Considerations on Capitalism

The following is a letter to the editor of the Seattle Times. And no, I did not write it, despite the God crack. The letter appears in the 10/25 edition, and I think it speaks an excellent point. Commentary, considerations, &c., are encouraged:

It made me chuckle.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's certainly an interesting definition of capitalism.
I'm suprised there isn't anything added about kicking puppies

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Strictly speaking, companies are interested in only one thing: making money. I've never expected a company to do anything else. Suprisingly enough, I've checked, and companies aren't a person. When layoffs occur, it's because there simply isn't enough work for the people because of a lower demand for their product, which results in a lower amount of money available to pay people.
In other words, 30,000 people lost their jobs so that 1 million could keep theirs. These people don't just work for Boeing. If boeing collapses because they can no longer afford to pay their employees, then their suppliers have a lessened demand, and then the suppliers' suppliers-a ripple effect.
This doesn't excuse the fact that CEO's with the awareness of a potted plant still make 5 million dollars even though they dropped the value of their company's stock 30 points *cough* P&G *cough*
Capitalism, however, is the reason why we have the sort of innovation that we have. Competition is why computers have gotten faster, better, cheaper and more stylish. But lack of real competition is why Microsoft Software has more bugs than a chinese restaraunt.
With the exception of military innovation-every economic system values new and creative ways of killing other people-there has never been such rapid growth of personal wealth, comfort and leisure time as we have now.
That being said, there is no reason why we, living in a capitalistic economic structure, have to persue money and only money. I daresay that's even foolish. It's not likely that we will live in a capitalistic society forever. Eventually we will reach the population limits which capitalism will support, and our society will either crumble slowly, or we will revolt into a new system, possibly corporate feudalism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tiassa,

You seem to be very well-read and quite intelligent. I wonder if you've read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. For a deeper understanding of just what Capitalism and "Rational Selfishness" actually mean, these would be two good places to start. If you have read them, then nevermind, of course. You've been there, done that.

In my view, however, and in and of themselves, Capitalism and Rational Selfishness make a lot of sense. What people DO with these ideas however is something altogether different. People are greedy; people take inappropriate actions. People interpret things however they please with little regard for truth or for what is rational.

We humans tend to walk a fine line in this world. Always trying to steer clear of too far to the right or left. I am fortunate that I live in America and that I have the choice--and so I choose anything that steers away from Communism, Socialism, Fascism, etc... away from anything that demands I live my life and direct all of my efforts toward the good of anything other than myself. You'll find there isn't much difference between the world's religious philosophies and that of the "mystics of muscle" -- the mystics of 'people power' in its most negative light.

I highly recommend Rand's books to anyone. You don't have to agree with everything she's proposed in order to gain a wealth of insight into the value of Capitalism.


~~~

Riomacleod,

You brought up some excellent points.

~~~

Counterbalance

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Briefly ...

Counterbalance

I tried reading Rand during my Satanic days because she was included on a reading list alongside Twain and others whose alleged commonsense contained points of value for consideration. I was 15 or 16, and utterly failed to understand it. I'm aware of its value, but in the intervening 12 years, my mind has been elsewhere.

I believe you've hit the nail on the head. I might be exploiting that point elsewhere, though various forms of it haven't had the desired effect I would hope. Thank you for your insights, of course, and do keep them coming.

Riomacleod

Yeah, it's odd to say the least, but it does reflect certain truths. To its oddness, I'll note that the letter's author was responding to a quote from a guy at Dain Rauscher, an investment firm. The quote to which the letter's author responds invokes the old capitalist/communist argument of labor v. management. From the leftist standpoint, I do scratch my head at the suggestion that management would have anything to manage without the labor. Why cut 30,000 labor jobs when management is responsible for the problem? Why, in other words, get rid of the people busting their humps to do it right? (And here we'll note, Because the company can't afford them ... and this is fair. But to suggest that the company owes these employees nothing is shortsighted on the part of the Dain representative. Without them, there is no company.)

Given how much companies like Boeing spend trying to get the law to allow them to occupy their current positions (there are antitrust issues at stake whenever Boeing makes an acquisition), if the company collapses, we might wonder at why the company owes its employees who make it great nothing, yet the decision-making management walks out with a phat golden parachute. Boeing management, for instance, is responsible for this situation. Its dedication to the shareholders, as noted by the Dain representative, is part of its problem.

