Capitalism as a means to socialism?

[superborys]

I had a thought the other day that's been persisting with me since, and I can't seem to find my stance on it entirely.

I am a leftist, and a strong egalitarian, to start with. I also view industrialists like Carnegie and Rockefeller with a certain air of leniency because of the philanthropy they did in their times.

So, with all that, the question I have to ask is this: If someone were to take the capitalism system that exists today, and work it in the way the anti-socialism argument says to, and after having accrued an enormous fortune, spend the money helping equalize class disparities, fund workers' rights movements and actions, and other such things, would that be morally permissible? Assuming that one must exploit in order to make such a massive fortune, would the 40-60 years of worker exploitation be recompensed by the enormous surge of support?

My tendency is to say yes. The reasons I see for this is that if you aren't very exploitative in the accretion of your fortune, then that will give good character to socialism and leftism (because all the good people in our society are industrious, shrewd men), and because the simple enormous surge of money could very well push leftism to the front.

I mean, Carnegie offered enough money for the Philippines to buy their independence from America. Rockefeller had a fortune more than twice as large as Carnegie's, so surely such an enormous wealth could be useful.

To finish, I read a quote in one of my classes once that said, "Treat the Earth well. It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children." And I take that to mean that we should return the Earth to our children better than we found it, and I think we could make it a better place that way.

Just my $0.02

[#FF0000]

I also view industrialists like Carnegie and Rockefeller with a certain air of leniency because of the philanthropy they did in their times.

I stopped reading here to actually physically recoil.


So, with all that, the question I have to ask is this: If someone were to take the capitalism system that exists today, and work it in the way the anti-socialism argument says to, and after having accrued an enormous fortune, spend the money helping equalize class disparities, fund workers' rights movements and actions, and other such things, would that be morally permissible? Assuming that one must exploit in order to make such a massive fortune, would the 40-60 years of worker exploitation be recompensed by the enormous surge of support?

If a rich dude wants to give all his money to some communists then that's fine but uh, I think it's the heighth of naievete to expect that kind of thing? Plus no one's really gonna turn down a bunch of money that can be used for strike funds and organizing because "NO IT IS FROM A RICH PERSON". Leftist parties have stocks n bonds as it is you know.

[Zeus the Moose]

If a rich dude wants to give all his money to some communists then that's fine but uh, I think it's the heighth of naievete to expect that kind of thing? Plus no one's really gonna turn down a bunch of money that can be used for strike funds and organizing because "NO IT IS FROM A RICH PERSON". Leftist parties have stocks n bonds as it is you know.

The Greens might, but they have this funny notion that if we just got rid of money in politics, everything would be peachy.

[superborys]

I stopped reading here to actually physically recoil.



If a rich dude wants to give all his money to some communists then that's fine but uh, I think it's the heighth of naievete to expect that kind of thing? Plus no one's really gonna turn down a bunch of money that can be used for strike funds and organizing because "NO IT IS FROM A RICH PERSON". Leftist parties have stocks n bonds as it is you know.

That was unnecessarily rude.

And I agree that it's extremely foolish to expect affluent people to donate money to a cause that opposes the way they got to their wealth, but this is not meant to be a discussion of practicality, but rather one of morality. I was asking whether it would be morally permissible to be capitalistic in order to achieve, in the end, a greater degree of socialism.

[Weezer]

(Monetary) Philanthropy is like band-aid to cancer. Sure, band-aids help all sorts of things, but it's not being used the right way and there's no guarantee it'll help anything.

This kind of thing just won't happen. If Bill Gates suddenly decided to donate $300 million dollars to, I don't know, the Vast International Communist Conspiracy, great. The VICC still might just waste all the money.

Of course capitalism is the historical stage into socialism, and capitalism must be developed enough for the conditions for socialism to be brought about. But no individual is just going to give up money like the way you're suggesting. And if they do, will anything change? It's just money, not change.

[superborys]

(Monetary) Philanthropy is like band-aid to cancer. Sure, band-aids help all sorts of things, but it's not being used the right way and there's no guarantee it'll help anything.

This kind of thing just won't happen. If Bill Gates suddenly decided to donate $300 million dollars to, I don't know, the Vast International Communist Conspiracy, great. The VICC still might just waste all the money.

Of course capitalism is the historical stage into socialism, and capitalism must be developed enough for the conditions for socialism to be brought about. But no individual is just going to give up money like the way you're suggesting. And if they do, will anything change? It's just money, not change.

Again, I don't mean to be a stickler here, but I accept that it's not practical, likely, or possibly even helpful. I'm just asking about the morals of it. If someone accumulated a huge fortune that they donated in ways that significantly bolstered leftism, would it be morally permissible?

