on capitalist ethics

[black magick hustla]

how can you ethically justify capitalism?

i mean, i dont have anything against pragmatic pro-capitalists (like publius). who prefer capitalism simply because he finds it much more feasable and convenient for the population than communism. i think he is pretty bright, brighter than most of the communist membership in the board. He doesnt exposes crap about how big capitalists are "hard working", and how private property is the most fair thing ever.

however capitalist ideology is just too bankrupt.

how can you justify morally the centralization of the means of production in a few hands? how can you justify morally than the biggest capitalists do not do any administration any more, and instead, engineers and other specialized administratiors do most of the "brainy work"?

Indeed, the capitalist class--which was once useful--has become rather useless and do not deserve a place in history. i mean after all, they do not do any administration any more, and instead have an army of middle class cadre that does all the administrative work for them.

And yet, big capitalists are the ones that receive the biggest piece of the pie!

how can you ethically justify this?

i mean, you can call us utopians or whatever--but ethically inferior? what the fuck is wrong with all of you.

[colonelguppy]

i don't know, how can you morally and ethically justify having the means of production owned by everyone?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 05:23 AM
i don't know, how can you morally and ethically justify having the means of production owned by everyone?
oh, of course we can't

but it doesnt matters because we are pragmatists and immoralists--we are communists because it is in our self-interest to be.

however, atleast i, do not try to justify my position morally. many of you, however, do.

[Janus]

The assumption that the pursuits of individual interests are best for the collective society.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

how can you ethically justify capitalism?
The problem with this question is that ethics are subjective and therefore the capitalists could provide you with an answer that to them makes perfect sense, but to you is complete garbage.

With this in mind, we are forced to reconsider your following point:


oh, of course we can't

but it doesnt matters because we are pragmatists and immoralists--we are communists because it is in our self-interest to be.
Here you are claiming that Communism cannot be ethically justified, but that we don't need to because we have objective and practical facts on our side.

Well, first of all, if you acknowledge that even a system as perfect and benevolent as Communism cannot be ethically justified, then surely no system can be ethically justified. And so you put forward the original question about how capitalism can be ethically justified knowing full well that the question could not be answered, possibly as some kind of trick question to weaken your opponents' position? Nice try, however your argument lacks any logical basis and that is what we need.

Also, who says Communism cannot be ethically justified? Anything can be ethically justified, if you have the right ethical views. You say we have objective facts on our side; what objective facts would these be? Keeping in mind this argument is about the ethical justification for, and not the historical inevitability of, a given society.

I'm assuming you're talking about the fact that Communism benefits more people than capitalism. This is undoubtedly true. And this is one of the main reasons I am a Communist, because from my ethical point of view a society should aim to please all its members. And so I can ethically justify Communism in my mind. However, a capitalist who believes that the individual should place his own needs before the needs of society would not understand this. Instead, they would view a system that favors individualist economic autonomy as ethically justified.

So, if both systems are ethically justified in the minds of their respective proponents, who is actually right?

Well, I am. Naturally.

;)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Patton, is that the like age-old "Communism may be a theory, but cannot be applied."?
So you're willing to work against something you believe is a good theory because you recognize that the anti-communists are presently stronger and overpower the communists? Damn. You suck. You're essentially committing treason against yourself.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 05:44 AM
because we are pragmatists
Pragmatists generally do not advocate policies based on things like "everyone agreeing through consensus what goods to produce and everyone working hard for the good of the collective while the robots do the hard work."

What sounds pragmatic at 17 is laughable at age 30.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Marmot+Oct 16 2006, 12:44 AM--> (Marmot @ Oct 16 2006, 12:44 AM)
[email protected] 16 2006, 05:23 AM
i don't know, how can you morally and ethically justify having the means of production owned by everyone?
oh, of course we can't

but it doesnt matters because we are pragmatists and immoralists--we are communists because it is in our self-interest to be.

however, atleast i, do not try to justify my position morally. many of you, however, do. [/b]
everyone justifies themselves morally in one way or another. i know i do.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 16 2006, 05:06 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 16 2006, 05:06 PM)
[email protected] 16 2006, 05:44 AM
because we are pragmatists
Pragmatists generally do not advocate policies based on things like "everyone agreeing through consensus what goods to produce and everyone working hard for the good of the collective while the robots do the hard work."

