Capitalism: Neutral or Religious Problem? - Page 2

[mamajama]

Originally Posted by WuWei

Independent investors of capital who use their own money, or acquire other capital investors, are not "compromising or denying resources to others".


Pat

as long as there are people starving and dying of exposure they are.

[WuWei]

Originally Posted by mamajama

as long as there are people starving and dying of exposure they are.

Give away your money. I do too. But, I am not my brother's keeper. Nor do I believe in a martyred life. Forced handing over of funds earned, is stealing.


Pat

[mamajama]

Originally Posted by WuWei

Give away your money. I do too. But, I am not my brother's keeper. Nor do I believe in a martyred life. Forced handing over of funds earned, is stealing.


Pat

alright then.

[mamajama]

WuWei, can you speak to the apparent contradiction between these two statements?

I believe in the inherent generosity and communal spirit of humans

and

I am not my brother's keeper. Nor do I believe in a martyred life.

one thing I'd like to point out about ststement 2 is that the idea that posessions are essentially lifeblood (as in, without them you are being 'martyred') is a very capitalist notion.
But what I see as an apparent contradiction leaves me rather nonplussed. What am I missing there?

[saimeiyu]

I don't think capitalism itself is intrinsically evil or unethical any more than I believe communism, socialism, or any other economic ism is.
The problem is partly people, and partly bad planning, IMO.
At least in a capitalist society we have the choice of which businesses we support. It really is true that we can "vote" for more ethical practices on the part of big businesses, just by choosing where we buy things.
For example, sometimes I shop at Safeway. Not too terribly often b/c it's about 3-4 times the cost of shopping at the Commissary any given day; however, every time I go, I see more "free range" and "organic" stuff under the generic Safeway organics brand. The great part is, that organic stuff is usually cheaper than the normal stuff--at Safeway-- so I ALWAYS buy it there. The more I buy, the more they make, the more affordable it becomes. The other part is that Safeway gives some really good benefits to its employees. I believe it's so expensive compared to the commissary because it has to be in order to pay/give benefits to all the workers. Almost half of the workers at the commissary are paid only in tips.

There's room for ethics in every system. The question is whether we're aware of the need, and aware of the mode of expressing that need.

RE serfs/feudalism: Call me crazy, but I don't think serfdom is at ALL even halfway as good as capitalism for the rest of us. I like being able to choose what I do for a living, being able to move, being able to choose what style and material my clothes are made in and being able to--you know-- afford having a doctor see me when I'm sick. I also like the idea that if someone declares war, my untrained brothers won't be pulled from the fields and tossed as arrow-fodder in front of the lords. And that I can't be raped by a lord 'cause he decides he feels the need for a roll in the hay, YKWIM? O.o
As far as guilds go, not all trades were guild-worthy. Bakers certainly weren't. Big trades like weaving and dying and metalcrafting, things that took years of apprenticeship, THOSE were what merited guilds. And the guilds were primarily to keep upstarts who didn't pay fees to the guilds from doing business

[WuWei]

WuWei, can you speak to the apparent contradiction between these two statements?
Quote:
I believe in the inherent generosity and communal spirit of humans
and
Quote:
I am not my brother's keeper. Nor do I believe in a martyred life.
one thing I'd like to point out about ststement 2 is that the idea that posessions are essentially lifeblood (as in, without them you are being 'martyred') is a very capitalist notion.
But what I see as an apparent contradiction leaves me rather nonplussed. What am I missing there?

I don't believe that charity must be forced. Nor do I believe that one must martyr oneself for another's benefit. I am a capitalist. Capitalism is an exchange of value for value. Effort is valued based upon supply and demand. Artificial constructs of value (by a governing force) only cause inflationary, arbitrary and devalued products and services. I trust the humanity of man to share. But, I also trust the consensual exchange of value for value, based upon market forces, untainted by governing constraints.


Pat

[athansor]

Originally Posted by WuWei

Give away your money. I do too. But, I am not my brother's keeper. Nor do I believe in a martyred life. Forced handing over of funds earned, is stealing.


