The best way to self validate my own opinions is to debate little kids on a completely irrelevant forum site.
I believe capitalism is the most moral political system. Change my mind.
Printable View
The best way to self validate my own opinions is to debate little kids on a completely irrelevant forum site.
I believe capitalism is the most moral political system. Change my mind.
Moral? No
Needed? Yes
whats moral about capitalism?
I feel like Capitalism is immoral, because it allows private owners to designate what they can do with their products and how much importance it has, whereas if it were controlled by an entity, there would be a justified cost.
In some cases, capitalism makes sense. In others- not so much.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Freedom, liberty, cheaper products, civil rights, consumer power.
How is it immoral for a manufacturer to have the freedom to sell their product at which ever price they want. That sounds like freedom. Further more an entity valuing the price (I assume you're talking about a central planned economy) of someone else's own labour and or capital is far more immoral.
TLDR It's their stuff why can't they sell it at whatever price they want?
Because there's no way I'm spending $1000 for an XBOX because Microsoft justifies that it's valued like that.
I'd rather have the price of the item vary based on mass production and overall sales.
Another good perspective would be to consider gas companies selling gas.
It'd be inconvenient to the consumer if gas companies were decisive about how much gas was, whereas if the government determines how much they'll buy gas to benefit the consumer based on demand, the consumer benefits from the deal.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Capitalism is expensive
Lol disagreeing with this leads you to only two other economic systems, socialism and communism. So if you disagree lets make it a bit more interesting please.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A. Why do you have the right to choose and enforce the price of other people’s services and or products? That’s seems very immoral
B. The government is worse at regulating prices as there is no risk of bankruptsy and zero corporations (or people) to compete with. It’s competition which drives down price.
C. Without capitalism the xbox wouldn’t have been invented to begin with.
What ideology is cheaper then? Free market and competition make things cheaper.
There is also, fascism and crony capitalism.
Perhaps capitalism is superior to other economic systems (comparatively to socialism, communism etc) but to describe capitalism as simply moral, one would need to ignore some overarching issues.
I think when capitalism takes a cynical turning is when there is an absence of a *fair* free market and competition.
An example of capitalism at its finest is the eyeglass monopoly. 'Luxottica' an manufacturer makes eyeglass frames for:
Prada, Chanel, Dolce & Gabbana, Versace, Burberry,Ralph, Lauren, Tiffany, Bulgari, Vogue, Persol, Coach, DKNY, Rayban, Oakley, Sunglasses Hut, LensCrafters, Oliver Peoples, Pearle Vision, Target Optical, Sears Optical (and more)
It controls 80% of the major brands in the $28 billion global eyeglasses industry
Now, of course companies being able to control what price their goods are being sold, but it needs to be considered to what extent can this power have. This monopoly of a company, which giving consumers merely the illusion of choice, can charge people $400-500 for glasses which the glass, metal, and plastic for it cost $25-50
An example in which people can literally die because of capitalism is the predatory capitalistic approach to epipens. A simple device that saves lives in the case of severe allergic reactions — costs $70 and the price to manufacture it costs a fraction. However as Mylan has bought the rights to epipens, it now cost $600 for a 2 pack.
These are only a few examples which have the same framework as other industries.
I personally believe that these and other essential goods should not financially cripple families, particularly those of low socioeconomic status
I want to make clear, in no way am I saying other forms of economic systems are better than capitalism. And I believe to term it as most moral or moral is hard to apply to capitalism.
Capitalism is neither moral nor immoral it is neutral. All economic and political systems with the exception of fascism and dictatorships are theoretically neutral. It's how they are managed which applies "good" or "bad" to them.
Capitalism is fine as long as it's regulated so that it doesn't destroy resources or pay workers less than a living wage.
An example of "bad" capitalism would be American capitalism generally, i.e. capitalism controlling the hearth care sector, pharmacy etc. Banks gone crazy, wall street and so on.
Good capitalism (good-ish) can be seen through some of the public works efforts undertaken by companies like Google and Facebook.
Companies cannot be trusted to regulate themselves as they will in most cases do what is best for the stock-holders which is to achieve a higher profit margin, the issue with that is that this normally includes lay-offs and sending jobs off-shore where they can hire someone for like $1 a day. They will also raise prices when given tax cuts because why not? If the government did not regulate corporations there would be a lot of suffering on the part of the worker as safety restrictions would be eased, pay would be less, unions would be even more stigmatized than they are already (in America anyway). It would be a nightmare.