What sounds pragmatic at 17 is laughable at age 30. [/b]
oh of course they do.

we are reaching a world of post-scarcity and at the same time, a decadent period of capitalism. the abolition of capitalism and wage-slavery would imply less working hours and a better life condition.

why wouldnt i want a world of abundance where i am not alienated?

how is this not pragmatric?

[Publius]

how can you justify morally the centralization of the means of production in a few hands?

They had them produced. They produced the resources necessary to build them, they showed the initiative, they made the investment.

If means of production could just exist, spontaneously, without any effort from capitalists, they would. But they don't. Why is this?


how can you justify morally than the biggest capitalists do not do any administration any more, and instead, engineers and other specialized administratiors do most of the "brainy work"?

I don't know.

How can you justify, morally, forcing people to work? You're essentially saying capitalists should not have the oppurtunity to do no work, that is, you're compelling them to do work.

How is that moral? How is that not slavery?



Indeed, the capitalist class--which was once useful--has become rather useless and do not deserve a place in history.

Maybe true.

I doubt it, but perhaps.


i mean after all, they do not do any administration any more, and instead have an army of middle class cadre that does all the administrative work for them.

At the very least capitalists invest, which is actually an integral function of the economy.



And yet, big capitalists are the ones that receive the biggest piece of the pie!

Yes, because their actions have the most overall influence on the economy.

This is of course self-perpetuating, but I don't really see how to solve that other than via confiscatory taxation.



how can you ethically justify this?

You could deny ethics.

That would work.



i mean, you can call us utopians or whatever--but ethically inferior? what the fuck is wrong with all of you.

I don't really see what's so ethical about communism. What's really ethical about having the product of your labor taken for use? What's ethical about forcing people to work or even allowing people to not work?

I doubt you realize it or not, but there's nothing you can do to get a perfectly ethical society without arbitrarily claiming ethics to be 'what you believe'.

For example, some communists think the only ethical way to live is be assured that everyone could get the basic necessities without work. But that doesn't sound ethical to me; the lazy get off with doing nothing? Other communists say you have to work, at least put in effort, to get things. That isn't ethical either; you're forced to work.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

They had them produced. They produced the resources necessary to build them, they showed the initiative, they made the investment.

The workers produced the resources necessary to build them. And the workers also produced the capital used in the investment. If the workers had ownership of this capital, there would be nothing preventing them from investing it.


If means of production could just exist, spontaneously, without any effort from capitalists, they would. But they don't. Why is this?

Investments come from whoever owns capital. Capitalists own capital through force and coercion.
There is no reason why workers could not make investments using collectively-owned capital.


How can you justify, morally, forcing people to work? You're essentially saying capitalists should not have the oppurtunity to do no work, that is, you're compelling them to do work.

If they wish to indulge in the producst of labor, they would have to contribute labor. Like everyone else.


How is that moral? How is that not slavery?

Collectivisation means that the people who produce and offer goods and services have direct ownership of the product of their labor. This is anything but slavery.


At the very least capitalists invest, which is actually an integral function of the economy.

Anybody who owns capital can invest it. A collective of workers, a government, a capitalist, etc.


Yes, because their actions have the most overall influence on the economy.

Because they have capital.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 02:13 PM
I am a person that needs proof that something will really work. And until there is a real communist state set up somewhere communism is just a theory. A wonderful theory but only a theory.
Good thing most people don't think like this.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 09:38 PM




They had them produced. They produced the resources necessary to build them, they showed the initiative, they made the investment.


i doubt they produced the "resources", they simply had the opportunity, luck, and competitive mind to have the initiative.

however they dont have "initiatives" anymore, they hire people for that.

Who cares if they made the investment. kings made investments all the time



If means of production could just exist, spontaneously, without any effort from capitalists, they would. But they don't. Why is this?

as i said before, they dont have "initiatives" anymore. they hire professionals for that.


How can you justify, morally, forcing people to work? You're essentially saying capitalists should not have the oppurtunity to do no work, that is, you're compelling them to do work.

oh, i dont really care about ethically justifying my position. As i said before, i am a pragmatist.

however, what do i know is if it wasnt for those capitalist assholes i would be able to get much more out of fewer hours of work.