Investors don't care about jobs, they care about profit. This sounds wonderful in its capitalist sense. But why are they investing? Is the whole result of human suffering from unstable economy and stress about working conditions ... imagine all of those considerations that go into politics and law and commerce, or into any company like Boeing ....

Is it all really about the abstraction of a piece of paper? A dollar is only worth a dollar because you choose to spend it and I, as a proprietor, choose to accept it. Stoners frequently joke amongst themselves about the "pot standard", in which America's 30 million stoners stop using cash and start trading quantities of the sweet leaf. Can you imagine walking into a store and having your five-dollar bill rejected because it wasn't valid currency?

My company, an insurance company, talks a lot about commitment, community, strength of solidarity, and so forth, when recruiting employees or undertaking important projects. Yet when you get right down to it, all of that psychology they bestow onto their employees becomes an empty promise--a lie--whenever the managers screw up. We're a family? Crap. We're a community? Crap. Sure, we got rid of the executives in order to justify the workforce layoffs, but we mustn't forget that it's the investors who still run the company, and all they're looking for is more of the same.

Boeing is like that, too. I have friends at Boeing who hear the company extolling this or that virtue: commitment, security ... why does any company care about its employees five-year learning plans? So the employee can take the company's suggestion, pay to educate themselves (some help from the company), work essentially two jobs (as any working student/parent can tell you) and then be laid off because the guy who told you all about the wonderful community of the company screwed up?

But in the end, it's just that the letter writer's point made me chuckle. If the point of something in capitalism is to reduce human beings to business assets, though, perhaps capitalism itself is the problem.

In the meantime, I point to Counterbalance's perspective: It's what people do with those ideas.

But this seems to be what people do with capitalism: hurt each other for money.

What does that speak in light of the letter writer's dictionary?

thanx much,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Wow, Tiassa!

I started to reply to some of your observations and questions but realized that the best way to get a truly comprehensive answer to all that you're pondering is, again, to read the two Rand books I mentioned.

I was in my thirties before I read Rand, and can't imagine trying to do that in my teenage years. If you're around 28 now, with such an obviously broad knowledge of these matters, I honestly believe you would find Rand's works not only interesting but enlightening. Depending upon your style of reading, you might need to be a little patient. Both are long, but absolutely brimming with mind-opening ideas. (Stories are damn good, too.)

At any rate, answers or explanations for everything you've questioned here may be found in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. The former, as Rand puts it, is an overture to the latter.

Mind, I don't propose that you will instantly agree with her philosophy. (Objectivism) If some of these ideas are totally new to you, they may want to sit on the back shelf in your brain for awhile. Or not. But as far as understanding why "management" or company owners behave as they do, (when they aren't actually being irrational and purely greedy) these works hold the key to a truly better understanding.