The question you have to ask yourself is that if capitalism was moral and it worked as intended (a different discussion I guess) why does trickle down economics fail every time it is tried?
The future of capitalism, a "healthy" capitalism is one that lets the free market operate but one that is balanced and restrained by reasonable measures to ensure that it does not cause damage, this included tax reform and in an American context updating the constitution to reflect the idea that "companies are people" in the eyes of the law (Citizen United) and as such they have an obligation to do what is right for society not only the stock-holders.
It couldn't be said better then from RenoDorvay. Capitalism and largely other economic/political systems are inherently morally neutral (as a theoretical concept). The morality aspect (morally good, morally bad) from these systems are dependent on how it is 'operated'.
If we were to consider Communism in regards to simply and only the ideology of a non-capitalist economy, where there is collective social ownership of industry, commerce, etc, as an ideal many would find it favourable, nevertheless morally neutral. However, I believe when it becomes 'morally bad' is how it is put into practice. Communism, particular in Russia, there was no material prosperity, real democracy for working people as well as greed empowered dicatorships, indoctrination, force obedience etc. And ultimately, it is the way it's regulated is where Communism and other political/economic systems becomes 'morally bad (or potentially morally good)'.
(Whether Communism could actually be put into practice is a different discussion)
This is the point I wanted to say, that capitalism, as a system, is difficult to be termed morally good nor morally bad
I would also like to state that the black and white fallacy, that something is only either morally good or morally bad and nothing more, should not be made. Morality is a spectrum.
- - - Updated - - -
@RenoDorvay. Could you please explain what you are referring to when you say, "public works efforts" and how does this demonstrates good capitalism.
I would to like to make it clear that these are all examples of crony capitalism and are in many cases illegal. Capitalism does not condone anti-competitive behaviour as it is counterintuitive to the ideology of investing and selling capital in a free market.
I agree for the most part except for two things.
1. “All economic and political systems with the exception of fascism and dictatorships”
I would disagree and say communism and anarchism is also inherently immoral.
2. “An example of "bad" capitalism would be American capitalism generally, i.e. capitalism controlling the hearth care sector, pharmacy etc. Banks gone crazy, wall street and so on”
This isn’t capitalism gone bad this is caused by government killing capitalism. Health care and pharmaceuticals have gone bad due to their socialisation.
Banks are a fine example of government interference and crony capitalism, the reasons these banks are so reckless is because the government bails them out whenever they go bankrupt (there is effectively no risk).
Finally, I’m not sure what the problem with wall street it? It is one of the biggest employers of American people.
- - - Updated - - -
A. I would argue communism is inherently immoral because it punishes hard work.
B. If morality is a spectrum to what extent does it lie within the positive or negative side.
I would say Facebook giving certain countries and areas "free" internet via special balloons as a positive, even if there are ulterior motives the outcome of this is generally positive. Google provides utilities like Google Maps for free even though we pay for them it in other ways it is highly sophisticated software that we do not get charged to use, think about how expensive GPS units were years ago, hundreds of dollars to get a unit that could do what Maps does on your phone for free. I know that's a poor example but it's all I can think of off-hand and I love Maps lol.
Communism is neutral. People only feel that it is immoral because the idea of restructuring the economy and introducing a new way of handling economic matters is jarring to a lot of people. There's this idea that communism means every person will literally have to give a poor person money or possessions but the reality is that it's more a spectrum with banana fascist republics pretending to be communism (where you really do have to give people, the government officials, your money) on one end and "capitalist communist" states like China (where I'm sure poor people do get screwed but the middle class do okay) on the other end. You can still be a millionaire and live a good life in China, but you can also be terribly poor and have a terrible life.
It's also worth noting that the versions of communism we do see active in the world are region specific versions and they don't necessarily follow the lay-out that Marx wrote, I don't think Marx would have approved of the corruption that we see in communist countries. Communism is not a very good political system and it does not succeed in practice because the economy that Karl Marx lived through and envisioned for the future did not anticipate our global economy and life-style changes, it is a flawed system but not an immoral one because its central tenet is equality for the "proletariat" because when it was written laborers had it tough, a lot tougher than laborers do in western countries now.
Anarchism is even more neutral than communism as it is at its core just about decentralised government, there is still "government" it's just more like a loose association of different fluid bodies, groups and territories all of whom control their own rules and regulations independently of each other. It would be messy but messy isn't necessarily immoral, it's just messy.