Pat

In a Christian context, though (and I'll need to do some searching to get some references), are we not our brother's keepers?

A few passages come to mind, one in Luke, where John the Baptist, I believe, says that if you have two coats, you should give one to a person with no coat. Another is the story in Acts about the early Christian community - and God striking down the couple who didn't contribute all their money to the common good, then the one about the rich man (and the camel passing through the eye of the of the needle), Matthew 5:42, which states "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." and so on.

Now, for some reason, there are always explanations for these passages that seem to allow for other interpretations...like the old "the eye of the needle is a gate in Jerusalem" one, or it's really OK to have two coats, as long as you give something to the poor, etc. However, I think the trend in the Gospels is against greed, against building up personal wealth and basically against capitalism. It's also interesting to me, that while statistically speaking, I would bet that there are many more passages in the Gospels, Acts and Epistles relating to greed, wealth and poverty than there are relating to homosexuality, many people seem to believe that the Bible gives a clear picture on the appropriate Christian stand towards issues relating homosexuality (and sexuality in general), while at the same time finding the passages relating to greed, wealth and poverty open to many different interpretations.

It's even gone so far as for some groups to look upon their wealth as being not an obstacle to their salvation but a blessing from God...and if wealth means blessed by God, then poverty could mean not blessed by God or might even be considered sinful. From there, it's not much further to consider poverty as a type of sin, and start embracing the notion that if the poor would just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" then they could get ahead.

I think that is why some Christians can so strongly support capitalism, they see wealth as a reward for hard work and a blessing from God, and the absence of wealth as a punishment or the result of not working hard. However, by that notion, one would almost have to believe that if the poor worked harder, while working to lead a Christian life and get in God's favor, then there would be no poor. Capitalism, however, falls apart as a system without a significant number of people in a lower class.

[Brigianna]

Originally Posted by WuWei

Brigianna, I could not disagree with you more!

The only issue is the governmental "favors" afforded corporations. The whole tax benefits and loopholes, and directed funding (ie paying tobacco growers not to grow, etc.). The corporation is as moral or amoral as the shareholders allow. And there is no restriction on the consumer's decision making power.

When a company is allowed preferred access to the market through government restricting competition, therein lies the imbalance of power. The market will always rebalance itself with free entry.

The pursuit of money is no evil.


Pat

But corporations are not naturally occurring competition; they are an artificially created legal fiction designed specifically to shield business owners from liability for their own actions. How can that be free or balanced?

[WuWei]

Originally Posted by Brigianna

But corporations are not naturally occurring competition; they are an artificially created legal fiction designed specifically to shield business owners from liability for their own actions. How can that be free or balanced?

Corporations are liable for their actions, as are the management, and that liability outcome affects the shareholder ("business owner").


Pat

[mamajama]

Wu Wei, your username has inspired me to dust off some of my thoughts on Taoism and Politics. This thread seems the most appropriate place to do it since Taosim is a spiritual approach to many. Why simply compare capitalist morality with Christian, right?

It seems on first glance, that Taosim and Capitalism would go rather nicely together. The notion of individualism would certainly be a strong argument to support that notion. It seems to me (from what I've read) that Taoist beliefs have been used to form the basis of many libertarian ideals. However, I think there are some fundamental differences which are so compelling that I find the two beliefs actually unreconcilable.

1) A passage in the Tao te Ching states:

Understanding sparse and sparser still
I travel the great Way,
nothing to fear unless I stray.

The great Way is open and smooth,
but people adore twisty paths:
government in ruins,
fields overgrown
and graineries bare,

they indulge in elegant robes
and sharp swords,
lavish food and drink,
all those trappings of luxury.

It's vainglorious thievery -
not the Way, not the Way at all.

It seems pretty apparent to me that there is an overt eschewing of the trappings of monetary excess. The notion of moving away from the aquisiton of material wealth is in direct contradiction to Capitalism. Rather than the aquisiton, Taosim promotes the relinquising of material pursuits.