(And no, I'm not being paid to say this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

~~~~

Enjoyed the exchange and if you do read these books, let me know! I'm curious to hear whatcha think.


Counterbalance

 

What's wrong with greed as the definition?

I find nothing controversial about a statement that capitalism=greed. I find it rather correct. All the employees that allegedly "make" a company are not in it for the company but for the paycheck. They only work hard because if they didn't someone else would have their job. If they were offered a pot of gold on a golden parachute, they would forsake the company and their compatriots in a nanosecond.

This, of course, is a generality. There are always exceptions, especially creative types holding creative jobs (I'm one of those lucky ones.) But for most work is not at the top of the list when it comes to fun pastimes. And the society's backbone are not the creative types (even though their ideas help drive it) -- but the grunts who actually lay the roads and build the bridges.

I think it's most correct to fundamentally assume that people are lazy and greedy. It rings true from an evolutionary perspective, and it certainly rings true according to my own insight. Thus, most people will not do anything unless they are properly motivated -- and greed is the most powerful motivator. Capitalism is merely this doctrine institutionalized into a social contract.

Granted, let loose capitalism is vastly destructive both to the environment and the society. That is why it must always be balanced by a complementary social contract that emphasizes fair chance and safety nets. I.e. socialism. The trick is to balance the two in such a way that one does not completely choke the other. An even tougher trick is to find an optimal balance where each is the widest spread and interferes with the other the least.

 

Rarely will you find a Platonic/Marxist (for those lurking I'm not a communist, I'm a Marxist-big difference) so in favor of capitalism as I am. In this case, I don't think it was the managers who screwed up. As much as I hate the people I work for, they're not always responsible... in this case, and I imagine that it is because of the reduced air travel and all that jazz. NO ONE could have forseen the drop off in air travel a year ago... and I can bet that there were alot of supervisors and "white collar" people who lost their jobs. In fact, in general, it is the middle management that gets cleared out when a company does layoffs, as well as production.

And you are right, I'm a mercenary bastard... if I got an offer at another company for an extra $1000 a year, I'd be out of this job faster than an olympic runner

Boeing can't pay people to do nothing, and I agree, it is cut throat. I grapple with the morality of capitalism all of the time. For a while, I rationalized that "if you want to make an omlette, you have to break a few eggs" and, the US has been building the biggest omlette the world has ever seen... of course, now that I'm older, I've realized that philosophy isn't a matter of quotes and cliches.

I think that alot of people have a problem with capitalism because they have a HUGE lack of perspective on the matter. The media has, for the most part, encouraged a huge provinciality upon the american people. Even in our borders to our south, you can see how other systems have affected the people. Hell, our "poverty line" is still 10x what most people in other countries make.

In all fairness, and I have little to back me up at the moment, Capitalism has lost it's way. Originally it was production based. I think after the inception of incorporation and public trading it became a bit more profit driven.

If this seems rambling, I'm not really sure what your counterargument is... which I'm sure is a failing on my part.

Capitalism is simply an economic model. It's not geared towards or away from greed. Granted, greedy people can cynically manipulate the system to make lots of money, but if you're thinking that communism is any better, don't check Stalin's bank accounts. (As a side note, you have to admire the fact that while every communist model castro had has fallen, and that their trade is in the shit-hole for the next 50 years, Cuba still hasn't revolted. I find it amazing). Any system can be, and will be, manipulated by the greedy.

Also, the definition (as shown above) is oversimplified. Capitalism is a complex system of supply and demand for wants and needs of a population. (and even that is a oversimplification). Greed is the self-destructive desire for nothing but money. I think this shows the differences? I'll be happy to expand any of my above arguments when I know which you disagree with

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Riomacleod ...

Might not there be a need for a new term and model: Corperatism, rather than Capitalism?

Curious.

 

Not yet. There was a word for the older style... the name escapes me at the moment... I'll have to look it up, but I think it was physical capitalism or something... really, this is just a transition phase into corporate feudalism.

 

Another classic from THE ONION

Mobile/PDA | Books | Onion Merchandise & Subscriptions | National Distribution Media Kit | Employment | Copyright





NEW YORK—MCI-WorldCom and Bank One-Chase Manhattan merged in a blockbuster $112 billion deal Monday, forming the world's largest telecommunications/banking company and reducing the number of existing corporations to six.


Above: MCI-WorldCom CEO Donald Cosgrove (left) and Bank One-Chase Manhattan CEO Walter Courson celebrate their companies' historic $112 billion merger.
"This is an exciting move for both companies," said Donald Cosgrove, CEO of MCI-WorldCom, whose subsidiaries include SBC-Ameritech, Bell Atlantic-NYNEX and McDonnell Douglas. "As a result of this historic merger, we should be in much better position to consolidate vast amounts of wealth and power in the coming years."

