Capitalism is killing our morals, our future

Plutocracy is a much more accurate description of what our countrie's economic system actually is.

 

Can it be "moral" under any form of Capitalism, to not simply purchase the best solutions money can buy with an official Mint at our disposal?

 

I don't know which is worse; an army of same bots or masses of the starving poor crowding every street. Unless the world population starts to decrease dramatically and soon more control is inevitable. That means more social programs or more jails and police. Both are very expensive, its more a matter of principle and aesthetics.

Capitalism has been turned into almost religious dogma by conservative political leaders, and has been credited with every good thing in the world today. And I cannot deny the positive effects it has brought about by freeing up the enterprise of common people. But we cannot assume that capitalism will continue to be positive if it is paired with a materialistic value system (which it symbiotically supports).

The basic assumption of materialism is that the more possessions and influence an individual has the better (deserving/moral) the individual is.

During feudal times this was a simple formula: the rich and powerful were born that way, they were royalty. This gave the power to God who divinely choose who deserved material power before they were born. To question the right of royalty was to question Gods judgement, and as such, heresy. Most of us are well aware of the negative impact this had on innovation and commerce. But some strange positive effects happened too that are easy to forget. 1. Common people did not judge each other by their possessions. and 2. Powerful people felt a need to appear "Godly" to show that they deserved Gods gifts. Obviously not absolutely or perfectly, but the system left moral judgement in Gods hands.

With capitalism the formula changes a bit. The rich and powerful are self made or inherit from an ancestor. This means it is simple to know who is a good person and who is a bad person, look at the clothes they wear and the car they drive, the more expensive their possessions the better the people are. The assumption is that the successful individual is beyond reproach, they have both the favor of God and the proof of their own deservedness. Capitalism, through the lens of materialism, allows for no redemption except through the accumulation of wealth and possessions. Because of this the method of the accumulation becomes insignificant, as long as you make it and hold on to it you are OK. You fail only because you deserve to.

The problem with this, and why it can erode morals, is that taken to the extreme it begins to make charity and brotherly love a kind of sin. Caring about the poor and weak members of a society starts to be seen as encouraging "wrong" behavior. Everyone who deserves a good life has one, those who have unhappy lives should not be helped.

From this perspective using your advantages is an absolute imperative. If that advantage is natural ability, hard work and frugality and the individual stays ethical thats fine; but if the advantage is simple opportunism and the individual is able to defy ethical behavior without getting caught that is fine too.

So we turn morals on their head.

Greed is good.
Charity is evil.
The love of money is wisdom.
The love of humankind is foolishness.

peace

 

At least a partial answer to acquiring a healthy balance between chaos and control, self-concern and collective responsibility, individual liberty and a need for governing authority, etc, may lie in cultivating the habit of NOT MISREPRESENTING these pivotal (as in see-saw) concerns by identifying them with their more rare and extreme forms.

However, as long as we have this civil war of Left/Right partisanship, itself characterized by unrepresentative exaggeration and what amounts to little more than promotion of pet notions through hyperbole and smear tactics, we shouldn't be very surprised when we fail to perceive that these seeming dichotomies are NOT nearly as mutually exclusive as they normally appear when powerful, ambitious people are trying to hang their favorite agendas upon them and using mass propaganda to justify and popularize the various resulting distortions.

 

OK.

No one that I know of in US politics is out to get rid of capitalism. I hear a lot from the right about the liberals being the enemies of capitalism but when I look at the facts the evidence is no where, just a lot of puffed up rhetoric.

What I do see is the left working to promote social programs and regulatory oversight. Which is sort of the work that we expect politicians to do. They may not do it perfectly but as long as they are trying we know they still care about John Q Public. (this is oversimplified but I only have so much time)

Both Republicans and Democrats are human, and just like most of us they have flaws, so it never surprises when they are caught (either party) using their position for self gain.

