Is Capitalism Moral?

[Deleted]

What do you think accumulated capitalism? History goes back to the very antic times when patriarchal systems were established. Industrial revolution was not more than "legalizing" upper classes from prior systems into entrepreneur possible thanks to "democracy". Also these old nobles were the one that commanded raids on coastal territories...

Not even religion, which was their right hand over millennia could provide them with so much power as our current media and educational systems in our so called democracies.

[Glorious Leader]

Capitalism is neither moral nor immoral. Its amoral. Entities within capitalism must produce continual profit with neither good or bad being a consideration. Its.not personal.its just business. The bad is that weve grown and been led to accept this as the only way of living life.

- - - Updated - - -

Capitalism is not moral or immoral just like socialism is not moral or immoral. The people under such economic systems are immoral or moral, not the ideas.

People exploiting the flaws in capitalism are immoral.

This is not necesarilly true either however. The entities that operate within capitalism function by those rules. They must make as much profit, show as much growth as they can otherwise they will be obliterated. Is this immoral? Rather isnt it to better to consider the systemic amorality of the entire system and the actors that function within it. Its not personel its just business.

[Deleted]

Are kiwis true?

[BannedForViews]

Sure it is @OP - however extreme capitalism such as the US system is not.

True capitalism rewards creativity, extreme capitalism rewards wealth.

ThIs right here is why i clicked on the thread. Thanks for the laugh. Your words are nonsense. Extreme capitalism? What the hell does that even mean. And tye united states being it? So clesrly out of touch with how much the US is NOT a capitalist nation.

I love mmochamp off topic threads.

[Kalis]

Capitalism just happens, there's nothing moral or amoral about it.

You have two tribes on the island, one trades six baskets of coconuts for the other tribes 3 pounds of salt. The tribe with coconuts came out ahead and scored a profit because coconuts are plentiful. Capitalism happened and there was nothing moral or amoral about it.

If it is an island in the middle of the sea and they had an easier way of obtaining sea salt than the others do of gathering coconuts, then the salt sellers might be the ones who got the better deal. Do the salt merchants have access to coconuts other than through trade?

Coconuts give me the shits, so I would not be all that happy to exchange salt for them. Are there any other fruits on this island?

[NED funded]

Capitalism is neither moral nor immoral. Its amoral. Entities within capitalism must produce continual profit with neither good or bad being a consideration. Its.not personal.its just business. The bad is that weve grown and been led to accept this as the only way of living life.

- - - Updated - - -



This is not necesarilly true either however. The entities that operate within capitalism function by those rules. They must make as much profit, show as much growth as they can otherwise they will be obliterated. Is this immoral? Rather isnt it to better to consider the systemic amorality of the entire system and the actors that function within it. Its not personel its just business.

I mean all examples of socialism have failed. It would be insane of anyone to even try the thing.

[Prokne]

Think about a system where the government can and will not bail out failing businesses. Think about a system where the government doesn't interfere with setting standard minimum wages. Think about a system where the free market decides whether a business succeeds or not based on the quality of goods and services that business provides.

That has already been tried and resulted in huge oppressive monopolies and wage slavery.

Do we really think that businesses would try to push so hard for automation if they were not forced to do certain things from government intervention?

Yes because the rules of pure capitalism say reduce labor costs as much as possible. If robots are cheaper than humans, businesses will use robots. If it wasn't true, why would we use machines at all. Machines make labor more productive and cheaper.

The only way pure capitalism works is if the people who control production are ethical. All it takes is a few unethical people to bring the whole thing down because it only takes a few people to swallow up everything else.

[Glorious Leader]

I mean all examples of socialism have failed. It would be insane of anyone to even try the thing.

Really? You should ask wallstreet how failed socialism was. Worked out well enough for them.

[PC2]

Capitalism just happens, there's nothing moral or amoral about it.

I think this is close to the most concise answer, they are orthogonal. The question is like asking whether default settings in a program are moral or not. They are just there, it is then up to an actual ideology or economic system to prove it is more robust for it to become the new default.

[NED funded]

Really? You should ask wallstreet how failed socialism was. Worked out well enough for them.

Ignoring the fact that bailouts are not socialist, really? Don't socialists(and many from the mainstream) detest wall street and that's the best example you can come up with? To me that's just admiting defeat and accepting that socialism is only good for a small percentage of the population.