2) Capitalism is all about the efficient and most materially beneficial utilisation of resources. In order to do this, people, communities etc. need unhindered freedom to pursue this aim. Anything else would be inefficient. The competition that naturally developes from this unfettered path towards the accumulation of material wealth aids the rise and justifies the defence of capitalism. Taosim states that competition in order to accumulate wealth is actually a step below cooperation (which implies that everybody's needs are met). I studied the Sun Tze which really defines the Taoist position on competition and it is decidedly in opposition.

3) The Laotze and the Chuang-tze state that the path of least work is the surest way to happiness and success which, of course is in direct opposition to the capitalist ideal which states that true virtue and merit comes from hard work.

It seems to me that the fundamental spiritual basis for Taosim is in direct contradiction to Capitalism. I think that sometimes, especially in the west or especially for people driven by the pursuit of material gain, the individualist aspect of Taoism (which I fundamentally disagree with in my own life but that's another topic) seems to fit nicely with free market capitalism. But, in my opinion, this is a fundamental error.

[WuWei]

Your premise presumes that capitalists accumulate material wealth. One can be a capitalist and share wealth also. Your premise also presumes that capitalists are in competition. A consensual exchange of value is just that, consensual, and not necessarily "hard work", nor competitive. I love my work. There is no competition, hard work, nor victims.

Also, accumulated wealth allows one to give from a place of generosity. One can not give from a place of lack. There is abundance.


Pat

[mamajama]

I am not speaking of individuals though but rather the fundamentals of both schools of thought. Certainly people can find personal variations of each in order to justify their lifestyles yet still purport to live by contradictory value systems.

Also, accumulated wealth allows one to give from a place of generosity. One can not give from a place of lack.

This statement contradicts the parables in many religons. Most notably, the story of the poor woman who gave a meagre sum to the church and was looked down upon by the wealthy people who were able to give much more. But who is actually giving more? Who is more generous, mother Theresa (for a ready example) or Bill Gates? Surely Bill Gates has given more of material value. Does this make him more generous?

You speak of this consensual exchange of value but I don't understand exactly what you mean because it certainly isn't capitalism but then you say you are a capitalist. I think that capitalism is so accepted partly because of its masterful manufactured consent. Propaganda and the mantra: money=freedom=abundance=the ability to give=virtue etc. is simply the way that capitalism is indoctrinated. This does not make the mantra true.

If you do not attach any virtue to the accumulation of material goods then how exactly are you a capitalist?
How exactly does capitalism work without competition?

[mamajama]

Originally Posted by WuWei

I love my work. There is no competition, hard work, nor victims.

Broadly speaking, what line of work is this? I can imagine it simple for someone to see virtue and moral worth in capitalism if they are essentially (somehow) managing to either sidestep or benefit from the capitalist structure that threatens to swallow the world these days. Most don't have that luxury.

ETA: Is it possible that we have completely different definitions of capitalism?

[Brigianna]

Originally Posted by WuWei

Corporations are liable for their actions, as are the management, and that liability outcome affects the shareholder ("business owner").


Pat

they are much less liable than a business owner. they cannot have their assets seized, for example. many corporations also keep separate assets in separate corporations. they are very difficult hold accountable.

[mamajama]

Originally Posted by Brigianna

they are much less liable than a business owner. they cannot have their assets seized, for example...

not to mention incarcerated. Lets just compare individuals vs. corporations in jail for theft for a second. 100 vs 0

[WuWei]

In searching for a definition of capitalism which encompasses my understanding, I found this link: http://www.conservative-resources.co...apitalism.html

With this quote: While Adam Smith is usually credited as the father of the free market, the basic idea beneath the definition of capitalism was aptly expressed thousands of years before his birth by the Chinese sage, Lao Tzu, who advocated the almost paradoxical concept of wei wu wei, or action without action, an idea which speaks to the essence of laissez-faire.