[#FF0000]

That was unnecessarily rude.

My b, guy. The second point is just kind of confusing because, again, no one's really going to refuse resources based on morality in the first place (with some exceptions -- I don't think we ought to resort to drug smuggling to fill up a strike fund!)

But Carnegie and Rockefeller were pretty awful dude that was a silly thing to say.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I am a leftist, and a strong egalitarian, to start with. I also view industrialists like Carnegie and Rockefeller with a certain air of leniency because of the philanthropy they did in their times.
:laugh:


My tendency is to say yes. The reasons I see for this is that if you aren't very exploitative in the accretion of your fortune
You clearly don't understand how wealth is created under capitalism, which is through exploitation of one class by another.

[superborys]

My b, guy. The second point is just kind of confusing because, again, no one's really going to refuse resources based on morality in the first place (with some exceptions -- I don't think we ought to resort to drug smuggling to fill up a strike fund!)

But Carnegie and Rockefeller were pretty awful dude that was a silly thing to say.

They were awful, yes, but I don't think we can write them off as being 100% bad. Which is why I say I give them a little leeway (personally Carnegie more than Rockefeller), because if you donate the equivalent of ~$300 billion to charity, you're clearly not a fat, greedy white man who drinks gold-flaked merlot all day on his rocket yacht.


:laugh:


You clearly don't understand how wealth is created under capitalism, which is through exploitation of one class by another.

Thanks for not reading my replies. I understand that capitalism is, by definition, exploitative. I'll reiterate once again: Would the exploitation of the worker class be acceptable in the long run if the money made through that exploitation were given to meaningful, impacting causes that significantly furthered leftism?

[Zeus the Moose]

Again, I don't mean to be a stickler here, but I accept that it's not practical, likely, or possibly even helpful. I'm just asking about the morals of it. If someone accumulated a huge fortune that they donated in ways that significantly bolstered leftism, would it be morally permissible?

Would it be morally permissible for a rich person to do that? Sure, though I'm not sure your initial proposition of "working the system in a way that doesn't exploit people" is possible in order to build up such a sum of money.

Would it be morally permissible for a movement to take such money? Sure. We shouldn't let our politics be dependent on such monetary support, but that's politics, not morality.

EDIT: rocket yacht? Can we have some of those once we get communism?

[Questionable]

Even if Carnegie gave the Philippines enough money to buy their national independence it would not change the capitalist relations of production.

I'm sorry that you're not getting a very good reception but the ideals you're suggesting are based off a misunderstanding of capitalism. Just this statement alone shows that:


The reasons I see for this is that if you aren't very exploitative in the accretion of your fortune,"Exploitation" is not merely a moralistic term in the Marxist sense. It has a scientific definition. It is the difference between the time when the worker has created enough value to make up for his own wage and when the capitalist actually allows him to stop working. It results in surplus-value which the capitalist pockets and reinvests back into capital. It does not mean the bourgeoisie are bad; surplus-labor is an essential part of capital accumulation.

[superborys]

Would it be morally permissible for a rich person to do that? Sure, though I'm not sure your initial proposition of "working the system in a way that doesn't exploit people" is possible in order to build up such a sum of money.

Would it be morally permissible for a movement to take such money? Sure. We shouldn't let our politics be dependent on such monetary support, but that's politics, not morality.

EDIT: rocket yacht? Can we have some of those once we get communism?

I must have been unclear. I meant in the original scenario that the system through which you get the wealth explicitly would be exploitative, but whether that was acceptable. And, if it could not be deemed acceptable with an exploitative system, what degree of exploitativeness/non-exploitativeness would we/you/they deem necessary for such a thing to be morally permissible?


Even if Carnegie gave the Philippines enough money to buy their national independence it would not change the capitalist relations of production.

I'm sorry that you're not getting a very good reception but the ideals you're suggesting are based off a misunderstanding of capitalism. Just this statement alone shows that:

"Exploitation" is not merely a moralistic term in the Marxist sense. It has a scientific definition. It is the difference between the time when the worker has created enough value to make up for his own wage and when the capitalist actually allows him to stop working. It results in surplus-value which the capitalist pockets and reinvests back into capital. It does not mean the bourgeoisie are bad; surplus-labor is an essential part of capital accumulation.

I am aware that exploitation is the value difference between what is required to pay off the worker and what the worker ends up producing. What I'm saying there is the difference between an employer paying a worker $20 and the worker producing $50, versus the employer paying the worker $1 and the worker producing $1,000. Surely there is an arguable difference there, where one ends up being "less exploitative" and I'm sure that being put between a rock and a hard place, you'd rather be exploited by a factor of 2.5 rather than a factor of 1000.

