Racism, it seems to me, is a direct outshoot of capitalism. If this (including other seemingly immoral behaviour which I will not explore here) is the kind of spawn capitalism produces, it seems to follow quite irrefutably that capitalism is a deeply immoral system. I would like to contend that the creation of racism is essential to the history of the capitalist regime.
In Marx's Communist Manifesto, he outlines three necessary parts of capitalism that makes it a particularly violent struggle. I will deal with the first one here, in other words, that capitalist society is split into two classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariates. That is, the owners of the means of production, and the workers or labourers. Thus, in order to create this system of capitalism, vast amounts ar-of workers were needed. Many of these workers were found in Africa. Africa, in fact, was sucked dry of its resources (both human and natural materials), nourishing and sustaining what are now first world countries, and in the process whithering and creating third world countries. In other words, it is important to realise that the luxury of first world countries are founded on the exploitation and subjugation of third world countries. Felix Mnthali, a Malawian poet, encapsulates this sentiment in his poem "The Stranglehold of English Lit.":
Your elegance of deceit,
Jane Austen,
lulled the sons and daughters
of the dispossessed
into a calf-love
with irony and satire
around imaginary people
While history went on mocking
the victims of branding irons
and sugar-plantations
that made Jane Austen's people
wealthy beyond compare!
It seems logical toto assert that racism went hand-in-hand with this exploitation that layered so much wealth on Western countries. That is, racism seems to have been created at a way of bringing about this proletariat class of workers and labourers. The construct of race was used to continually remind black people of their apparent inferiority and their 'proper' position beneath the rule of whites. In this way, race was a convenient tool to keep an implicitly subjugated proletariate population which Marx regards as so essential to a capistalist system. Surely examples of symptoms of capitalism are Aparheid and slavery?
I am completely open to refutations by Phong, or anyone else who thinks this blogpost has problems.
To him who looks upon the world rationally, the world looks rationally back. ~~G.W.F. Hegel
Friday, March 2, 2012
My answer is "no"
Because it is my week to post, I’m going to frame this as an argument against the morality of capitalism, though I very much mean it as a response to you, Phong, and a contribution to the greater conversation.
Phong, I know you said that you are not stubborn, but for a lack of a better word I just want to say that I appreciate your stubbornness and you asking questions and pushing as hard as you do helps me to better understand everything. I don’t mean for any of this to sound like an attack but it’s too time consuming to add like “no offense” or “maybe it’s just me” every sentence.
I want to make some comments on your ideas. The last three start with quotes from your post.
1.I think that you argument that “capitalism promotes charitable needs” needs some definition and thought behind the concept of ‘charitable deeds’. Obviously there is information and data to back up your idea that there are groups, companies, corporations, individuals, what have you, that do/have done ‘charitable’ things – and they can do there charitable things because of the fruits of capitalism. So people are doing works of charity by willingly giving money to those in need (the definition of charity says something like this)… to me, this begs the question of why are these people in need in the first place. (I’m not going to try and address the idea of the fact that many many people are in no way reached by the charitable acts of these supposed people.) To me, to say that capitalism is moral because of the good deeds that people involved in the system have done, is like saying that I am a moral person because I hand Ben a band-aid after I kick him to the ground. Also, if you are going to talk about government and politics as part of this argument, then you must use them as confounding factors to these charitable acts as well. Giving money to organizations is often a political move though it is technically giving to a charity, and the tax breaks and so forth that companies get form being “charitable” (not that I’m claiming to understand the tax system/business world) basically nullifies the “morality” of the act in my mind. I don’t disagree that these donations and charitable giving is good, but is it moral if the intentions are not necessarily charitable and is the capitalism moral if it created the problem in the first place??
2.“immoral means that capitalism denies a right to live or it denies basic human needs.” In think Marx would argue that there are basic human needs being denied in the alienation from labor. Like consciousness’ search, I think that the ways in which the laborer is alienated from the object, the process, herself, others (what we were talking about in class) are denying a form of a basic human need for connectedness to self, other, etc. Though the writing may simply be about labor for production/capitalism’s sake, the effects of this alienation can be, like Dr. J said in class, soul-crushing, which sounds immoral to me.
3.“Some people will make it and others probably not.” I think that you are right about this, though I think it almost works against your argument/position that capitalism is moral. As I understand it, capitalism, like a stage of consciousness, is defined as having such a structure that it will eventually come to a point of frustration where something must change. I don’t know if you are considering these expected changes in your concept of capitalism. So, I might agree that the idea of “haves” and “have nots” will always exists in one way or another, but capitalism is designed/explained in such a way that “have” and “have not” becomes “extreme poverty/borderline inability to live and function” and “grossly wealthy and in control”. So to say that some probably won’t make it, almost concedes to the idea that people will be worked harder and harder and stretched thinner and thinner in exploitation. Unless you are thinking with the mentality of “making it” meaning that you have a nicer car and a pool in the back yard. There is an inherent immorality in accepting a system that has people “not making it” in its structure if “not making it” includes a denial of basic human needs, as you defined immoral…?