The other five remaining corporations are Daimler-Chrysler, Monsanto-American Home Products, Shearson-Lehman-Chemical-Citicorp-Travelers Group, Paramount-Viacom-ABC-Disney, and Lockheed-Northrop-Boeing-Pepsico.

According to Forbes managing editor Russell Belanger, at the current rate of mergers, there will be only one corporation in the world by 2000.

"The six remaining corporations have shown great interest in merging with each other," Belanger said. "Clearly, the stage is being set for the long-discussed creation of UniCorp, a $92 trillion corporation that produces every product on earth, from canned yams to basketballs to poison gas."

Belanger said mergers are desirable because they give corporations "synergy," enabling them to better sell their products. "Take Paramount-Viacom-ABC-Disney, for example," he said. "Disney makes the movie, Joel Siegel of Paramount-owned ABC-TV gives the movie a rave review, and Disney subsidiaries Blockbuster and McDonald's promote the video release of the movie in their respective stores with mail-in rebates and Happy Meal action figures. It's a win-win scenario."

Bill Clinton, chief executive of U.S. Government, a division of MCI-WorldCom, praised Monday's merger as "an excellent move."

A spokesperson for the newly formed Bank One-Chase Manhattan-MCI-WorldCom said the company plans to cut 92,000 jobs this month.



© Copyright 2001 Onion, Inc., All rights reserved. http://www.theonion.com/
Media Kit | Employment | Copyright
© Copyright 2001 Onion, Inc., All rights reserved. Masthead | Contact Information | Privacy Policy

 

*Originally posted by Counterbalance
away from anything that demands I live my life and direct all of my efforts toward the good of anything other than myself.*

Where tiassa was quoting something about greed, you're proclaiming the ultimate selfishness.
Your name doesn't fit.
You're anything but counterbalance.
You are pure selfishness.

*the best way to get a truly comprehensive answer to all that you're pondering is, again, to read the two Rand books I mentioned. *

Information from books?
As I recall you are against a book in the religion forum.

*Originally posted by Bambi
That is why it must always be balanced by a complementary social contract that emphasizes fair chance and safety nets. I.e. socialism. The trick is to balance the two in such a way that one does not completely choke the other. An even tougher trick is to find an optimal balance where each is the widest spread and interferes with the other the least.*

Why is it that socialists don't become socialists until they've got a fairly "good" (lucrative and/or creative) job?
Capitalism seems fine while you're climbing, but when you're in a position to lose something, socialism seems like a good way to keep it.

*Originally posted by Riomacleod
I've realized that philosophy isn't a matter of quotes and cliches. *

How did you come to that realization, when it IS a matter of quotes and cliches, plus speculation, of course?

*Cuba still hasn't revolted. I find it amazing*

They're so broke, they can't even afford to revolt.

 

Tony1:

3 points:

Socialism is a bad way to keep money. However, preaching socialism is a good way to make rich people feel bad and give you money. If I'm for anything, I'm for keeping money away from the people who don't deserve it. I know more poor people who think that socialism is a good idea than the people who kicked their asses to get to where they are. I imagine that your information comes from watching the inherited rich and actors who are all in favor of such programs.

I came to that realization as I began to really study philosophy. Serious philosophers do bring in and reference other books, I'll admit, but philosophy in general is more than that.

Finally, there is no such thing as "too poor to revolt" the bolshevik (sp?) revolution was the poorest of the poor. The French Revolution was much of the same.

 

let it all burn

I'm no politician but it's a shame that someone has to suffer in ANY political system. Personally, majority rules is a bad way to run a society.













































































boo

 

A quote

Give a hungry person some food and they call you a saint. Ask why he is hungry and they call you a communist.

 

I hate to say this, but there were poor people in every single economic structure. I think that the difference in capitalism is that in most systems EVERYONE is poor, except for a few of the very rich. So it looks like poor is normal. However in capitalism, lots of people can make lots of money. Therefore the people who are really in need are more obvious. So, really, we're getting better. Let's continue this trend.

 

I agree, but ...

I agree, but the problem with capitalism is twofold in this respect. First, it requires a poor laboring class to support the consumer lifestyle necessary to maintain such economic growth as the United States has seen. Secondly, as the quote cited in the topic post notes, there is no obligation to improve on this condition. Certes, it's getting better, but by this economic theory, stopping to worry about how to create even less poor people is bad for business; and, as we see, what's good or bad for business is all that matters to the capitalists.

How is a shrinking body of working poor bad for business? Ask any capitalist: Why isn't everyone paid a living wage for their labor?

Because it would ruin the consumer market, damage currency value, and slow economic growth.

It isn't that we're not doing well, but that we now have license to cease seeking to do better as a society while we pursue the betterment of our own capital comforts.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