How is that moral? How is that not slavery?


it is not slavery for the simple fact that in a socialist society, they would have the same leverage as anyone.


At the very least capitalists invest, which is actually an integral function of the economy.
of course they invest, they are the only ones with capital.


Yes, because their actions have the most overall influence on the economy.

This is of course self-perpetuating, but I don't really see how to solve that other than via confiscatory taxation.

of course their actions influence more the economy.

that is why the means of production need to be removed from their hands.


I don't really see what's so ethical about communism. What's really ethical about having the product of your labor taken for use? What's ethical about forcing people to work or even allowing people to not work?

I doubt you realize it or not, but there's nothing you can do to get a perfectly ethical society without arbitrarily claiming ethics to be 'what you believe'.

For example, some communists think the only ethical way to live is be assured that everyone could get the basic necessities without work. But that doesn't sound ethical to me; the lazy get off with doing nothing? Other communists say you have to work, at least put in effort, to get things. That isn't ethical either; you're forced to work.
i dont think communism is "ethical".

but i never claimed i was a communist for moral reasons either. however, rpo-capitalists keep exposing that disgusting crap about how valuable and "morally correct" are property, work, and their "democratic" values",. fuck those philistines.

[Publius]

The workers produced the resources necessary to build them. And the workers also produced the capital used in the investment. If the workers had ownership of this capital, there would be nothing preventing them from investing it.

Why can't workers own capital? What restriction is there on capital ownership?

If all that were required were workers and work capitalists wouldn't exist at all, period. Workers would just up and start factories and capitalists would never get the chance to amass capital, period.



Investments come from whoever owns capital.

Nearly everyone owns some amount of capital.


Capitalists own capital through force and coercion.

Demonstrate this.



There is no reason why workers could not make investments using collectively-owned capital.

My point exactly.

Workers could pool their existing capital and make investments as a collective.

Why don't they?

Maybe because it's easier and more expedient to have someone else supply the capital while they supply the labor, and then split the proceeds?

It's right in front of you: workers could collectively start and run factories, but they don't because it's much easier to just work for a wage.




If they wish to indulge in the producst of labor, they would have to contribute labor. Like everyone else.


Yes, and?

How is that ethical?

They are impelled to work.



Collectivisation means that the people who produce and offer goods and services have direct ownership of the product of their labor. This is anything but slavery.


How would one own what one produces when one works and produces collectively?



Anybody who owns capital can invest it. A collective of workers, a government, a capitalist, etc.

You're practically making my points for me.

Workers could invest on their own, or do it via government, but they choose to do it through capitalists. Why?



Because they have capital.

A lot of it, yes.

But not all of it.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 16 2006, 11:16 PM



Good thing most people don't think like this.

What's that, scientifically?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Why can't workers own capital? What restriction is there on capital ownership?

Workers without capital have always existed and will always exist in capitalism. It's not only an inherent quality of capitalism, it's necessary for capitalism to function.


If all that were required were workers and work capitalists wouldn't exist at all, period. Workers would just up and start factories and capitalists would never get the chance to amass capital, period.

How capitalism began is a matter purely for spuculation. But there is absolutely nothing you can say right now which will prove that modern economies need someone whose only inherent purpose is to have capital.


Nearly everyone owns some amount of capital.

Capital is used to generate capital. If it isn't used as such, it isn't capital, is it?


Demonstrate this.

Nobody can amass a collective product passively. A group of workers don't simply produce goods and offer it to a given person. This occurs because the capitalist economic paradigm is forced upon billions of workers.


My point exactly.

Workers could pool their existing capital and make investments as a collective.

Why don't they?

Maybe because it's easier and more expedient to have someone else supply the capital while they supply the labor, and then split the proceeds?

It's right in front of you: workers could collectively start and run factories, but they don't because it's much easier to just work for a wage.

Factory workers hardly have the means to make or purchase a factory.


Yes, and?

How is that ethical?

How is it not ethical?


How would one own what one produces when one works and produces collectively?

One would individually own a proportional fraction of the collective product.
Rather than an inherently unjust market value.


You're practically making my points for me.

Workers could invest on their own, or do it via government, but they choose to do it through capitalists. Why?