4.“How can anyone condemn an entire system unjust without realizing personal responsibility?” I have something that I want to say about personal responsibility here, but I’m not quite sure what it is. I don’t know what Marx would say… but if I were to read this sentence out of the context of your post, I would assume that by personal responsibility you meant personal responsibility in terms of class unity working together to not let the exploitation of capitalism get to the extreme that obviously it can. Maybe this would be the bourgeoisie revolution…? Obviously you don’t mean to reference a “my brother’s keeper” kind of responsibility do you? I just don’t think there is a very strong argument for “personal responsibility” as a cause of capitalism’s problems.
Phong, I know you said that you are not stubborn, but for a lack of a better word I just want to say that I appreciate your stubbornness and you asking questions and pushing as hard as you do helps me to better understand everything. I don’t mean for any of this to sound like an attack but it’s too time consuming to add like “no offense” or “maybe it’s just me” every sentence.
I want to make some comments on your ideas. The last three start with quotes from your post.
1.I think that you argument that “capitalism promotes charitable needs” needs some definition and thought behind the concept of ‘charitable deeds’. Obviously there is information and data to back up your idea that there are groups, companies, corporations, individuals, what have you, that do/have done ‘charitable’ things – and they can do there charitable things because of the fruits of capitalism. So people are doing works of charity by willingly giving money to those in need (the definition of charity says something like this)… to me, this begs the question of why are these people in need in the first place. (I’m not going to try and address the idea of the fact that many many people are in no way reached by the charitable acts of these supposed people.) To me, to say that capitalism is moral because of the good deeds that people involved in the system have done, is like saying that I am a moral person because I hand Ben a band-aid after I kick him to the ground. Also, if you are going to talk about government and politics as part of this argument, then you must use them as confounding factors to these charitable acts as well. Giving money to organizations is often a political move though it is technically giving to a charity, and the tax breaks and so forth that companies get form being “charitable” (not that I’m claiming to understand the tax system/business world) basically nullifies the “morality” of the act in my mind. I don’t disagree that these donations and charitable giving is good, but is it moral if the intentions are not necessarily charitable and is the capitalism moral if it created the problem in the first place??
2.“immoral means that capitalism denies a right to live or it denies basic human needs.” In think Marx would argue that there are basic human needs being denied in the alienation from labor. Like consciousness’ search, I think that the ways in which the laborer is alienated from the object, the process, herself, others (what we were talking about in class) are denying a form of a basic human need for connectedness to self, other, etc. Though the writing may simply be about labor for production/capitalism’s sake, the effects of this alienation can be, like Dr. J said in class, soul-crushing, which sounds immoral to me.
3.“Some people will make it and others probably not.” I think that you are right about this, though I think it almost works against your argument/position that capitalism is moral. As I understand it, capitalism, like a stage of consciousness, is defined as having such a structure that it will eventually come to a point of frustration where something must change. I don’t know if you are considering these expected changes in your concept of capitalism. So, I might agree that the idea of “haves” and “have nots” will always exists in one way or another, but capitalism is designed/explained in such a way that “have” and “have not” becomes “extreme poverty/borderline inability to live and function” and “grossly wealthy and in control”. So to say that some probably won’t make it, almost concedes to the idea that people will be worked harder and harder and stretched thinner and thinner in exploitation. Unless you are thinking with the mentality of “making it” meaning that you have a nicer car and a pool in the back yard. There is an inherent immorality in accepting a system that has people “not making it” in its structure if “not making it” includes a denial of basic human needs, as you defined immoral…?
4.“How can anyone condemn an entire system unjust without realizing personal responsibility?” I have something that I want to say about personal responsibility here, but I’m not quite sure what it is. I don’t know what Marx would say… but if I were to read this sentence out of the context of your post, I would assume that by personal responsibility you meant personal responsibility in terms of class unity working together to not let the exploitation of capitalism get to the extreme that obviously it can. Maybe this would be the bourgeoisie revolution…? Obviously you don’t mean to reference a “my brother’s keeper” kind of responsibility do you? I just don’t think there is a very strong argument for “personal responsibility” as a cause of capitalism’s problems.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Is Capitalism Moral? Help Me.
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.