[Acidbaron]

Really? You should ask wallstreet how failed socialism was. Worked out well enough for them.

They like Socialism but only under 2 different set of rules, money goes up and up and never back down.

[Halicia]

They like Socialism but only under 2 different set of rules, money goes up and up and never back down.

Actually, the fixed economy worked pretty well... it was the political aspect that doomed it.

Unfortunately, with or without politics, capitalism benefits the person with the least morals.

[Glorious Leader]

Ignoring the fact that bailouts are not socialist, really? Don't socialists(and many from the mainstream) detest wall street and that's the best example you can come up with? To me that's just admiting defeat and accepting that socialism is only good for a small percentage of the population.

Hardly. If anything it proves socialism can work and the elite and wealthy recognize it. They abandon pretense the minute they need government. They use government to shape market outcomes and have been doing so for decades. Hayek and rand out the window.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, the fixed economy worked pretty well... it was the political aspect that doomed it.

Unfortunately, with or without politics, capitalism benefits the person with the least morals.

Precisely. The critique should remain systemic and that is the amorality of the never ending motive for profit. The actors withim the system may or may not be good or bad but ultimately it doesnt matter. The wheel will crush them if they dont exploit every opportunity and advantage possible.

[Acidbaron]

Ignoring the fact that bailouts are not socialist, really? Don't socialists(and many from the mainstream) detest wall street and that's the best example you can come up with? To me that's just admiting defeat and accepting that socialism is only good for a small percentage of the population.

Socialism when worked out well works great. Do you want to argue that the privatized option for things like education are better for all involved? To name one thing. I find privatization of such things based around the principle of solidarity to be nothing more than perversions and if we look at the US school system and how badly it is becoming to be a good example, hell look at the US anything that has become privatized.

Its the same reason why we are now working out if a livable income for all without any requirements is something that can work.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, the fixed economy worked pretty well... it was the political aspect that doomed it.

Unfortunately, with or without politics, capitalism benefits the person with the least morals.

Do you with that mean the failure of the politics to add in regulations and checks on rating agencies and not just giving them a carte blanche, knowing very well within 10 years or sooner we'll have another different type of economic crash due to another bubble creation?

[NED funded]

Hardly. If anything it proves socialism can work and the elite and wealthy recognize it. They abandon pretense the minute they need government. They use government to shape market outcomes and have been doing so for decades. Hayek and rand out the window.

- - - Updated - - -



Precisely. The critique should remain systemic and that is the amorality of the never ending motive for profit. The actors withim the system may or may not be good or bad but ultimately it doesnt matter. The wheel will crush them if they dont exploit every opportunity and advantage possible.

Not really if we go by the example of socialist countries in which only few benefitted from it living in luxury, while the population faced extreme poverty.

[Glorious Leader]

Not really if we go by the example of socialist countries in which only few benefitted from it living in luxury, while the population faced extreme poverty.

At this point im sure youre used to the no scotsman bs. Ill spare you. Rather ill simple ask what the diffference is if trillions get spent on social programs instead of wallstreet? I fail to see why whats good for them isnt good for the rest of us.

[Acidbaron]

Not really if we go by the example of socialist countries in which only few benefitted from it living in luxury, while the population faced extreme poverty.

The socialist countries are also plagued highly with a corrupt government that no matter what ideology of politics was presented there as the main run it would have ended badly.

We also have to stop looking at socialism as something that exist only a vacuum and cannot ever be mixed with other political ideologies. Since there are plenty of socialist programs in the western world that work out well.

[Jaylock]

That has already been tried and resulted in huge oppressive monopolies and wage slavery.



Yes because the rules of pure capitalism say reduce labor costs as much as possible. If robots are cheaper than humans, businesses will use robots. If it wasn't true, why would we use machines at all. Machines make labor more productive and cheaper.

The only way pure capitalism works is if the people who control production are ethical. All it takes is a few unethical people to bring the whole thing down because it only takes a few people to swallow up everything else.

Did you even watch the video before posting?

[Deleted]

Personally I find making profit of of cancer patients or dying Africans abominable. But I'm strange like that.

Socialism, the version where state controls education health care and other basic life needs > capitalism.

[PC2]

Around 10% of nations have a state expense to GDP above 50%. So if that group grows and prospers over the long term it would be a good sign for socialism, bad for capitalism.