The people running the machine

[Synergy]

I'm sure most of the people running the capitalist machine (government officials/corporate executives) are aware of the consequences but I'm curious to know how they actually feel about their decisions.

Are they completely morally bankrupt? Do they actually think they're doing something good using twisted rationalizations? Or do they think they have no choice in the matter because of the worship of profits?

Finally, are journalists aware of what they're hiding from the public? The executives control the message but is the research/investigating also controlled to exclude "radical thoughts" or whatever?

[Armchair Partisan]

Are they completely morally bankrupt? Do they actually think they're doing something good using twisted rationalizations?

I'm sure there are both types in existence. Martin Skhreli, for example, might belong in the first category - Bill Gates, perhaps the second. The thing is, though, classes aren't a conspiracy, and class interests are more of a trend, something the capitalists - consciously or not - tend to follow whether they realize it or not. It is perfectly plausible that by throwing a few million dollars into charity organizations and not putting their workers into worse conditions than the average, capitalists believe they are doing good for everyone. Of course, when it comes to politics, capitalists tend to show a great level of class consciousness regardless, but humans' ability to rationalize their own actions can be amazing indeed.

[Bala Perdida]

They probably think they're awesome. I don't know why it matters though. As long as they're not bullet proof.

[cyu]

As long as they're not bullet proof.

Speaking of which, reminds me of a study that shows that the more wealth inequality there is in a location, the greater the percentage of their economic activity is spent on "beat-down labor" - stuff like shop security guards, "law" enforcement, surveillance and monitoring equipment, etc etc - presumably because the poor do not believe the system is just and are itching to take back ill-gotten gains, and the rich are paranoid they'd be assaulted for their baubles at all times of day.

[Alet]

Are they completely morally bankrupt?

I would rather say they have different morals. Being a coldhearted monster is not determined by classes. There are definitely capitalists who do care about the consequences of their actions, but what is "good" or "bad" anyway? As Armchair Partisan has said, people already think they have done good, when they donate money. But this is not the point. When it comes to conflicts and class struggle, who cares about their intentions or rather why should we? It's their narrowmindedness which they build their morality on. They might think they can do good with money, but we know better and say there should not be money in the first place.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Capitalism isn't a system based on morality. If it was, it wouldn't survive long because the main economic decisions are not based on moral judgements. If they were, capitalism would collapse overnight because none but the sickest of humans genuinely support ideas like slavery, wage slavery, poverty, homelessness and widespread destitution out of sense of morality.

Rather, capitalism is based on - as its name suggests - capital being the dominant force in society. To create capital businesses need to make a profit. To make a profit workers must be exploited, even if this means taking morally questionable decisions. Ergo the historical phenomenon of African slavery and the modern phenomena of low wages, inequality and so on.

Also, as easy as it is to turn humans into the 'face of capitalism', and for all our vicious talk when we oppose capitalism about destroying it, violent revolution etc., it's important to remember that when you oust or otherwise bring down one capitalist, you're not cutting off the head of the snake. This is why revolutions aimed at toppling a Mubarak or a Qaddafi will fail - they aren't an expression of working class opposition to the entire capitalist class, but merely an ill-defined 'populist' expression of anger against a figurehead. Capital continues after the fall of dictators and old white money men.

[cyu]

Reminds me of http://www.revleft.com/vb/proof-plutocrats-unfit-t180387/index2.html

honest individuals were initially shielded from taking antisocial decisions – but, with time, even they slid down the slippery, corrupting slope of power.

http://phys.org/news/2015-09-results-people-cooperative-unequal-societies.html

players that had more money than others, and knew it, tended to be less cooperative. when players had more virtual money than others, but did not know it, they tended to be just as generous as those that had less money.

[Synergy]

But this is not the point. When it comes to conflicts and class struggle, who cares about their intentions or rather why should we?

I know it doesn't change anything, I'm just curious how those at the top rationalize their decisions. I agree that it depends on the person and their position.

For someone like Obama, what do you think his mindset is? Is he too privileged to understand suffering/poverty or does he genuinely not care about those people?

[cyu]

I would assume Obama is surrounded by a bubble / echo chamber of people telling him stuff that results in exactly the policy he is told to promote. He made his way up one of the mainstream parties of the USA, so one would assume the usual levers used to control Democratic politicians would also apply in his case.

