Is Capitalism an Immoral Economic Principle?

[Silverbackman]

MagnetMan, I may have not traveled the world over like you have but I have been to a few countries that has the poverty you are referring too. I have been to India a lot and have seen poverty and living conditions that would make anyone puke. India, although rapidly growing in economy and living conditions, is still one of the most malnutritioned regions in the world.

You cannot however say capitalism is the problem. Without capitalism India wouldn't be rapidly growing at an ever so rapid rate.

In regards to the rest of the world, well think about it! Is capitalism really the reason why some nations can do better than others or is there another explanation? Remember I advocated a World Government. So what is the useless concept that I refer too? Nationalism. America with its big bucks won't help some of these starving nations not because of capitalism. It has to do with the whole "us and them" mentality.

Think about it. If poverty was as bad as it is in Africa in a US state what would the US do? Most likely it would lend federal aid to help those states. Would the US do the same thing to the rest of the world? Not really.

Imagine if we lived in a global federal republic. If Nigeria needed economic aid the government can take money out of the federal reserve and help them without taking away the capitalist system. That is the change we need. We don't need economic change, we need social change. We need to get rid of the whole "us and them" mentality and treat all humanity how we treat fellow Americans.

No system in this world is evil. Liberty is not evil. Only people who abuse liberty are "evil". However why do the rest of the population has to suffer when another person abuses liberty.

This not only applies to economic liberty. I bet you are a big supporter of civil rights and freedom of speech. These are great rights all people have. However some people can abuse it and spread hate toward a particular race which may lead to many racists. Does that mean we have to replace freedom of speech with regulated government-controlled speech? Of course not! There will always be those certain people that will abuse liberty but these small minorities can't make it bad for the rest of us.

I find it rather extreme you talk about the market system of the past as being better than the one we have today. Back in the day when everyone used to live on their own land, farm, and live the simple life, seems like the best and only way people should live. It isn't that bad unless you consider it was the tyranny of the Bourgeoisie. Yes it was except instead of the bourgeoisie going after mere profit, it used its military to go after the entire rival feudal power.

Yes I refer to the old feudal economic system. Feudalism and communism may seem like opposites (one is rule by the Bourgeoisie and the other by the Proletariat) but there are many similarities between the two. For one most of the population were given all they need to survive and there was no real money problems. However these economic systems always lead to trouble. Feudalism treated rival feadal powers in most cases like dogs. Communism could never work and has lead to more crimes against humanity than any other ideology. Pure socialism is very similar to communism.

So where am I getting at? Market economy is the only moral system (whether laizze-faire or regulated). It is the only system where one class does not have tyranny over the other despite there being classes. It is often thought that the Bourgeoisie have all the power in the capitalist system but this is far from the truth. Both the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat have power over each other. If the Bourgeoisie don't supply the Proletariat with a decent wage and hours they will get no workers and thus no profit. If the Proletariat doesn't compromise with the Bourgeoisie he has no job. Of course one can say the Bourgeoisie can hire other employees, the same goes with the Proletariat looking for other Bourgeoisie to work for.

Capitalism protects all because it follow the "Supply and Demand" curve. The advertising of the Bourgeoisie cannot mislead the public for long. For example if a company sells a product that claims to give muscle but in fact produces fat, the company will go out of business because they didn't supply the demand the people wanted. In a way people do control business. Especially today in the age of science and medicine where we can be advised on who are the tricksters.

Capitalism is a whole series of checks and balances, sort of like our republic system of government. There is no other known way out of it. Government can however regulate capitalism to ensure equal oppurtunity and like I stated in my last post, protection for children.

[MagnetMan]

I appreciate the sincerity of both of you as appologists for the capitalist system. But you are only repeating arguments that my family has heard for fourteen generations.

Few people realize that the Dutch East India Company was the first Capitalst corporation to be formed more than three Centuries ago. One of its first business ventures was to establsih a European colony at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652, as a victualing way-station for its ships travelling around the Cape to India. South African capitalism predates America by at least a century.

On top of that, during the first half of the 20th Century, when the Gold Standard underpinned world commerce, it was the gold mines of South Africa that provided that base of stable exchange and not the dollar. The Anglo-American corporation in Johannesburg is one of the richest in the world (De Beers diamonds is a small subsidery) and I worked for it for a couple of years as a diamond prospector in the late 1950's.