The idea that an anarchy system literally means no rules and no authority is an idea perpetuated by conservatives, I do not support anarchism but I do think it is misrepresented.
In regards to your second point I come from Australia where we have socialised (about 70% socialised imo because we don't get dental or optical cover - you need private for that) health care and our country does fine, it's not very expensive and health care professionals still make money. The same can be said for Canada and other countries.
"Socialism" has been turned into this scary word that conservatives like to haul around trying to spook people with during election cycles but the truth is that modern "socialism" just means strengthening the safety net and enforcing regulations and fixing tax loop holes.
A. I'm not talking about communism from it's corrupt perspective although that is still highly relevant. I dispute the very core of marxist theory. The idea that punishing hard work can be considered moral is highly delusion. Furthermore even theoretical marxism fails to work economically in principle. It's effective at the redistribution of wealth but fails entirely at it's production. Which is why it's failed multiple times.
B. Australia's government expenditure on health in 2016-17 was $71.4 billion and it's socialisation is insignificant to the likes of Canada. Which by the way has waiting times so unreliable and long it would be a human rights violation if it weren't government owned and run.
C. Being a (libertarian) conservative myself you clearly don't understand the argument being made here. Socialism is an ideology which supports more government power and control (otherwise known as big government). People are afraid of socialism because it is associated with more taxation, social and economic regulation. Ultimately leading to an inefficient and slow economy. Historically speaking socialist states have always failed. Not one has ever lead to wealth and prosperity. The left and the media were praising Venezuela when it initially went socialist, well look how that turned out.
Marxism fails because Marx was wrong about a lot of things, as I said earlier he got a lot of his math and theory wrong in the long run because the world did not turn out the way he anticipated it would so basically his economic arguments have all been made redundant as I understand it, but I thought this thread was about morality not actual real world workings. I could only get through half of Capital because it's such a slog and I didn't like it but I don't remember a part of the book that called for punishment and abuse, this discussion shouldn't be based on real world anecdotes and instead actual theories of Marx and whether they're moral or immoral or more broadly how capitalism with all of its unintentional slave labor, ecological destruction and corruption is morally better or worse than the alternatives.
"Socialism" in a western context means "democratic socialism", which is just strengthening the safety net. No-one wants to run an actually fully socialist government because that would be a disaster. The "look at Venezuela" rebuttal might as well be a cliche at this point because it's just over-done and it's very misunderstood by conservative pundits. Venezuela suffers not only because of failed socialist policies but because of a corrupt and anti-intellectual government which is tearing the country apart from the inside. To say that socialism caused its problems is a cop out: look here.
"Socialism" bought Australia medicare, which for me is enough to justify Australian socialist principles. I agree that the health care cost is high but it's not a problem in a real world perspective. If our country spent less money supporting the dying coal industry (which our government politicians primarily in the Liberal party have a personal stake in) and stopped cutting tax for the rich it wouldn't be such a big issue. Not to mention spending money on stupid stuff like sending extra chaplains to schools and giving money to privately funded religious and elite colleges.
In regards to whether or not I "understand" socialism as an ideology, that's an interesting thing to say because it assumes that your understanding of an ideology is the correct or most valid one. You identify as a libertarian conservative, which somehow gives you a keener insight into a philosophy you don't subscribe to. Your view of socialism is coloured by your libertarian ideas about what socialism is, and that's different from mine.
It's important that we see and recognize the differences in the way we look at the world. We can both be right because the reality is we're probably talking about two sides of the same coin.
You are not wrong in your ideas about socialism, if socialism is looked at from a certain angle your thoughts certainly are correct. But that angle paints socialism as a kind of thievery, which is in-line with the whole "taxation is theft" stuff. The way I see socialism, or "social democracy", is that it should be regular democratic capitalism that has safety measures built in to ensure that people don't suffer unnecessarily. "Socialism" directly or indirectly bought us the union movement, a minimum wage, disability pensions, welfare assistance for those who need it, public schooling and public libraries, all of which have improved millions of lives of people world wide leading to happier and smarter people. That's not a bad thing.
I don't agree with the assertion that socialism wants to regulate society in any way that a capitalist state wouldn't. Economic regulation is not a bad thing to me, but economics is a staple arguing point between left and right thinkers.