Friday, February 24, 2012
The Eighteenth Brumaire
This week we began reading Marx, famous for his "materialist conception of history." To recap, we discussed the base-superstructure model, which starts at changes in the forces of production, the material conditions, which then affects the relations among the elements of a system, and finally then finally affects the superstructure of the system, including ideas, philosophies, and the like. Revolutions affect an old system in a similar way, creating new forces of production, which negates the relations of the old system, and then "negates the negation" to create new relations and ultimately a new superstructure. We see this model instantiated in Marx's pamphlet The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.
Marx is well known for changing how we conduct socio-historical investigations. Since him, historians concern themselves primarily with things at the "material conditions" level. Rarely do we find any thorough contemporary text on past history without a strong grounding in the tangibles of that time (however loose the criteria for such tangibles may be). Certainly there is talk of changes in ideologies from one time or another, but it is usually accompanied with whatever social, economic, or otherwise material conditions that may have brought about that change.
Marx wrote The Eighteenth Brumaire very soon after the events he writes about take place. I'm no Marx historian, but a quick glance at the dates suggest that he was already well established in the philosophical-political scene, already having written the Communist Manifesto several years prior. Assuming that his materialist conception of history had already gained popularity by the time of the events of Louis Bonaparte's coup, we can expect to see most histories of these events to follow the scheme that Marx has set up. (If I may concede a little, I know there's a lot of assumption going on and I may not be entirely accurate. This section is more of a set-up for the next.)
Rather than asserting some positive thesis, I want to propose a kind of thought experiment challenge for the commenters. What would the events from 1848 to 1851 look like in history if it did not follow the model that Marx has provided? How would a Hegelian or some early historian before him approach this bit of history (assuming a Hegelian would actually bother with something concrete)? Would we start with a change in ideology and then somehow draw conclusions about the rest of a historical time period from there? Since we're so grounded in doing history from a "material conditions" point of view, it seems hard to isolate ourselves from that approach and do something different and earlier. Where would we even begin?
Marx is well known for changing how we conduct socio-historical investigations. Since him, historians concern themselves primarily with things at the "material conditions" level. Rarely do we find any thorough contemporary text on past history without a strong grounding in the tangibles of that time (however loose the criteria for such tangibles may be). Certainly there is talk of changes in ideologies from one time or another, but it is usually accompanied with whatever social, economic, or otherwise material conditions that may have brought about that change.
Marx wrote The Eighteenth Brumaire very soon after the events he writes about take place. I'm no Marx historian, but a quick glance at the dates suggest that he was already well established in the philosophical-political scene, already having written the Communist Manifesto several years prior. Assuming that his materialist conception of history had already gained popularity by the time of the events of Louis Bonaparte's coup, we can expect to see most histories of these events to follow the scheme that Marx has set up. (If I may concede a little, I know there's a lot of assumption going on and I may not be entirely accurate. This section is more of a set-up for the next.)
Rather than asserting some positive thesis, I want to propose a kind of thought experiment challenge for the commenters. What would the events from 1848 to 1851 look like in history if it did not follow the model that Marx has provided? How would a Hegelian or some early historian before him approach this bit of history (assuming a Hegelian would actually bother with something concrete)? Would we start with a change in ideology and then somehow draw conclusions about the rest of a historical time period from there? Since we're so grounded in doing history from a "material conditions" point of view, it seems hard to isolate ourselves from that approach and do something different and earlier. Where would we even begin?
Friday, February 17, 2012
Morality and Aesthetics
First of all, I want to admit that I know next to nothing about aesthetics, particularly Hegel’s aesthetics. That being said, I thought that there were some interesting connections to aesthetics in the ‘morality’ chapter we read for last class. First of all, Hegel talks about different kinds of harmony that are connected with morality. Hegel identifies two different ‘postulates’ about different harmonies involving morality: “The first postulate was the harmony of morality and objective Nature, the final purpose of the world; the other, the harmony of morality and the sensuous will, the final purpose of self-consciousness as such” (369). It seems like Hegel is saying that in is consciousness’ responsibility to bring about these harmonies, although he doesn’t exactly tell us what that would entail. He does, however, say that “consciousness has… to bring about this harmony and continually to be making progress in morality” (368). Without this harmony (either with objective Nature and/or with the sensuous) presumably morality wouldn’t be what it is. Besides this reference to harmony, Hegel also describes the rational, Kantian moral agent as a ‘beautiful soul’. The beautiful soul is the soul that can understand and properly apply the categorical imperative to particular situations. This beautiful soul, however, is not the final synthesis, but itself divides into acting and judging consciousness.