And this quote: Milton Friedman put it another way: "Fundamentally, there are only two ways of co-ordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion ... The other is voluntary co-operation of individuals."6 Formal economic systems (communism, feudalism, etc.) are defined by some form of coercion in order to direct production and to impose answers upon society; the definition of capitalism, the informal system, is the absence of coercion.

I also embrace the Objectivist philosophy of full laissez-faire capitalism — i.e., a society in which individual rights are consistently respected and in which all property is (therefore) privately owned.



Pat

[mamajama]

well, I expressed and explained my disagreement with that particular interpretation of Taoism as it relates to capitalism upthread. I do not see how you can reconcile it with the passage of the TTC I quoted.

How is it possible to implement any political-economic system without the use of coersion of some sort? I suppose then we need to define coercion. But I think that the manufacture of consent required to sell capitalism to the working masses is pretty coercive.

How can you possibly have private property without the denial of access to resources for some? In order to implement your system there is inherently an acceptance of social darwinism. I abhor that and I think that it is a very cruel way to go about things (to bring this back to the original point of the thread) I cannot think of any spiritual belief systems which can fundamentaly justify capitalism.

[mamajama]

I also think that Taosim is more closely akin to anarchism than to libertarianism or capitalism. None of which we are ready for if we care about the suffering of others and the inability of people currently to see past their mortgages and bank accounts.

ETA:

I also embrace the Objectivist philosophy of full laissez-faire capitalism — i.e., a society in which individual rights are consistently respected and in which all property is (therefore) privately owned.

Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy which is, well, horrid and essentially mocked by most schools of philosophy as unworkable and completely flawed. Laissez Faire economics may have been embraced by her but it is certainly not a product of her work. I cannot see how the utter dismissal of suffering in others and an almost worhsipful outlook on material gain is in any way concurrent with Taoist practice.

[WuWei]

Originally Posted by mamajama

I am not speaking of individuals though but rather the fundamentals of both schools of thought. Certainly people can find personal variations of each in order to justify their lifestyles yet still purport to live by contradictory value systems.

Embracing the freedom to own property, and to do with it what one chooses, is not a contradiction to trusting in the humanity and generosity of man.

This statement contradicts the parables in many religions. Most notably, the story of the poor woman who gave a meager sum to the church and was looked down upon by the wealthy people who were able to give much more. But who is actually giving more? Who is more generous, mother Theresa (for a ready example) or Bill Gates? Surely Bill Gates has given more of material value. Does this make him more generous?

Is generosity a virtue? I trust that it just exists, without quantification of "more" or "less than".

You speak of this consensual exchange of value but I don't understand exactly what you mean because it certainly isn't capitalism but then you say you are a capitalist. I think that capitalism is so accepted partly because of its masterful manufactured consent. Propaganda and the mantra: money=freedom=abundance=the ability to give=virtue etc. is simply the way that capitalism is indoctrinated. This does not make the mantra true.

One can own or buy what one chooses, based upon your own value system. To enter into the market is volitional.

If you do not attach any virtue to the accumulation of material goods then how exactly are you a capitalist?
How exactly does capitalism work without competition?

Neither do I attach virtue to accumulation of material goods, nor damn the accumulation of material goods. I am attached to the freedom to choose either as one own "virtue".

Competition assumes that one must lose, for another to win. With freedom to choose to buy/not buy, sell/not sell, there is only consent which engages the market. In practical terms, I have xyz to sell, if someone else has abc, there is no compulsion for anyone to buy either. Or there may be demand for both. There is no "competition" which exists, as there is no "entitlement" to sell. Nor to buy.



Pat

[WuWei]

Originally Posted by mamajama

Broadly speaking, what line of work is this?

I am a philosopher.

I can imagine it simple for someone to see virtue and moral worth in capitalism if they are essentially (somehow) managing to either sidestep or benefit from the capitalist structure that threatens to swallow the world these days. Most don't have that luxury.

I am frugal and wealthy.

ETA: Is it possible that we have completely different definitions of capitalism?

Obviously, capitalism (economic freedom) is corrupt. So, we can't possibly be discussing the same construct.


Pat