So let us agree that I know as much about the history of capitalism and its subsequent development as you do. And also share the respect for what it has done over the past three centuries for human development. This being so, then at the very least you should respect that I have sincere concerns when I question an economic policy that was initially designed for nation building during the colonial era, and ask - not only if it has become corrupted by it's own power (in the same way all other economic systems have throughout history) but also if it is capable of dealing with the exponential factors of deminshing finite resources and the population demands of a whole new world order in the 21st century. When I made this post, that challenged America's most sacred icon, I suspected that there would be some startled backlash. The same thing happened to Galileo at the end of the Iron Age.

Is the the reason why you will not do that is because you feel it would be disloyal and unpatriotic? Which is understandable up to a point. But if our ancestors had been to afraid to step off a known platform and peer into the void, then where would we be now? Common, ask me a few honest questions? I promise you, hellfire will not yawn and it can only make you a bit wiser.

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

I appreciate the sincerity of both of you as appologists for the capitalist system. But you are only repeating arguments that my family has heard for fourteen generations.

Few people realize that the Dutch East India Company was the first Capitalst corporation to be formed more than three Centuries ago. One of its first business ventures was to establsih a European colony at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652, as a victualing way-station for its ships travelling around the Cape to India. South African capitalism predates America by at least a century.

On top of that, during the first half of the 20th Century, when the Gold Standard underpinned world commerce, it was the gold mines of South Africa that provided that base of stable exchange and not the dollar. The Anglo-American corporation in Johannesburg is one of the richest in the world (De Beers diamonds is a small subsidery) and I worked for it for a couple of years as a diamond prospector in the late 1950's.

So let us agree that I know as much about the history of capitalism and its subsequent development as you do. And also share the respect for what it has done over the past three centuries for human development. This being so, then at the very least you should respect that I have sincere concerns when I question an economic policy that was initially designed for nation building during the colonial era, and ask - not only if it has become corrupted by it's own power (in the same way all other economic systems have throughout history) but also if it is capable of dealing with the exponential factors of deminshing finite resources and the population demands of a whole new world order in the 21st century. When I made this post, that challenged America's most sacred icon, I suspected that there would be some startled backlash. The same thing happened to Galileo at the end of the Iron Age.

Is the the reason why you will not do that is because you feel it would be disloyal and unpatriotic? Which is understandable up to a point. But if our ancestors had been to afraid to step off a known platform and peer into the void, then where would we be now? Common, ask me a few honest questions? I promise you, hellfire will not yawn and it can only make you a bit wiser.

No offence, but you seem a bit too assuming here. It seems like you are saying that anyone who supports capitalism hasn't "asked enough questions" or really pondered the "evil truth" about capitalism.

I stated in my posts that I believe that I am against blind nationalism and more of a humanationalist. In other words I have no fear of being unpatriotic or disloyal because I don't view myself as a citizen of America. Rather, I view myself as a citizen of the world. I never look at only the interests of our country and it is rather rude to assume that. Especially with someone who is for a one world government.

You still haven't showed us how all capitalists have used the free market system to exploit others. I know my father and myself would not do this. My father for example has been a proletariat that worked his way up to a bourgeoisie. He treats his customers with a lot of respect. If you are calling him "an evil capitalist" then you know little about the bourgeoisie. There are probably some bourgeoisie that abuse their employees. At least in a capitalistic system the proletariat can find work elsewhere and a more nicer bourgeoisie.

Where as in pure socialism or communism the only provider is the government monopoly. Is that not tyranny? You may trust the government with our money but I view the government like any other business if they go into the business of the means of production.

Look at communism as a whole and look how much more damage it has caused than even radical capitalism. Stalinism wasn't the fairest representation of communism but Stalin new without iron fist policies people would start making profits illegally. As a result he killed 20 million people. When Mao took communism he made it far closer to the Marx's vision and in turned out to cause the greatest mass death of all time. Over 30 million people were killed under Mao.

Pol Pot took it a step further. He was pretty close to exactly what Marx wanted. But because he could not keep the system going he killed 2 million people. Unlike Stalin, his intentions were probably better. But this didn't stop the genocide which was a result to the fear that a capitalist may make a profit.

What alternative do you have in mind? If you wanted like it was in the old days we should perhaps return to a feudal economic system. Is that what you want?