I think the moral grounding of a position is important. Either capitalism has very little or nothing to do with morals or it does have something to do with them. You cannot have it both ways. Capitalism cannot be about morals when it comes to promoting hard work and individual industry but not about morals when it comes to promoting taking advantage of people or situations unfairly. I think it (or the idolizing of it) does have something to do with morals and I am willing to accept both sides of it.

Ideas affect how people behave. Take one boy put him in a row boat and tell him fishing is all about relaxing and having a good time. Take another boy and do the same except tell him fishing is all about who catches the most and/or biggest fish. Which boy at the end of the day will be happier? Which one will catch more fish?

The greater the reward the more likely that people will cheat. Wealth and power are a reward in and of themselves, why make that reward greater by saying that people who achieve wealth and power are better than others in EVERY way. At some point isn't it important to point out that ALL people should be held as precious and valuable? Doesn't everyone contribute in their own way to our society?

So, to me, capitalism degrades morality only when it is promoted as if it is a moral value. An economic system can do a lot of things but it cannot make people good or bad. Ideas can.

PS---same goes for socialism

 

Propaganda is epidemic, word warfare ordered by those who steal their wealth through humiliating genius, as in the grand larceny of corporate patents. We don't know what we miss, so a High-IQ revolt would have to confiscate the rich parasites' wealth, not just drop out.

Any slave system, like the Soviet one, can produce some results. Conformity to the status quo blinds the brain. Common sense says that if you offer a high salary to do something, you will motivate the best people. Those with capital can afford to think long-term, but they only pay for what they can profit from immediately, so they don't practice what they preach. Only psychologically disturbed students can think long term, and many of those burn out. Preparation is the most important part of production. What we are getting by ignoring that fact are the generically skilled, who, as you say, may produce some value to keep the public fooled. But they can't meet the challenges of the future.

 

Is a fat kitten a different animal from a fat cat? After all, the Capitaliban bought the government with their own money, which is the Libretardian excuse for everything else they do. When a fat cat is caught eating pork, he shouldn't be allowed to claim that he is really a tunatarian and the Gubmint drove him to eat something he'd never eat on his own.

 

This covers it well;

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/01/plutocracy-in-america/

 

That hits the nail on the head. Crony capitalism based upoh plutocracy is supported by Democrats and even moreso by Republicans. We're not even close to having "free market capitalism" in the United States and yet there are those that condemn "capitalism" that doesn't even exist in the United States. Every condemnation of "capitalism" I've ever read was related to "crony capitalism" and not "free market capitalism" and two are completely unrelated.

There is irony that is often missed.

A national economy based upon communism/socialism results in the concentration of wealth in a small economic ruling class at the expense of the general population.

A national economy based upon "crony capitalism" results in the concentration of wealth in a small economic ruling class at the expense of the general population.

They are merely two different roads to the same destination.

 

I agree 100% with the premise of your commentary about capitalism, which is the worship of materialism as well as the residual effects of consumerism which is greed, waste and eventual corruption.

 

In actual discussions with other libertarians on a libertarian forum this is so far from the truth that it can't even be explained by ignorance.

Libertarians are opposed to "crony capitalism" where the wealth of America is being funneled to the wealthy by our government. Libertarians overwhelmingly support "laizze-faire" capitalism that requires regulation to protect the Rights of the Person and were equality of opportunity is ensured for all individuals in society. Favoritism by government is overwhelmingly condemned and the US economy is based exclusively upon favortism by the politicans for the wealthy that fund their re-election campaigns.

Campaign finance laws that limit contributions to candidates, for example, favor the wealthy that fund the super-PAC's that have a huge influence on our elections in ensuring the re-election of those already in power. Anyone that believes that the limitations on contributions to individual candidates was about removing the influence of money from elections is a complete fool. It was about empowering the super-wealthy to support the re-election campaigns of the incumbant Democrats and Republicans in government because the super-PACs are unregulated related to contributions and are exclusively a political tool of the super-wealthy.