~~~

tiassa,

The quote above demonstrates (in my view) where a lot of people misunderstand capitalism. We are a society of individuals, (which you've previously acknowledged). Yet, capitalism makes no distinction about who will succeed and becomes wealthy, or who won't. This is because it is a system that will work for those individuals who are willing to work within the system. It's also a system that can work for the majority of individuals, but the majority does not necessarily make the best use of it. When this is the case, there are usually to be found any number of reasons why they don't; reasons other than that of capitalism standing in their way.

Throughout man's history people have complained that the poor are disadvantaged by a variety of causes, and there is always a group crying out against the current politico-economical system--whatever it may be. (We are never all happy at the same time, ya know?) In some cases, the poor actually have been treated badly, cheated, you-name-it. In some case, large businesses have sought to be monster monopolies--with no regard for what their actions might do to the very capitalistic system that helped them to succeed--or to those other businesses (& consumers) they need in order to have healthy competition. OR... To other countries, societies, cultures, market systems... --But this is true of man in general. Some of us don't have a clue about what we do, or why we do it; some know perfectly well what they're up to. In general, we just get out there and do-it-the-hell anyway!

"Society" needs fixin;' mankind needs to abandon the tendency to embrace irrationality which is both anti-individual AND anti-society. So, what inspires irrational greed? 'Cause it only takes one unenlightened CEO, one twisted market director, to taint any scenario; to abuse any system.

Ditching Capitalism is not the way to go. Saving Capitalism is a much better idea, imo. I don't want either to be done, however, at the expense of the individual worker or entrepreneur.

Of all the political/economical systems humans have come up with so far, Capitalism gives a willing worker the best chance of success--without him having to take alms from his brother's earnings. And that, primarily, is the key: A system wherein fewer are living off of what they have not earned.

Don't mistake me. There is plenty of room for improvement. People have cried "discrimination!" and pushed through asinine, destructive legislation. The democrats have their way one season, the republicans the next, short-sighted corporations have muscled their way into the bully pulpit... But it is too, too easy for individual "rights" to disappear once we lose sight of why these systems came into being in the first place. Once those are gone, it won't matter any longer. We will already have become a communist nation. For me, (a very rational being

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) communism is unacceptable.

To solve any problem we need to find the true root of it. Capitalism isn't our main problem or the root of it. It's just another tool; another weapon that's being misused.

~~~

Counterbalance

 

A couple quick notes

Counterbalance

It isn't a matter of bringing about a Communist Revolution. Just a couple quick notes; I'll give more comment when I've got it ....

I agree entirely. Part of it is that we seem to isolate Capitalism as an academic concept, and never look at how it interacts with the people who live it. In that sense, it's like the notion of trickle-down. Sure we created a lot of new wealth, and we created new millionaires, but the reality is that there's a wider gap now 'twixt the American haves and have-nots. It isn't that the idea is wrong, but that its results are too narrow because we continue to think of Capitalism as a pure idea.

We could throw religion in there: Weber did. In that sense, we can look at Capitalism contrasted against any number of religions and see conflicts arise between the presupposed morality and the necessities of economy. For instance, I know a good many Christians whose major failing is lucre. I've known a good many socialistic Wiccans as well, and also a fair number of waer-loga whose primary failing as a witch was their greed. It is this presupposed morality that compels us to not adopt Spartan values toward human life, though strangely the greatest exploiter of that presupposed morality--Communism--couldn't function harmoniously with religions.

But we are taught to have compassion toward the poor: this is not Capitalist. We are taught to seek equality in opportunity and before the law: this is not Capitalist. Where Capitalism allows us to fail is when we prescribe it in order to exploit the presupposed morality: this is Capitalist. To exploit the extant conditions toward personal gain is the process of a Capitalist. Among the wisest of Marx's observations of Capitalism is its lack of foresight: if you pass a law that says to hang the Capitalists, they will still sell you the rope.

In an austere environment where Capitalism remains solitary we will not necessarily learn to make Capitalism work harmoniously with our presupposed morality. Herein lies a reason to understand the nature of the presuppositions which form the moral base: we can either rewrite the morality or readjust our perceptions of the Capitalist idea to meet that greater morality. To undertake the rewriting of morality raises the possibility of Capitalism becoming so morally justified that we cut each others' throats in search of supremacy. To undertake the readjustment of the Capitalist idea creates the potential to build a Capitalist-centered idea that works toward the greater future of society, and thus the perpetuity of the human endeavor. The purpose of "winning" the "competition" is not to self-destruct.

I don't see it as submitting to a state identity or a cultural identity in conformity. Rather, I propose that Captialism must, at some point, undertake the issue of what it's for. If it is an economic system for the benefit of humankind, then we must make it work to humanity's benefit truly instead of when its convenient to do so. If Capitalism is a purpose for life, then we must throw off all notions of familial beneficience, and spend the rest of our lives waiting to stick the knife into the next guy. It's all a matter of how far we want to go with the idea, and why we want to go there.

One of my favorite points about the unacceptabillity of Communism is that we in the US will accept it under a different label. What is objectionable about the state handling your medical expenses? Yet you'll entrust your employer to do so while counting their own pennies to make sure they won't spend too much. Your education? What of corporations who offer college assistance within a specific range of majors? (Your education no longer becomes a benefit but a commodity traded.) Retirement? Again, we'll entrust our employers, who, as noted in the Dain-Rauscher quote in the topic post, ought to have concern only for the shareholders and the bottom-line, and not toward the posterity of their employees. We live according to some communistic principles, we just disguise them as capitalistic. Public education? Social Security? (Work with it, I know SS is a bloody mess, but it's the principle we're after here ....)

No American wants to trade the Bill of Rights for the Hammer and Sickle, but we've recognized the benefit of seeing things in terms larger than ourselves. Even if our communitarian ideas are motivated by greed, we are at least putting that greed to work for the benefit of the human endeavor. The way I see it, we're all in this together, and there's no reason to go throwing everyone else overboard just to get a suntan.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Excellent, tiassa!

Thanks for the expansion. I now understand more of where you're coming from. I'll give this a couple more read-overs and get back to you as time allows. (over the weekend hopefully)