In socialism, workers would invest capital. The structure doesn't exist in capitalism. Wages are not capital. Even en masse. People need to surive first. Capitalism is very well-suited to keeping working-class people working for capitalists.


What's that, scientifically?

People struggle for ideas regardless of whether concrete models of what they envision exist.

[Publius]

Workers without capital have always existed and will always exist in capitalism. It's not only an inherent quality of capitalism, it's necessary for capitalism to function.

How so?



How capitalism began is a matter purely for spuculation. But there is absolutely nothing you can say right now which will prove that modern economies need someone whose only inherent purpose is to have capital.

Not 'have capital', allocate capital.

Venture capitalists, for example, don't just 'have capital', but give to people who need it (like workers).

Without them, it would be even more difficult to amass capital.

In this sense, they serve a good.

What's wrong with venture capitalism?



Capital is used to generate capital. If it isn't used as such, it isn't capital, is it?

There's so-called 'dead capital'.

Land, for instance is capital, it could be sold. Your house is also capital.



Nobody can amass a collective product passively. A group of workers don't simply produce goods and offer it to a given person. This occurs because the capitalist economic paradigm is forced upon billions of workers.


I don't see how that has anything to do with it.

Basically you're saying "things are the way the are because they are the way they are."



Factory workers hardly have the means to make or purchase a factory.

Well, to be honest, they don't have the technical know-how, the necessary equipment, the impetus, anything really.

But no, they don't have the means. I can't see that they would ever have the means. Would a group of workers one day up and decide "Hey guys, let's build another factory, in addition to the one we already work at!", just for the hell of it?

Go in front of the commune to demand hundreds of millions of dollars to build a chair factory or something? It's absurd.



How is it not ethical?

Because they are impelled to work.

It's a limitation on their freedom.



One would individually own a proportional fraction of the collective product.
Rather than an inherently unjust market value.

So would all the goods be owned collectively, or would they all be owned by those who put labor into them?



In socialism, workers would invest capital.

Where would they get it?


The structure doesn't exist in capitalism. Wages are not capital. Even en masse. People need to surive first. Capitalism is very well-suited to keeping working-class people working for capitalists.

I've heard it's very easy to get venture capital. "Angel investors" and all that. Among tech firms it's literally given away.

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 05:23 AM
i don't know, how can you morally and ethically justify having the means of production owned by everyone?
That wasnt even an answer, more of turning the question around, when one doesnt know how to answer

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by LoneRed+Oct 16 2006, 08:48 PM--> (LoneRed @ Oct 16 2006, 08:48 PM)
[email protected] 16 2006, 05:23 AM
i don't know, how can you morally and ethically justify having the means of production owned by everyone?
That wasnt even an answer, more of turning the question around, when one doesnt know how to answer [/b]
i don't know how to answer because there is no answer. read the thread.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 16 2006, 06:46 PM
Patton, is that the like age-old "Communism may be a theory, but cannot be applied."?
So you're willing to work against something you believe is a good theory because you recognize that the anti-communists are presently stronger and overpower the communists? Damn. You suck. You're essentially committing treason against yourself.
hmm no his problem isn't that capislts are more powerful, rather that communsim despite sounding nice hasn't been succesufl

[Zero]

Originally posted by theraven+Oct 17 2006, 04:06 AM--> (theraven @ Oct 17 2006, 04:06 AM)
Dr. [email protected] 16 2006, 06:46 PM
Patton, is that the like age-old "Communism may be a theory, but cannot be applied."?
So you're willing to work against something you believe is a good theory because you recognize that the anti-communists are presently stronger and overpower the communists? Damn. You suck. You're essentially committing treason against yourself.
hmm no his problem isn't that capislts are more powerful, rather that communsim despite sounding nice hasn't been succesufl [/b]
Which is the inverse of saying that I won't support them because they haven't produced a successful revolution.

Therefore, that the Capitalists are more powerful. ;-)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

How so?

People who acquire capital cease to be workers. And workers are required for capitalism to function.


Not 'have capital', allocate capital.

All capital is allicated as such.
Otherwise it isn't capital. It's just money.


Venture capitalists, for example, don't just 'have capital', but give to people who need it (like workers).

Exactly. And there is no reason why workers, collectively, cannot serve this function.


