The Ethics of Capitalism

[Xvall]

Alright, so there I was a couple of days ago, sitting in Physics class, pretending I gave a damn about whatever the fuck my teacher was talking about. Anyways, I was having a fine time doodling and trailing off thinking about random things, I began to think about how much I dislike capitalism. (In case you didn’t know, I dislike it quite a bit.) Nonetheless, I was thinking about how stupid inheritance is; something that capitalists love and support. Then I began thinking about how I oftentimes see capitalists as hypocrites and people with double-standards. Then I discovered another double standard.

Alright. There is a man named Joe, who worked in a factory in the thirties. His boss was a complete bastard and didn’t pay him for all the work he did. Now, at the time, there was nothing he could do about it; but in our modern world, everyone agrees that it was wrong of his boss to do that, and that he should most definitely be compensated for his years of unpaid labor. So anyways, Joe dies, and his son inherits the money he received from compensation. Most capitalists will see that as the right course of action, at least based on the United States’ economic principles.

However, it is also a known fact that most capitalists (and people in general) despise reparations for slavery. Why? Not that I’m arguing for slavery reparations, but by capitalistic principles this should be acceptable. Think about it. Company X, in the past, used slave labor in order to make and sell it’s products. We can agree that this is wrong, and that the slaves should be paid money for this. Oh, but they’re dead? That’s not a problem, as the economic philosophy of capitalism points to inheritance, at which point the money would go to the slave’s descendants. That is how it works, isn’t it? After all, the capitalists I know have all been staunch supporters of the concept of ‘inheritance’. According to capitalistic methods, slavery reparations would be the proper thing to do, in which companies that enrolled the use of unpaid laborers are forced to pay the descendants of said workers.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The Ethics of Capitalism
:huh:
What ethics?
But, yes, comrade, good point indeed.
As a communist, however, the only conceivable "right" thing to do in capitalism is revolution or radical reforms. Most other political actions would be impossible while maintaining capitalism.

[Exploited Class]

hmmm that would be a good way to trip them up in a debate on inheritance I think. There is definitely some hypocrisy there.

I think they would argue that, that guy Joe doesn't deserve reparations and it was Joe's fault for working for free or underpaid.

I think that if you present Joe's plight to see if they agree that his offspring deserves the money, they would have a hard time finding a logical argument against slavery reparations.

[Xvall]

Ah, but Joe was simply a lesser example. In the case of slavery, however, they did not willingly work underpaid or for free.

[BuyOurEverything]

There are many contradictions with capitalist 'ethics.' And I despise inheritance.

[Al Creed]

I too, despise enheritence, especially when the recipient is a rotten asshole

[The Feral Underclass]

Inheritance must be defined. of course if some rich oil magnate gives £34,000,000,000 to his son this is obscenely wrong and I am sure in a post revolutionary society cash inheritance will not exist. But when we are talking about a house that your parents raised you in and lived there for seventy years or a cat or a dog or something, these things are fine. We can not legislate or ideologically argue against leaving your family sentimental material items, that is clearly wrong in my oppinion.

...or radical reforms

What does this actually mean?

[Desert Fox]

Sounds good in theory, but not reachable in reality. You can hardly compensate every child of people that were abused in their working envoriment. If it was possible it would be great but it is just not possible. But a good idea, there are so many flaws in every political system. It is good you find a few, but don't waste your time on thinking about them the etire time, it will only waste your sanity ...

[Urban Rubble]

Ethics ? In Capitalism ? I think that's a contradiction.

Anyway, I'm against inheritance also, but I know if my Dad busted his ass for free, and then died ,I would want the peice of shit who did that to him to pay. Either with blood or with money.

[Mazzen]

What about family heirlooms(sp?)? I think that if my mother had nice pieces of antique furniture, which she does, then our family should be able to enjoy those pieces of furniture too. They're a part of our family and our history. My family loves collecting antiques and I would hate to see those beautiful pieces of furniture just go to the state or something. I sincerely think that would suck. As far as money inheritance goes...I think that's completely fucked up. It just allows the rich to get richer and lets the poor get poorer. Chau.

[The Feral Underclass]

What does Chau mean? do you mean ciao!

[BuyOurEverything]

Anyway, I'm against inheritance also, but I know if my Dad busted his ass for free, and then died ,I would want the peice of shit who did that to him to pay. Either with blood or with money.