~~~

Counterbalance

 

Mornin’ tiassa,


This is a long one. May have to post it half-n-half.

Good! “’Cause if ya go hanging around with Chairman Mao, ya ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow...” ~The Beatles~

Couldn’t resist!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

~~~

Okay, tiassa, we agree that ditching Capitalism isn’t the way to go, and that we need to look deeper at how ‘Capitalism interacts with the people who live it.’ After that we may be going down different pathways. I’ll work my way through this in sections.

I think we have been watching Capitalism’s progress, and that many have done so with pre-conceived ideas--or with a presupposed (and accepted) morality influencing the observers’ evaluations. As with any society-related issue, there are a plethora of books, polls and studies providing data which will support every kind of notion, including any for or against Capitalism.

A couple of points here: Since the days of the Industrial Revolution, the population of our nation has grown considerably. How accurate have our censuses been? How accurate are they now? How accurate are the statistical methods used to determine the figures that would suggest the “wider gap?” How are we defining “poor.” How well are we filtering out the “slant” factor?

When I look around I see gaps, but I see a bigger difference in how people from the “poor side of town” (or cities) are living now compared to how they were living forty + years ago. I can recall a time when the poor family wouldn’t even think of shopping at the equivalent of a Dollar General Store--much less a Wal*Mart ...when a good portion of their food came from their own gardens, neighbors/family, charities--or they simply didn‘t eat. ...a time when my own parents were making significant and repeated efforts to teach my siblings and me to understand the unmistakable gap (then) between how we lived and how they, the poor, lived, and we weren’t a wealthy family.

There are still gaps, granted, but I don’t buy wholesale into the idea that the gaps are truly greater now. Or that there is the same sort of hard-drawn line between the poor and the rich. I do agree that there are “haves” and “have nots.” I think this is (and will remain) the norm for our species for some time to come.

But let’s look at this some more because you‘ve compared Capitalism to a religion; to an institution that lacks the proper morality. (or that’s how it comes across to me) And I’m not entirely sure what kind of morality you’re referring to as you‘re throwing in both religion and greed--many directions to go in with either. Let’s start with greed.

Money (or lucre) is used properly when it is used to assign value to the efforts an individual makes when (s)he produces/creates. In this sense, it’s a precious symbol according to Ayn Rand. Yet for a majority of consumers and producers money doesn’t represent that at all. Those who don’t understand the above definition of money are prone to operate with ‘anti-man’ greed as part, if not all, of their motivation for acquisition. Some, unfortunately, have already accepted it as a goal of sorts. They will claim that man is greedy; that it is his nature to be a glutton: “Hey, whatever it is man is suppose to want, (wealth, fame, sex appeal...) we want more of it than the other guy’s got.“

Nevertheless...

The science of political economy is relatively young. In the nineteenth century Kantian ideology was waning and ‘political economy’ (as it came into being) more or less adopted the basic principles, or morality, of collectivism. The overall accepted goal was to find the best way to share the available resources for the common good. Most “Capitalists” went along with this. By and large it seemed the moral thing to do. And yet, what kind of morality was this? The morality of altruism.

No, this is altruistic. And altruism and Capitalism are dipolar.

Here, I disagree somewhat. I think we have more often been taught that we are owed equal opportunity; that we come into this world being owed such, and laws have been enacted in a “collective” sort of effort to assure that we either got a fair shot at it, or in some cases, that we got it whether we deserved it or not. Much of this is definitely at odds with Capitalism.

“Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” Ayn Rand

But Capitalism does not guarantee that one will get the opportunity one seeks. And after all, what is sought may not be a rational goal.

Capitalism does offer the best chance of success for those who seek opportunity in a rational manner. It is irrational to believe or to assert that we are all capable of producing, creating, inventing the same caliber or quality or even quantity of anything. We are not. We are born with a handful of basic individual rights by virtue of the fact that we come into existence as human beings. But as to ability and as to what we each deserve in the way of opportunities or recompense, we are not born equal. We do not die equal. Capitalism does work in favor of diversity, however.