Again, I'm not trying to sound like a prick here. Now I understand the thickly-cadenced philosopher-ese that philosophers encode their arguments into. Otherwise clarity is lost and ambiguity wreaks havoc on your question. My sincerest apologies.

[Ocean Seal]

I am a leftist, and a strong egalitarian, to start with. I also view industrialists like Carnegie and Rockefeller with a certain air of leniency because of the philanthropy they did in their times.
Would you also view me with a degree of leniency if I consistently robbed your house, and then brought you some food scraps when I was about to keel over.



Stuff
And yet amazingly people still starve.

[#FF0000]

i don't think people are like

reading the post

[Questionable]

I must have been unclear. I meant in the original scenario that the system through which you get the wealth explicitly would be exploitative, but whether that was acceptable. And, if it could not be deemed acceptable with an exploitative system, what degree of exploitativeness/non-exploitativeness would we/you/they deem necessary for such a thing to be morally permissible?

Read my other post and you'll understand why the way you're using the term "exploitation" is incorrect. Economic exploitation is the foundation of capitalism. If a capitalist enterprise is less exploitative than another, it only means they're making less money.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Thanks for not reading my replies. I understand that capitalism is, by definition, exploitative. I'll reiterate once again: Would the exploitation of the worker class be acceptable in the long run if the money made through that exploitation were given to meaningful, impacting causes that significantly furthered leftism?
The exploitation of workers is never acceptable (are you working class?), nor will revolution be created by cash donations from the exploiters of the working class.

[superborys]

Would you also view me with a degree of leniency if I consistently robbed your house, and then brought you some food scraps when I was about to keel over.



And yet amazingly people still starve.

Actually, yes, I would have to. It's not really a marked difference, but you're being less malicious in the situation where you give me food scraps than if you were not to. I know it's ridiculous, but logically I can't say no. I can't say that I would be harsher on you for a more gracious action.

Sure, people still starve. I'm not seeing how that's relevant. Carnegie wasn't a food philanthropist, he was an education philanthropist, and now hundreds, if not thousands of libraries more exist in the United States because of him.
At any rate, this is not a defense of 19th century business magnates.

[superborys]

The exploitation of workers is never acceptable (are you working class?), nor will revolution be created by cash donations from the exploiters of the working class.

Why?

[Questionable]

I am aware that exploitation is the value difference between what is required to pay off the worker and what the worker ends up producing. What I'm saying there is the difference between an employer paying a worker $20 and the worker producing $50, versus the employer paying the worker $1 and the worker producing $1,000. Surely there is an arguable difference there, where one ends up being "less exploitative" and I'm sure that being put between a rock and a hard place, you'd rather be exploited by a factor of 2.5 rather than a factor of 1000.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It doesn't matter what the rate of profit is, it's still capitalism, and all the contradictions that come along with it. From a revolutionary standpoint it doesn't matter how much profit is being extracted from the workers because the capitalist relations of production still exist no matter what. Furthermore, exploitation is the nature of the beast. It is in the class interests of the bourgeoisie to extract as much surplus-value as possible to re-insert into their capital. If you make a conscious choice not to do this then your competition will and you'll most likely go out of business.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Why?
Why is exploitation of the working class never acceptable, or why won't revolution be created by cash donations from the exploiting class? The answer to the first should be self-evident. To the second, revolution will be created by the working class after achieving class consciousness. It's not some liberal reformist cause where donations can help achieve a desired end.

[gpistelli]

I think that Freire would be a great reading to you, comrade, if you want to know something more of why this style of egaliatarianism would not be sufficient to instaure socialism. I'm a crazy fan of Freire. He basically says (at his greatest -- and more marxist -- book "Pedagogy of the oppressed") that we can't change this opressive reality without changing the mind of the oppressed; the liberation, he will say, can't be only focused on the material equalization, but, also, at the freedom of being, on the right to make ourselves free to exploit with dignity our creation power. So, we can't change the society REALLY if we don't finish the alienation of the worker, if we don't finish the racismo, the machism, and other opressive actions. Freire says that we need to "expels our opressor" and start to make a different world based in the real respect of man, without blocking what he will call (I don't know if that's the same term used at english version, I'm free translating it) "vocation of being more". He's heavily influenced by Erich Fromm -- who explains very well marxism at his book called "Marx and his concept of man". Fromm is a great name to explain it, for real, at this book that I spoke, he explain exactly why at marxist view it's not only the material distribution the Marx critique of capitalist system. I know that my english is not good (I'm not from an english native language country), but I hope that I could help a little. If you want, I can explain better what I've meant here. It'll leave me some time, but I am able to do it, hehe!