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

No offence, but you seem a bit too assuming here. It seems like you are saying that anyone who supports capitalism hasn't "asked enough questions" or really pondered the "evil truth" about capitalism.

It is encouraging to see you trying to gain more prespective by remaining on the subject. Perhaps I am assuming too much. But based on your previous comments, which refute all the questions originally posed without fully explaining why you did so, and lecturing me on how uninformed I am instead, (presumptuous on your part) you cannot blame me too much.

I have no fear of being unpatriotic or disloyal because I don't view myself as a citizen of America. Rather, I view myself as a citizen of the world. I never look at only the interests of our country and it is rather rude to assume that. Especially with someone who is for a one world government.

I am very glad to hear that we are on the same track as regards one world government. That gives us a common base to work from. Rudeness has never been my intent. It is undiplomatic and serves no constructive purpose. Children engage and accuse each other of rudeness in the playground, not adults. To become a citizen of the world one must live and work and worship for at least a year amidst a culture entirely different to one's own - and try to see your own culture through their eyes. Tourism helps but rarely gives one a clear picture of ourselves. For instance: My wife is an Iraqi-born American citizen. Can you honestly claim to have any real idea of how differently she and our children view the pros and cons of American Capitalism and our war in her ancestral country?

You still haven't showed us how all capitalists have used the free market system to exploit others.

Shall we begin with the history of slavery - and the modern farming out of mass production for cheap labor - not to mention the myriad covert operations of our CIA in supplying arms to keep capitalism viable in undeveloped countries no matter how many conscientious objectors are murdered in the process - and work our way towards a consensus of opinion from there?

I know my father and myself would not do this. My father for example has been a proletariat that worked his way up to a bourgeoisie. He treats his customers with a lot of respect. If you are calling him "an evil capitalist" then you know little about the bourgeoisie. There are probably some bourgeoisie that abuse their employees. At least in a capitalistic system the proletariat can find work elsewhere and a more nicer bourgeoisie.

I am sure both you and your father are nice people. So are the vast majority of people in America. It is our ignorance of what is actually happening in the world beyond our shores (domestically as well) and continuing to support it without making extensive investigations into the morality of our position that is "evil". Why do you think perfectly sane young people are resorting to strap bombs to their bodies to blow us up? Does the label of terrorist assuage your conscience? Have you read the pleas for forgiveness in their last letters to their parents, hoping that via their supreme sacrice, things might change for the better for their familes?. Are they really insane fanatics? Or are they really martyrs? What do you think their families think of them and of us?

Where as in pure socialism or communism the only provider is the government monopoly. Is that not tyranny? You may trust the government with our money but I view the government like any other business if they go into the business of the means of production.

The government is always us - the students, workers and retirees - in any system. If we shoot ourselves in the foot or allow ourselves to be tyrannized by the bullies and the greedy among us it is our own fault. Representative government. whether it be via a congress or by party bosses - has always been subject to corruption and always will be. The real government is of the self - the control of our personal appetites and our care for each other. When we all do that conscientiously, we become self-policed and need no vast bureaucracy to pass laws and oversee our imprinted instinct to excel at everything we do.

Look at communism as a whole and look how much more damage it has caused than even radical capitalism. Stalinism wasn't the fairest representation of communism but Stalin new without iron fist policies people would start making profits illegally. As a result he killed 20 million people. When Mao took communism he made it far closer to the Marx's vision and in turned out to cause the greatest mass death of all time. Over 30 million people were killed under Mao.

Pol Pot took it a step further. He was pretty close to exactly what Marx wanted. But because he could not keep the system going he killed 2 million people. Unlike Stalin, his intentions were probably better. But this didn't stop the genocide which was a result to the fear that a capitalist may make a profit.

Like I said, if you do not have the courage to challenge and stand up against the bully in the playground, you deserve what you get. The millions who died defying Stalin and Moa and Pol POt are all heros. The rest need to seriously examine their courage and ask themselves if ignorance of what their government was doing behind their backs is any excuse.

What alternative do you have in mind? If you wanted like it was in the old days we should perhaps return to a feudal economic system. Is that what you want?

Now we have come at last to the questions I have waited for all along. I have searched for three decades to find that exact answer. I am certain that I have it. But first I want to see how thoughtfully you respond to this post. Giving away something for nothing is worth nothing.