So it seems that we do agree that Capitalism does not promise equality. And we still have more to go on the morality issue.

About the rope? A bittersweet kind of truth.

Allows us to fail?

Why is Capitalism allowed such a position of authority or power over our choices? (and btw...not directing any hostility here--merely questions for the sake of the general discussion) Where is our individual responsibility to use the tool wisely? Where is that morality? Who has labeled a Capitalist as one who “exploits” the presupposed morality? I ask because according to Ayn Rand, a true Capitalist would exploit the morality that is proper to Capitalism--which is the same morality that is proper to Man. And personally, I have no problem with the word “exploit,” but it can be interpreted in two ways: to utilize... or to take improper advantage of.

A true Capitalist is not the true enemy--and I will add that, as it is with all things, a true Capitalist of today will have evolved a bit from Rand’s initial concept. This individual doesn‘t think in terms of “what I do is for the common good, even though when I do it for the sake of self, I am, in the long run, contributing to the upkeep of a proper morality and this will or can contribute to the common good in a broader sense.” A true Capitalist would keep the priorities straight and would do so by adhering to a rational, pro-individual philosophy--or morality. There is no ’anti-man’ greed inherent in such a philosophy. It may sound kinda complex or contradictory at a first encounter, but the rationality becomes clear after a closer inspection.

Capitalism, in my view, is an economic system that lacks the proper--or properly defined--morality. (Most people don’t even think in terms of there being a need to adopt or to accept an accompanying philosophy.) This lack comes about because of the long-standing influence of religion over the entire world. For at the core of any religion you will find a creed or code or morality that is in many ways identical to that found in the doctrines of socialism or communism. And in a nutshell, that is a morality which asserts that society should comes first, and that an individual should be his brothers’ keepers--financially, spiritually, ethically... you-name-it.

Capitalism--from its very roots--is at odds with this kind of ideology, so that over the years as people have tried (usually unknowingly) to force Capitalism and “society-first” premises to an unholy altar, we’ve had nothing but chaos and/or mixed results at best. To come as far as we have, which is much farther, historically, than other political-economical systems, has required a lot more “blood, sweat, & tears” than was ever strictly necessary--but this is what happens when you mix oil and water. The two will always separate into what they are unless you keep stirring them up. Tiassa, it sounds to me like you’re tired of stirring. Hey... I don’t blame you. Futility sucks.

And so this now sounds like we are back on the same or a similar page. To rewrite the morality? We never actually wrote one to start with. Rand’s objectivism is the closest thing we have to it--and while it is pretty close, it’s still too hard for a religion-strapped world to take. Our constitution has some good premises, but it’s been tinkered with-- over- and under-interpreted, ignored, maligned...

With the proper tenets (something much akin to objectivism‘s) linked to Capitalism, cutting one another’s throats would be clearly out of line and not predictable once the newlyweds were given a chance to prove their compatibility. We have no adequate working models, so for the moment we can only hypothesize. Man has been labeled as a hopeless, greedy, even demon-controlled (roll-of-eyes) creature for so long, that society simply cannot comprehend anything different. Man deserves a proper chance to live up to his/her potential. (Not promising it would be pretty to watch in the initial stages, but neither is watching the tiresome, day to day ‘workings’ of religion.)

True, we would seek various types of ‘supremacy’ in that we would continually seek to achieve and prosper. And “supremacy” is another word that carries a not necessarily appropriate connotation of negativism. But the system itself when allowed to work free of the machinations of ’anti-man’ supporters (or of their poorly-disguised moralities) is one in which all who are willing to do what it takes to succeed--meaning, ultimately, to educate and dedicate themselves to a rationality appropriate for an individual living in a world full of individuals-- do/will have that in which they may make such a noble attempt.

