with as little government intervention as possible. — Hanover

Yes, good points.

Yours is a far more charitable, and likely the more accurate view of the typical capitalist believer.

and perhaps ironically proclaims the avowed Marxist atheists the truly religious — Hanover

No, I don't think marxists are the truly religious ones. Some marxists are good people, some capitalists are good people. Hypocrisy is universal, afflicting marxists and capitalists alike.

[Delete] @Baden

This question overly tips your hand, not that it was hard to decipher the bias, but it detracts from the objectivity of the conversation. The question assumes corporations are immoral. — Hanover

Immortality. Not immorality! :rofl: I'll reply more in depth when I'm behind a computer but thanks so far.

So what is the American Dream then? — René Descartes

I'm pretty sure I'm missing the point of your question. Maybe you could expand. But my answer would be: it's an expectation that formed as a result of an extended period of growth and prosperity in the USA.

[Delete] @Baden

I didn't know that. Why did you happen to know it? Do you have a particular interest in American history?

Capitalism (and Socialism) is (are) amoral. This thread is a strawman at best.

Anyway, the biggest moral argument made in favour of capitalism over socialism is freedom -- hence the colloquial phrase for capitalism is free market.

Also why liberalism (in the classical and philosophical sense) is in favour of capitalism.

Immortality. Not immorality — Benkei

Well, make your Ts more prominent if you want a meaningful response.

Capitalism (and Socialism) is (are) amoral. — Kitty

No. Socialism is a moral response to the immorality of capitalism.

No. Socialism is a moral response to the immorality of capitalism. — charleton

To some extent, yes. But for the most part the relationship is that capitalism occasionally breaks down. Socialism is imported as a fix.

To some extent, yes. But for the most part the relationship is that capitalism occasionally breaks down. Socialism is imported as a fix. — frank

Socialism was born out of societies in Europe in which death through poverty was common. People were worked to death, on wages to small to buy enough food.
That is unmitigated capitalism.
What you, in your life, have experienced is a society in which the basis needs of people have been met by the socialist policies on the state; free education, social housing, progressive taxation, public health provision, town planning, police, fire service, minimum wage, and even free prisons (yes back in the old days you even had to pay your way in chokey).
When, what you laughingly call "occasionally breaks down", is risible.

I wasn't laughing about people having to pay their way in chokey.

"Can we derive a morality from capitalist ideology or is it an amoral ideology? If we can, what are the ethical rules? And are those rules independent of the capitalist ideology or do they result from this ideology?"
-Benkei

The concepts of 'good' and 'evil' only work when defined within an ideology, but really don't work when judging an ideology itself since you have to use another ideology, but of course that would be biased in a way depending on which ideology we choose to subscribe to when making such judgement. Although it may be cheating, as a rule of thumb when it comes to the question of whether an particular ideology is 'good'/'evil', I instead usually look at whether it is believed and/or used by many people and if it also has a lot of problems. Since many people believe in the powers of 'capitalism' it at least works in the way certain religious/social ideologies work, but since it both doesn't resolve certain issues that other ideologies also had before it as well as create additional ones as well, I think it is safe to safe that it is not without issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A first question, what happens to a transfer of private ownership to the State? "
"Another question: what is meant with private?"
"Another question: what is the effect of the basic immortality of corporations? "
-Benkei

The ideas of "states", "corporations", and "private individuals" are abstract concepts used for business and legal needs but certain organizations and/or assets labeled as one of these three could often easily be changed to one of the others (or possible either two of the other three) and more or less operate the same way. It might be an over simplification to say that it has more to do about management, auditing/accountability, etc. than ideology, but I think it is safe to safe there are other qualitative and quantitative at work here so whether something is thought of a "state's", "corporation's", and "private individual's" isn't the only thing at work here and could be even moot in certain cases where other issues are much more pressing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Considering the above I'm tempted to argue that if you're in favor of capitalism you'd have to argue against the protections afforded to corporations"
-Benkei

I think modern "capitalism" suffers from many of same problems that ll other ideologies suffer from is that when people subscribe only it and think it is a panacea for all our problems, they tend to get upset/frustrated at the things it is not good at doing and just ignore those problem and just move on. In many ways this similar to the saying "when your a hammer, everything in the world looks like it is a nail."

"If I step and save you every time you're in trouble, I'm robbing you of the education you will need to survive long term. In this way, I freeze you in a child-like state. I make you dependent."