As I said, I don’t know much about aesthetics, however one similarity that immediately stands out to me is that both morality (or ethics more generally speaking) and aesthetics involve a kind of judgment that seems qualitatively different that other kinds of knowledge or belief. One might say that one makes a scientific ‘judgment’ about the world, but this seems different to me. This kind of knowledge claim seems of a different kind than one concerning morality or aesthetics. Perhaps what Hegel is pointing to in talking about morality and harmony and the beautiful together is that being able to perform one kind of judgment helps you perform the other. If aesthetic judgment is similar to moral judgment, then being able or good at one would help you make the other kind. This would seem to imply that learning how to make aesthetic judgments would help one make judgments about morality. If this is true, then aesthetics is a subject that would be incredibly important to teach, starting at an early age.
Interestingly enough, in the Republic, Plato makes the argument that a proper education consists of physical and musical parts. Perhaps what he intends in this musical education is learning the ability to make aesthetic judgments about particular harmonies within the music. This skill would then have very real practical consequences for the way someone with a ‘philosophical’ education would make moral judgments. Is this an appropriate connection to make? Are the connections between morality and aesthetics in Hegel as pronounced as I see them? Maybe someone with a little more experience with aesthetics can show me why this does or doesn’t make sense.
Hegel and Moral Development Theory
My previous experience with morality and moral theory has been within psychology. I think of morality as something that, within one self and with the world, is negotiated and molded, and through this process, changes and develops over a lifetime. The prominent theories of moral development in psychology describe mostly, with some variation, a morality of children being focused on rules and punishment for breaking those rules and eventually this morality develops into one based in principles and does not simply apply rules and norms. I don’t know Kant very well, but I see some of this in his ideas of a universal viewpoint as having a relationship to this development.
I am trying to see the connection between the development in moral reasoning as hypothesized in psychology and the discussion of morality as given by Hegel. However, I do not know that there is a direct or easy translation. I also don’t feel confident enough with the text to really make a statement about how it relates to moral development.
Do we see a development in Hegel’s writing that could be likened to that of a child? Or are the conflicts in the Phenomenology more situational, and more like the cycle one person would go through given a specific event or issue?
I am trying to see the connection between the development in moral reasoning as hypothesized in psychology and the discussion of morality as given by Hegel. However, I do not know that there is a direct or easy translation. I also don’t feel confident enough with the text to really make a statement about how it relates to moral development.
Do we see a development in Hegel’s writing that could be likened to that of a child? Or are the conflicts in the Phenomenology more situational, and more like the cycle one person would go through given a specific event or issue?
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Hegel's Spirit Found in Morality
As we finish reading Hegel, I honestly do not have a complete grasp on the Phenomenology, since the book is dense and the style in my opinion is poor. However, that does not take away completely the importance of the subject matter and actual reality of Consciousness. That being said, I believe that knowledge of the truth , as abstract as it may sound, cannot be achieved without the full realization of Consciousness realizing itself in a couple of modes.
First off, correct me if I am mistaken, but Hegel's Consciousness is formed with knowledge. This knowledge is not only of subject but also Consciousness' knowledge of itself. While all of the basic foundations of knowledge includes, which includes sense-certainty and perception, are important to the process of frustrating the mind, the most important factor of knowledge has to reason. Without reason, nothing should make sense. A chair is not a chair if it's most basic essentials cannot be applied to the Forces of our daily life. The chair as a being for others needs its applications. As much as sense-certainty believes that it is sure of it-self, it cannot be called knowledge without reason.
The development of Spirit works in similar ways. In Consciousness, knowledge is heavily relied upon. As if we are speaking of the knowledge of self-consciousness has on Consciousness or the knowledge that Consciousness has of itself, reason plays a heavy role. I do not see Hegel developing the argument that I am about to make, but feel free to respond. I believe that through reasons that are provided through nature and morality are essential to Consciousness. Even though Hegel says that whatever is moral is rational, he does not place on the same spectrum as reason. The way that I feel is that when he talks about morality he would use terms such as moral action or morality as it fulfills duties. But when I speak of morality, I say that morality cannot exist without reason. Though that does not sound like I am provoking anything new, I believe that reason cannot exist without morality. For example, when we are talking about knowledge of object. I believe that morality is a determinant of the object. In the simplest form, I would ask how that object (for me) needs moral awareness and that determines the object. For example, let's say my object is a moral. The way that morality plays a role is that I would wonder how the book would be valuable in education. And since education provides knowledge, it is reasonable. On the other hand, some one can evaluate that book as being immoral, in the sense that the book must have came from paper which comes from trees; therefore, we are ruining the earth. However the perspective is, morality is essential to reasoning and knowledge. Thus, the development of Consciousness would be incomplete without morality being regarded as one of its ultimate determinant.
Tell me what you think. This is just something that I have been thinking of. I am not even sure if I undervalued Hegel's morality of misunderstood him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)