What I’ve written above is similar to your second option with an added twist: “the purpose of winning the competition is not to self-destruct,” (and so I add) ...but is to keep an ongoing balance that will (as a likely by-product) contribute to a greater future of society by virtue of it’s primary objective which is actually the greater future of the individual.

I appreciate the emphases you’ve made here. However, as I’ve already written, the proper “identity” for Capitalism is not one for Humankind. Not primarily. Not initially. Not in its gut. Granted, at present, it is an economic system without a “soul.“ --or one with a beleaguered soul. However, there cannot be a soul-mind dichotomy and there also be a rational anything. America and its political-economical system needs an anchoring philosophy that is not chained to a variety of faith-based ideologies. It is not proper however to make such a marriage happen by any means of force. It IS proper to reason with American Individuals in order that they may come to a same conclusion.

Capitalism needs an accompanying philosophy that clearly explains why an individual must work, earn, achieve, compete for his/her own sake. On an individual basis, one might wish to donate time, money, or effort to others or others’ efforts for various value-based reasons, but such would always be secondary. And to say secondary is not to say it isn’t likely to happen that way. And it is irrational to take the true ’cut throat’ way, or to do anything that calls into question an individual’s true motives, or to do anything that will undermine the integrity of the self OR the system that protects and promotes the survival of a community of selves.

You make an excellent point here. American Individuals’ dependency upon the state or an employer to provide these things is scarcely removed from the serf’s dependency on the landowner of old. In some respects, however, those who are less able to produce/create will always be dependent on the those with more ability, though I don’t think the degree to which we’ve become dependent in these times is at all appropriate.

We are but one species on this planet, and we have supposedly evolved into one with the highest capability to reason--that we know of so far. Yet, it IS a “survival of the fittest” world in which we humans live. It is our nature. Factor in aberrant (irrational) behavior caused by any number of things, and we will always have those who behave irrationally; who will expect what is not theirs to expect; who will refuse to make appropriate efforts; or to discern what is appropriate to value...etc...and who will try to throw sticks into the spinning bicycle wheel of progress.

Yes. It’s a bloody mess. Ignorance and fear have stunted Man and Mankind.

The way I and some others see it, the key to ‘benefits for all’ is to achieve a proper focus on the self, first and foremost. A system/philosophy that supports rational success of rational individuals should motivate more to want to work within and among the same. It’s another win-win kind of thing. There is a larger picture to see, and much of import to discern, but how we look at it, and the types of prejudicial viewing lenses we use...

Sometimes we make things waaaaaay more difficult than they need to be. History has spoken eloquently and repeatedly about the folly of accepting that which simply is not acceptable or rational for man. --For A man, and not for mankind.

But in the end we have to deal with reality; with the here-n-now. Although here in sciforums you and I seem to look at this similarly, we may not actually be able to agree totally, and this is what will (and does) happen in the larger world, too. So, I don’t expect to see Capitalism or Capitalists undergoing any sweeping changes in the near future, nor do I think it would be healthy for Capitalism to do so because of the kinds of individuals and societies that work within (and around) the system currently. The world today could not withstand this kind of upset. The world isn’t ready yet.

And as with religion, I don’t expect to see these issues resolved within my lifetime, though I never rule out a hope that enlightenment will come sooner rather than later, even if it comes in baby steps. It’s not “my cross to bear” for I haven’t taken on the world’s dilemmas to solve, but I don’t mind to sweep clean the road ahead for all every now and then.

Enjoyed the exchange, tiassa, and I expect I’ll enjoy reading anything you might offer in reply. I do have to reiterate however that my reasons for visiting sciforums is not because I actively seek debate, or because I have a driving passion to see changes come about in society. If anything I’ve offered here is intriguing to you, I would again suggest that you give Rand another try. I can’t be certain, but I think a lot of her ideas may be right in line with what you’re envisioning.

my sincere thanks for sharing,

Counterbalance