 

Free market capitalism has not existed in the United States during the last 60 years. We have "crony capitalism" in it's place and it isn't even really based upon monetary greed but instead the greed for power by the politicans.

 

And as with communism/socialism/cronyism capitalism the minority or small ruling class, will lie, cheat, and steal, to keep it that way, as they did to get where they are.

 

Where has "free market" capitalism ever worked on a longitudinal basis? Our centrally planned government is still going after two hundred years; most markets have no basis for not improving their products and services to meet the needs of consumer preference.

Socialism and that form of central planning and government, has provided our "morals" and legal ethics in modern times, allegedly, regardless of wealth.

 

I believe that has more to do with wealth distribution, since anyone who is not in official poverty should have no excuse for staying poor on an at-will basis.

 

I think modern morals should include that it is "immoral" to have problems with money under any form of capitalism; money really is meant to just be used, unlike free chics.

 

Wrong. But thanks for trying.

I have been on the 'right' since I was seventeen. No one drove me there. I looked around, listened to what both sides were saying and the choice was easy.

Liberalism is run by those who know how to prey on others fears and anger. They pit people against each other in their contrived victim-hood world, get their votes then laugh at them for being stupid enough to vote for them.

 

Republicans don't use fear and anger to their political advantage? You are kidding right?

 

Capitalism ultimately leads to crony capitalism, as crony capitalists are the best capitalists.

The system of capitalism is based on a model of survival of the fittest, and the crony capitalists won the competition as they have the biggest businesses, and the most money to rule the government policies through lobbying.

So the end result of Capitalism is indeed immoral.

 

The Libretardians are using the No True Scotsman tactic. Their pure and shiny capitalism could only avoid becoming crony capitalism by totally eliminating government vigilance on the market, so they are not forced to bribe their way out of being watched. In these anti-Republican times, their debating tactic is to pretend that no true capitalists wanted this economy, but that the devil government forced them to become its cronies. Behind this bootlickers' fake criticism, they really want the people to become defenseless against private totalitarianism. When they say "Gubmint," their real fear is of the 99%. They want us to continue to think of government as a separate entity that doesn't have to care about the majority of Americans. The Libretardian neo-Federalists' bible, the Constitution, is an anti-democratic fraud that we should incinerate in favor of self-government. Not having any problem with the fact that it was written behind closed doors is the first link in the chain of the people's self-disempowerment.

 

Capitalism is nothing more then free trade between free individuals... I hate when people doesn't use terms correctly.. What he meant really is Corporatism... State run Capitalism.. Where state is picking the winner and losers through regulations, bailouts... I don't even get deeper if someone doesn't understand this its worthless to get in argument with him,...

 

Shiva_TD, even with Capitalism being practiced in full bloom, there was greed, wicked acts and deeds committed to increase profit, etc. What do you think slavery, Jim and Crow, the land grabs during the move westward were all about?

 

PrometheusBound
Analyst --------- You prove my point, but thanks for trying to claim you weren't tricked. Pseudo-Liberals are up front and screaming. Conservatives pretend to be even-tempered and rational. A classic Bad Cop, Good Cop scenario.

You looked at an intentionally provocative Limousine Liberalism that was designed to drive you into the hidden evil of the Right Wing. Instead, you should have looked at what class the most prominent Liberals came from. You should have looked at their snobbery and conceit, a sign that their Daddies brought them up with the belief in Class Supremacy. In fact, you should dismiss anyone born into the upper classes. If we have to do it on our own, so must they. Or they should shut up.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have no point it seems as is shown by you repeating the same lines over and over again.
Your class warfare rhetoric seems to be the burr in your saddle. I have yet to see any poor people in the halls of Congress from either side of the aisle. You need to flee from the fog.

 

Do you have examples? If you wish to invoke the 'moral equivalency' rule, cite examples.