There's so-called 'dead capital'.

Land, for instance is capital, it could be sold. Your house is also capital.

Exactly. Many workers, in the US and Western Europe, for instance, probably own something which can function as capital. But one house isn't capital. Unless you choose to live on the streets collecting rent from it.
This negates your point that workers have capital.


But no, they don't have the means. I can't see that they would ever have the means. Would a group of workers one day up and decide "Hey guys, let's build another factory, in addition to the one we already work at!", just for the hell of it?

Go in front of the commune to demand hundreds of millions of dollars to build a chair factory or something? It's absurd.

It would be in interest of the commune and the workers to have more goods and more jobs.
If neither are required for the workers, I hardly see why the workers' hard-earned capital should be used to build more factories. This is the injustice of capitalism.


Because they are impelled to work.

It's a limitation on their freedom.

Unlike capitalists, we have long-since recognized that absolute freedom is inexistent.

No rights without duties
No duties without rights


So would all the goods be owned collectively, or would they all be owned by those who put labor into them?

Collectively.


Where would they get it?

Workers collectively would invest capital. They would get it from their collecive labor.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by patton+Oct 17 2006, 11:59 AM--> (patton @ Oct 17 2006, 11:59 AM)
Originally posted by theraven+Oct 17 2006, 04:06 AM--> (theraven @ Oct 17 2006, 04:06 AM)
Dr. [email protected] 16 2006, 06:46 PM
Patton, is that the like age-old "Communism may be a theory, but cannot be applied."?
So you're willing to work against something you believe is a good theory because you recognize that the anti-communists are presently stronger and overpower the communists? Damn. You suck. You're essentially committing treason against yourself.
hmm no his problem isn't that capislts are more powerful, rather that communsim despite sounding nice hasn't been succesufl [/b]
Exactlly theraven. [/b]
Like I already said, it doesn't matter because luckily for us, most people don't think this way.


Dr Rosenpenis
People struggle for ideas regardless of whether concrete models of what they envision exist.

[Tungsten]

Marmot

how can you ethically justify capitalism?

i mean, i dont have anything against pragmatic pro-capitalists (like publius). who prefer capitalism simply because he finds it much more feasable and convenient for the population than communism. i think he is pretty bright, brighter than most of the communist membership in the board. He doesnt exposes crap about how big capitalists are "hard working", and how private property is the most fair thing ever.

however capitalist ideology is just too bankrupt.
You see it as bankrupt because your set of ethical standards are different (and wrong, but that's another story). It's therefore a waste of time trying to defend, or attack an ideology on moral grounds.


how can you justify morally the centralization of the means of production in a few hands?
You probably can't, but there's two answers to this:

1- Who owns the means of production is irrelevent provided is wasn't stolen.

2- The dismissal of "Concentration of the means of production into a few hands" as a marxist interpretation of capitalism not a capitalist one.

I agre with both of these. My means of production - my labour- is in few hands too- mine.

how can you justify morally than the biggest capitalists do not do any administration any more, and instead, engineers and other specialized administratiors do most of the "brainy work"?
Again, point 1.

Indeed, the capitalist class--which was once useful--has become rather useless and do not deserve a place in history.
We're entering dangerous ground here. There are a large quantity of people on earth ~80% who don't deserve a place in history and are of little use anymore.

And yet, big capitalists are the ones that receive the biggest piece of the pie!

how can you ethically justify this?
This is a marxist interpretation of (labour theory of value) economics (also wrong).

i mean, you can call us utopians or whatever--but ethically inferior? what the fuck is wrong with all of you.
We don't share your ethical standards.

oh, of course we can't

but it doesnt matters because we are pragmatists and immoralists--we are communists because it is in our self-interest to be.

however, atleast i, do not try to justify my position morally. many of you, however, do.
You lie; you're doing it all the god-damned time. "Look at these digusting capitalists with all that money while the wretched of africa starve!" And you're not pragmatists otherwise you would have abandoned communism as unworkable long ago.

Dr. Rosenpenis

The workers produced the resources necessary to build them. And the workers also produced the capital used in the investment. If the workers had ownership of this capital, there would be nothing preventing them from investing it.
And if any of this was true, the capitalist would never have existed in the first place.