The employer should have to pay all the money that woul have gone to your dad as well a a large fine to the government. That's assuming we're in a socialist society. Otherwise blow the fucker's head off.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Anarchist Tension and Mazzen, the only inheritance that we seek to abolish is that of bourgeois property and capital.

[Pete]

Chau is spanish for 'cya' or 'bye,' although it is mostly used in latin America.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 02:55 PM
Chau is spanish for 'cya' or 'bye,' although it is mostly used in latin America.
In Brazil we use "chau", but it's not a Portuguese word. It's sometimes improperly spelled 'chau", but "ciao" is the correct spelling. "Adeus" means "bye" in Portuguese.

[Xvall]

I have no problem with the inheritance of petty items and heirlooms. I doubt anyone cares to 'relocate' your aunt's photo album. The post wasn't designed to discuss why I think inheritance is wrong. It is to point out that many capitalists are hypocritical in that they advocate inheritance, and at the same time oppose forms of inheritance (such as reparations) on a regular basis.

[Generalized American]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 30 2003, 09:53 PM
Alright, so there I was a couple of days ago, sitting in Physics class, pretending I gave a damn about whatever the fuck my teacher was talking about. Anyways, I was having a fine time doodling and trailing off thinking about random things, I began to think about how much I dislike capitalism. (In case you didn’t know, I dislike it quite a bit.) Nonetheless, I was thinking about how stupid inheritance is; something that capitalists love and support. Then I began thinking about how I oftentimes see capitalists as hypocrites and people with double-standards. Then I discovered another double standard.

Alright. There is a man named Joe, who worked in a factory in the thirties. His boss was a complete bastard and didn’t pay him for all the work he did. Now, at the time, there was nothing he could do about it; but in our modern world, everyone agrees that it was wrong of his boss to do that, and that he should most definitely be compensated for his years of unpaid labor. So anyways, Joe dies, and his son inherits the money he received from compensation. Most capitalists will see that as the right course of action, at least based on the United States’ economic principles.

However, it is also a known fact that most capitalists (and people in general) despise reparations for slavery. Why? Not that I’m arguing for slavery reparations, but by capitalistic principles this should be acceptable. Think about it. Company X, in the past, used slave labor in order to make and sell it’s products. We can agree that this is wrong, and that the slaves should be paid money for this. Oh, but they’re dead? That’s not a problem, as the economic philosophy of capitalism points to inheritance, at which point the money would go to the slave’s descendants. That is how it works, isn’t it? After all, the capitalists I know have all been staunch supporters of the concept of ‘inheritance’. According to capitalistic methods, slavery reparations would be the proper thing to do, in which companies that enrolled the use of unpaid laborers are forced to pay the descendants of said workers.
Wow. I love your generalization of capitalism as the end all and be all of evil. Very intelligent. Your "Company X" idea confused me some. Compaines, in the American South involved in slavelabor were not widespread. Most slavelabor was handled on individually owned plantations. Further more, what money remained in the ex-Confederacy after the Civil War TO repay the slaves? Were they not in debt both to the few countries who provided foregin aid during the War, and the Union? Inheritance is a practice carried out through close generations, quite different from primagenature, which sounds more like what you're talking aboot. Ah well.

[Generalized American]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 07:33 PM

Anyway, I'm against inheritance also, but I know if my Dad busted his ass for free, and then died ,I would want the peice of shit who did that to him to pay. Either with blood or with money.

The employer should have to pay all the money that woul have gone to your dad as well a a large fine to the government. That's assuming we're in a socialist society. Otherwise blow the fucker's head off.
If this is what your socialism advocates, I'll take monarchy.

[BuyOurEverything]

If this is what your socialism advocates, I'll take monarchy.

I don't know how you got socialism out of that. I wasn't really serious anyways. However, I have no problem exectuing a few rich CEOs if it helps liberate the workers.

[Loknar]

What about property?

[apathy maybe]

I was going to start a thread on inheritence but then I didn't, not enough time.

Inheritence is bad because it means that by an accident of birth some bugger has just recieved a pile stuff 'cause his papa died. The same reason that I don't like the fact that some bugger can go to a rich private school and get a 'better' education then some poor bloke from a slum who goes to a public school. Sure the first guys dad may have been a great intelligent person, but that doesn't mean the son is any more intelligent then then the poor bloke.

