Mornin’ tiassa,
This is a long one. May have to post it half-n-half.
It isn't a matter of bringing about a Communist Revolution.
Good! “’Cause if ya go hanging around with Chairman Mao, ya ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow...”
~The Beatles~
Couldn’t resist!
~~~
“Ditching Capitalism is not the way to go.’
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 ... 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.
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.
But we are taught to have compassion toward the poor: this is not Capitalist.
No, this is altruistic. And altruism and Capitalism are dipolar.
We are taught to seek equality in opportunity and before the law: this is not Capitalist.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 ....)
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.
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.
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