If I allow you to sink or swim, I am allowing nature to bless you with grace born of adversity. In the end you will be strong, flexible, and free (if you don't drown)."
-frank
These sentences look like they are merely cut and pasted from a couple of those stupid motivational posters corporate america likes to hang in the halls of some office since they are too cheap/lazy to bother to with hanging real artwork for their employees to look at.

Most of the poor and the working class more or less realize that nobody can catch EVERY bird that falls from the sky, but they also know there is a double standard in our society where some of us get the respect they deserve and resources needed to survive while others have neither even if they did everything in their power to pay their fair share to society as all of us are expected to do.

IMHO, it is almost always these people that are without want that believe in the so called "rugged individual" and wish the other half would either shut up and/or "go away" so that they wouldn't have to deal with the inconvenience/threat that their existence presents to them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The good is whatever ministers to life. We learn from Nature what life requires"
-frank

There is no objective "good" that we know of. Morality is the merely metrics that we use judge actions against whatever ideologies we choose to invent and subscribe to; however outside of any particular ideology they don't mean the same thing. Or another way to put it, "We do what we do, because that is the way that we do it".

[Delete] @Baden

"Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor."
-CuddlyHedgehog

You got that right, although it might be more accurate to put it as planned economy for the elites in Western societies and Darwinism/"survival of the fittest" for everyone else.

[Delete] @Baden

"The difference between humans and animals is that for humans it is not the survival of the fittest but "the survival of the fattest"."
-René Descartes

Although human beings are able to better control/manipulate our environment than other animals, our sentience doesn't exclude of from many of the threats that any and all other animals face so more or less we are the same contrary to your statement.

As to the issue as why some people are fat, that is a problem not really relevant to this thread although I think it could be easily resolved by understanding a combination of various issues in modern society as well as the problems with the human condition.

Well, make your Ts more prominent if you want a meaningful response. — Hanover

Get glasses, old man.

This confuses me a bit. The right to eminent domain exists in the most capitalist of countries and the taking of the property must be accompanied by just compensation. Taxation is another method of transfer of wealth from the private to the public. Neither of these are antithetical to capitalism, at least not how it's practiced. Even the staunchest libertarian would acknowledge some role for the state and therefore some need for taxation and sharing of wealth. Again, this turns into a matter of degree as opposed to to type. I just don't really know how your Marxist society will be structured and how it can adhere to extreme forms of non-ownership. Even should there be no private right to own land, I'd suspect that the government must provide some possessory right to land (you've got to be somewhere) that cannot be removed without some legal basis. — Hanover

I think taxation and other types of enforced transfer to the State do not result from capital ethical rules and are defendable on other grounds, so in that sense they're out of scope for this thread.

As to the confusion, I'm merely pointing out that if capitalism is private ownership of trade/commerce/production and if private ownership means I can do whatever I want, I can certainly willingly transfer my ownership to the State. But if everybody would be willing to do so, I don't have capitalism any more. So the rules allow for it but the basic ideology of capitalism seems at odds with such an outcome (theoretical as it may be).

Does that contradiction need to be resolved? Since I like consistency I would answer yes so we'd either have to fix the rules, add a rule or amend the ideology. Some options:

1. Add a rule: You're not allowed to transfer ownership to the State. That in itself is a limitation to property rights so seems a bad choice given the framework.
2. Add a rule: A duty on the State to minimise public ownership. That could work (and raises practical issues but let's leave that for now).
3. Amend the ideology: it's not about private ownership but about respect of ownership in itself regardless of whether this is public or private. This could work too.

Here's the use of the word the American Dream: — René Descartes

What that seems to indicate is the moment when it stopped being the American Reality.

I think the morality of capitalism depends on there being a frontier. As long as there are untapped resources out there, the accumulation of property cannot be said to be depriving anyone. We all slave on @Jamalrob's estate here, but if anyone feels unhappy, they are free to carve out their own philosophical homestead further down the internet highway.

But there is no land left to clear; no free space to invest my labour in and grow my food and my capital. The landless peasant is doomed to remain forever landless, because all the land is already owned. And at this stage it becomes apparent and significant that to own property is to deprive others of its use.

So then, not only must one pay for the social enforcement of property rights through police, army, justice system, etc, one also ought to pay compensation to those one has deprived of the world. This is called Socialism, and it is not opposed to the morality of private property, but is a modification of it that responds to reaching the limits of the frontier of freedom.

Someone mentioned recently that data is the new oil. Oil was a new untapped resource available to anyone prepared to get their hands dirty, and then it wasn't any more. It turns out that data is likewise a finite resource, and has lead to monopolies in the same way. And data, it seems to me, really is the final frontier; once we have exploited our own psyches, there is nowhere else to go.

[Delete] @Baden