Things have to be a bit more unconventional when a new party gets in power, like Syriza. In cases like that, I would imagine the power structure would use more blunt instruments to club these upstarts into submission, for example threats against their family members, or blackmail based on information gathered by the NSA.

[WideAwake]

I think that the real cause of why capitalism and all oligarchic plutocratic economic political systems are so abusive, and so evil is not really caused by the immorality or evil intentions of each individual and members of the ruling classes and their oligarchic governments.

I think it is a lot more complicated than that. The real cause of why capitalism is so abusive, is the whole system, and not really each member of the system. Each supporter, even the billionaires and millionaires of the ruling classes of USA and capitalist nations are not free individuals, they don't have total free-will. They are really slaves, just like poor people are slaves.

The wealthy, even Donald Trump do not have total freedom to break the rules of the system. For example, Donald Trump and Bill Gates cannot say tomorrow that they will quit being capitalists, and that they will become marxists or supporter of a monarchy system or fascism.

The same is true for the professional players of soccer games. They cannot touch the ball with their hands. So because most rulers, most members of the capitalist ruling class are slaves, followers, they must be obedient and loyal to how capitalism is supposed to be. A system where a few earn a lot of money and the majority are wage-slaves, billed to death and taxed to death. Producing wealth for their masters ruling classes.

So because capitalism is a system like any other system, even the wealthiests capitalists are not totally free to do what ever they want. They must abide by the rules of capitalism. And that's why it happens that some times wealthy people, very rich people have a lot less free will and less freedom than lower class people. Upper class wealthy people must follow a lot of rules, and moral codes, even in the way they dress, they are really slaves













I'm sure most of the people running the capitalist machine (government officials/corporate executives) are aware of the consequences but I'm curious to know how they actually feel about their decisions.

Are they completely morally bankrupt? Do they actually think they're doing something good using twisted rationalizations? Or do they think they have no choice in the matter because of the worship of profits?

Finally, are journalists aware of what they're hiding from the public? The executives control the message but is the research/investigating also controlled to exclude "radical thoughts" or whatever?

[cyu]

They are really slaves, just like poor people are slaves.


In many ways yes, however they are slaves in a cage of velvet and gold, rather than concrete and iron.

As studies suggest, as people climb the social ladder of power and wealth, the system tends to suppress their empathy, and their peers become more and more sociopathic in nature. This is not a healthy environment to climb into, which is why mental illness increases even among the upper class in unequal societies - being surrounded by increasing numbers of sociopaths is going to do a number on your state of mind.

I would imagine their wealth starts to resemble a nuclear arms race. Your sociopathic peers will want to take you down with their wealth - many just to prove they are better than you - so you have to gather more wealth just to fend them off. It becomes increasingly difficult to "disarm" because you need your wealth to fight off your new peers. I do remember studies that show that the more money the wealthy have, the more insecure they feel about their wealth - the more they think they need more just to avoid financial catastrophe - in some ways it is true - they realize wealth on paper isn't really wealth, it is merely the promise of wealth that has not yet been delivered. In order to secure their wealth, they would either need to bribe various politicians (which results in increased insecurity) or they would need the cooperation of their employees (which is naturally made more difficult because propping up the system of capitalism turns their employees into their natural enemies).

[Luís Henrique]

They are really slaves, just like poor people are slaves.

While this may be an overstatement, capitalism is certainly not a machine run by people, it is a machine that runs people.

They would in any case be house slaves, if we stick to the analogy.

Luís Henrique

[Hatshepsut]

I think it is a lot more complicated than that.

It is. Wealth differentials predate written history, yet a signal fact in connection is that it has been kept hidden behind walls from the very beginning. One just can’t sit on a pile of shit in full view of envious neighbors with a straight face, expecting to hold sole possession for very long. Successful hunters returning from the bush don’t eat in front of a hungry tribe; instead there is a feast. Wealth requires privacy. The invention of money facilitated wider social gaps by adding anonymous economic transactions to the equation. Whereas people usually at least knew who was behind the wall, now they might have no idea which of the little leather purses was fatter than before; gold coins dropping silently behind closed doors to promote the favored few above the rest.