If we had true capitalism (shudder) I would think that this situation wouldn't come about. And of course if we had true communism/anarchism or even a decent varient of government socialism it wouldn't come about either.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 2 2003, 04:03 AM
I was going to start a thread on inheritence but then I didn't, not enough time.

Inheritence is bad because it means that by an accident of birth some bugger has just recieved a pile stuff 'cause his papa died. The same reason that I don't like the fact that some bugger can go to a rich private school and get a 'better' education then some poor bloke from a slum who goes to a public school. Sure the first guys dad may have been a great intelligent person, but that doesn't mean the son is any more intelligent then then the poor bloke.

If we had true capitalism (shudder) I would think that this situation wouldn't come about. And of course if we had true communism/anarchism or even a decent varient of government socialism it wouldn't come about either.
If by true capitalism you mean nothing is socialized and the market controls everything. Then true capitalism would be the immediate downfal of class-society. Happily for the bourgeoisie, it's only one small faction in America who really want this. But how do you think that this would prevent inheritance?

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 1 2003, 10:05 PM
I have no problem with the inheritance of petty items and heirlooms. I doubt anyone cares to 'relocate' your aunt's photo album. The post wasn't designed to discuss why I think inheritance is wrong. It is to point out that many capitalists are hypocritical in that they advocate inheritance, and at the same time oppose forms of inheritance (such as reparations) on a regular basis.
Well the real bourgeois are just hypocrits and seem tot think they are above the law and that only the pos things of the law affect them and doesn't go the same way for them. But I feel a bit offended when you call family pieces, "petty items" they look maybe petty to you but for those of the family they have great value and even those items are worth of being protected ...

[apathy maybe]

I was thinking that under true capitalism all have an equal chance to get rich, regardless of their parents. This means that if you dumb or lazy you will stay poor.
But under the present system, you don't have to be dumb or lazy to start out poor, and thus your not going to get the same opportunities to become rich. If your intelligent or not-lazy, you would (theoretically) under 'true' capitalism become rich regardless.

What I am trying to say is that inheritance goes against the idea that all will have equal opportunities to become rich.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Since when does "pure capitalism" ensure equal opportunity?

[Xvall]

Wow. I love your generalization of capitalism as the end all and be all of evil. Very intelligent.

I never said anything about capitalism being evil. I dont' even recall mentioning the word 'evil' in any part of my post. I stated that I didn't like it, and I know for a fact that I most certainly do not.


Your "Company X" idea confused me some. Compaines, in the American South involved in slavelabor were not widespread. Most slavelabor was handled on individually owned plantations.

There were many companies in the American South (As well as the American North) that used slavelabor. Tobbaco and clothing companies often used slave labor in order to obtain their goods. Many owners of indivudual plantations were in charge of small companies and firms as well.


Further more, what money remained in the ex-Confederacy after the Civil War TO repay the slaves? Were they not in debt both to the few countries who provided foregin aid during the War, and the Union?

The Confederacy was not the only part of the nation to use slave labour as a means of production. Many companies in the Union used slave labour as well. Additionally, these company owners that benefited from slavery were wealthy. They did not fight in the war. Although the war was lost by the South, many southerner (And norhterners, for that matter) were still able to hold on to the money that they had benefited from slaves. Also keep in mind that slavery still existed for a short time after the war. (Arguably, it existed even after the abolition of slavery, just on a diffirent level.)


Inheritance is a practice carried out through close generations, quite different from primagenature, which sounds more like what you're talking aboot. Ah well.

Regarless, I felt it necessary to point out that the concept of 'repirations' in any form, is essentially supportic by capitalistic theory.

[Red October]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 07:06 PM
What about family heirlooms(sp?)? I think that if my mother had nice pieces of antique furniture, which she does, then our family should be able to enjoy those pieces of furniture too. They're a part of our family and our history. My family loves collecting antiques and I would hate to see those beautiful pieces of furniture just go to the state or something. I sincerely think that would suck. As far as money inheritance goes...I think that's completely fucked up. It just allows the rich to get richer and lets the poor get poorer. Chau.
Well said. I place great importance on culture and heritage, and heirlooms are part of that.

I believe the Party even needs to protect historical monuments and buildings. What pissed me off is when Nicolai Ceausescu wanted to destroy great pieces of archiecture and human ingenuity for his crap apartments that were not even inhabitable by rats.

I admire art, and those buildings were works of art, even though they were built in the times of monarchy.