Obviously, this is a topic that probably I overly analyzed in class. However, I do want your views about this. Despite want some people believe, I am not that stubborn about my ideas. It is constantly changing and maybe you can help me out.
I find it hard to just accept the idea that capitalism qua capitalism is immoral. To elaborate, what I mean is that I do not count crony-capitalism. Crony - capitalism is a byproduct of the government and not of this economic system. Crony - capitalism is inequality at its finest. Like the United States who finds itself increasingly in this conversation, nations of past eras have been undermined by corruption and inequality from the government. It is easy for a bureaucrat to cut taxes from one company who align with their ideas and increases tax on others. This is an instance of crony-capitalism. I mean all of this is done through some form of political clout. If you have political power, you can appoint not on merit but appoint on being a supporter or a friend or a relatives. Other nations have done this in the past, and this is how capitalism becomes corrupted and maligned.
Grant it, capitalism does not come without flaws. I understand that, but calling it immoral means that capitalism denies a right to live or it denies basic human needs. Capitalism in my perspective is structured under normal moral code. In other social and economic system, wealth is created by inheritance, stealing, political power, and oppressing others. Under a capitalist system, wealth is created by anyone who is creative, a risk taker, etc. Without bureaucrats (or bourgeois) intervening, taxing the poor and monopolizing entire industries, people can become wealthy. Directly, capitalism rewards the capital holders, but those capital holders are not thieves (for the most part). Even though this sounds like such right-winged propagandas, I believe that capitalisms intent is not direct positive liberties, but trial and error. Life is hard. Some people will make it and others probably not. Either way, capitalism does not take away rights. It does not oppress others. Obviously, I think Marx is wrong. In his era, people were oppressed by corruption and government. For example, the government was taxing on behalf of production from the poor. I understand that billions of people are poor. Many are not poor because of capitalism, they are poor because of government or they are poor because they do not recognize their personal freedom. How can anyone condemn an entire system unjust without realizing personal responsibility? Can you think of a stand-alone economic system (no government intervention) that would result in more economic freedom (this is presumably moral) and less impoverished people besides capitalism?
On top of this, capitalism does not mean that people cannot be compassionate. Compassion is a social structure, not an economic structure. But even if somebody wants to say that being compassionate and being rationally self-interested are contradictory, I believe that this is true. If somebody is interested in helping others and they do so, this means that he have fulfilled self-interest because they have pleased himself. He has gained utility from helping others and he has also been compassionate. The fact that these two are always contradicting does not make sense to me. But also, how can one help another person if he cannot help himself. Therefore, in a system that allows a person to help himself he can help others. Just look at the list of countries that are the most charitable; the top few are the ones who are economically most free.
I think that capitalism promotes charitable deeds. It definitely helps the needy. To me capitalism is generally moral. Tell me what you think.
I think that your point Phong is that people, even under the capitalist system can be good people. I think I agree with you, but I think that this is besides the point. Yes, there may be people who are not acting on rational self interest, but the problem within capitalism is that this altruistic choice cannot be described in terms of capitalism. Any human being's choice, if it is to be described by the capitalistic economic structure, must be in terms of self interest. So I agree that there can be compassionate people, but those people are only compassionate insofar as they are not acting according to the capitalist system, but some other 'social system' that you mention. I think that your evidence in fact supports Marx's argument that while capitalism reveals itself as amoral, there are in fact 'capitalistic morals' that are concealed.
ReplyDeleteWhen we (or at least when I) say that capitalism is moral, what I essentially mean is that capitalism, as a system or structure, perpetuates the treatment of human beings as nonhuman beings. Yes, producing more stuff will allow those people who own lots of stuff to give away more stuff. But simply giving away more stuff does not solve the root of the problem, namely that we privately own the stuff in the first place. Any system that includes private property will result in wage labor that treats laborers as mere animals. Remember that an increase in wages only results in better payment for the slave.
Ultimately I'm not sure exactly what your table proves. I don't really know what you mean (or the table means) by economic freedom. I would argue that in a 'free market system' there are many economic and non-economic forces that are acting on individuals that restrain and coerce them. What you call economic freedom isn't 'freedom' in any robust sense, or at least the kind of freedom that I expect to be granted to me.