Capitalist states themselves dislike the untraceability of cash, putting brakes on it as a result. The USA encourages credit cards or online payments, requires banks to report all cash deposits or withdrawals exceeding $10K, and has refused to print any bill larger than $100 since 1929, allowing inflation to slowly render cash worthless for large purchases. Business ownership is largely secret as well despite transparency rules. Only companies that trade publicly on the stock markets need reveal names of actual owners to anyone except the revenue bureau, and this is one of the areas where government does protect your information. Those firms which must publish to investors often resort to elaborate shell ruses to disguise who has controlling interests in what.

In short, I suspect capitalism isn’t really a matter of lacking the milk of human kindness, but of hiding one’s ambition. Plutocrats have about as much personal sympathy as anyone else. It’s just that they circulate in a rarefied world where what happens to everyone else happens in the abstract, as economic factors, not as people. We don’t have mothers starving in Burkina Faso; rather we have quotations like “ASX sorghum 296¼ Jan ’16.”

[WideAwake]

Cyu: You are right about how there is a link between the income of a person, and their personal behaviour patterns. I've noticed that high-income middle class workers (Like doctors, nurses, white collar high salary office workers) are more psychorigid, less communicative, less friendlier, less sociable, than for example a person who works at a Mcdonalds, a Wal Mart worker, or an unemployed homeless person.

I mean it's a lot easier to strike a conversation about food prices, the weather or any other topic with a homeless. Than with a yuppie doctor, yuppie lawyer you see at grocery stores. They are so anti-communication, in their body language, facial expressions. That some times I think that most high salary workers behave like if they are acting in a movie. Their behaviour is so fake and not natural

So you are very correct in how the people who are very loyal and compromised with the capitalist system follow an egocentric, narcissistical, family-narcissist, group-narcissist, mysanthropist behaviour script. Totally different from the more flexible, open minded and friendlier and more outgoing behaviour script of homeless people, low-wage workers and the poor people









In many ways yes, however they are slaves in a cage of velvet and gold, rather than concrete and iron.

As studies suggest, as people climb the social ladder of power and wealth, the system tends to suppress their empathy, and their peers become more and more sociopathic in nature. This is not a healthy environment to climb into, which is why mental illness increases even among the upper class in unequal societies - being surrounded by increasing numbers of sociopaths is going to do a number on your state of mind.

I would imagine their wealth starts to resemble a nuclear arms race. Your sociopathic peers will want to take you down with their wealth - many just to prove they are better than you - so you have to gather more wealth just to fend them off. It becomes increasingly difficult to "disarm" because you need your wealth to fight off your new peers. I do remember studies that show that the more money the wealthy have, the more insecure they feel about their wealth - the more they think they need more just to avoid financial catastrophe - in some ways it is true - they realize wealth on paper isn't really wealth, it is merely the promise of wealth that has not yet been delivered. In order to secure their wealth, they would either need to bribe various politicians (which results in increased insecurity) or they would need the cooperation of their employees (which is naturally made more difficult because propping up the system of capitalism turns their employees into their natural enemies).

[Klaatu]

"Are they completely morally bankrupt? Do they actually think they're doing something good using twisted rationalizations? Or do they think they have no choice in the matter because of the worship of profits?"

They actually believe they are doing good. I don't know how these guys sleep at night. But my guess is that since they think they are doing good, they sleep well... but what they are doing is actually the classic definition of evil: Believing something is good when it is actually immoral.

1 Timothy 6:9-10
"'Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."

Matthew 19:24
"...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

[cyu]

what they are doing is actually the classic definition of evil: Believing something is good when it is actually immoral

At the risk of Godwinning myself, the Nazis thought what they were doing was good for humanity too, which is why they felt perfectly alright documenting their own atrocities, since they thought posterity deserved to know of all the "good" things they were doing.

...so we also have to ask ourselves, how do we know when what we do is truly "good" or are we only mistaking evil for good? So far, I still stick to the definition of empathy - the less of it available, the further you are from "good".

[WideAwake]

Cool revolutionary anti-capitalism biblical verses. There is another anti-wealthy class verse in the bible in James 5:1-6. No wonder some thinkers have claimed that The French Revolution, and most social popular revolutions of the last 2000 years are the continuity of christianity ideals:

James 5:1-6 (New International Version):

Warning to Rich Oppressors. Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.






They actually believe they are doing good. I don't know how these guys sleep at night. But my guess is that since they think they are doing good, they sleep well... but what they are doing is actually the classic definition of evil: Believing something is good when it is actually immoral.

1 Timothy 6:9-10
"'Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."

Matthew 19:24
"...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”