To get my thoughts back on track communism isn't immoral because Marx approached it from the view of "what's best for the workers", the people doing the hard labor, as far as I'm aware he didn't call for punishments or any kind of brutality. If I'm wrong I'll own it and I would have learned something new. Even if it does fail economically (which I'm not debating), that doesn't make the underpinning immoral it just makes the theory flawed. I wouldn't call communism moral either because no economic theory is moral, in every economic model ever devised someone has to "win" more other people, the inverse is true too that no economic model is immoral because human decision making effects the way they're implemented which is what actually affects the real world, not the theory.
Very rarely is an ideology implemented as it was supposed to be implemented. Capitalism is no exception, the current version of capitalism is different from Wealth of Nation's principles after all because it evolved as our technology did. A "communist" example can be seen in the way China has evolved to have a hybrid capitalist economy even though it has a fascistic government (we could argue that it's not a communist government because the ruling party does not elect their leader, China is currently an autocratic government).
I think this is an instance where the truth is more complicated than saying "I'm right" or "you're wrong" because ideology isn't as simple as that, everything is a spectrum and to boil things down to absolutes is a poor way of approaching it.
I respect your views even if I don't agree with them.
A. I talked about the theory and its practice. My criticism of the Marxist theory was that it punishes hard working and inventive people.
B. You just said we shouldn’t talk about it in practice but instead in theory. Also, slavery isn’t capitalism, capitalism as an ideology is defined by trade of capital and services. The problem with slavery is that legally speaking these people have been defined as property and thus open up an industry in which they can be bought and sold. You can have slavery in capitalism, slavery in anarchism, slavery in fascism, slavery in communism and slavery in socialism. It is not an inherently capitalist problem.
C. Democratic socialism means socialism through democracy. It is still the same or similar policy, as a fundamentally socialist government just the leader is elected through democracy. The philosophy I assume you’re looking for is social democracy which is a left-wing liberal ideology. Not to be mistaken with socialism as it has a moderate government on the moderate left.
D. Conservatives blame socialism for Venezuela’s downfall because it’s the socialist philosophy which makes it more applicable to corruption and dictatorship. This is simply because socialism is an authoritarian left-wing ideology, it gives government significant power over businesses, the economy and the people. I will admit the Venezuela rebuttal is a huge cliché, but that’s because it’s such pivotal evidence of socialist failure.
E. What do you mean “not a problem in a real world perspective”? This argument lacks any substance or validity. A lot of Australian policies are unimportant in a real-world perspective, but these problems are highly significant for Australian citizens. Plus, this macro policy serves as another case study for socialised industry.
F. Despite this being an obvious strawman tactic of diverting the blame. I actually do agree. Our economy is overall dependent on mineral trade with Asia and this puts all of us at high risk if we ever run out or slow down.
G. I disagree. I think cutting taxes in general rich and middle class works wonders for the economy. This is simply because government does not invest or spend money as well as individuals. If you think rich people aren’t being taxed enough what do you suggest would be a more appropriate amount? Currently income earners above $180,001 pay 45% for every dollar made above this threshold. This high tax cost disadvantages small business owners the most who can’t afford to simultaneously run their business and pay the higher tax rates. Thus, the taxes are counterintuitive to entrepreneurialship, consumers and in many cases jobs (as business move production overseas to better compete with the increasing tax costs.)
H. I was initially surprised by this, so I did a brief fact check and you are absolutely right. I think this is a complete waste of government expenditure. But unfortunately, this has nothing to do with capitalism, government funding schools is more of a socialised system and certainly not a free market one. So, I’m not particularly sure why you raised this.
I. I would suggest you don’t make assumptions of people’s intentions or biases in a debate. You don’t know anything about me. I was a socialist Christian when I first got into politics and philosophy, but I’ve looked at the literature and have changed my mind accordingly. But to be clear, what do you define as socialism? Fundamentally speaking it’s a big government ideology that supports a centrally planned or mixed economy.
J. Capitalism has improved people’s lives far more significantly. It’s improved medicine, technology, productivity and has helped hundreds of millions of people rise out of poverty. All of which would be slowed or non existent by socialism, because businesses would be less productive due to increased regulation and tax.
K. Yes, but it is how you win which makes it moral or not. The people who win in communist regimes are the people with political connections. The people who win in capitalism are the hardworking and smartest people, who can sell a product or service consumers want. Everyone wins, the maker and the buyer. Furthermore, Marxists intentions are irrelevant, I don’t think he was evil but he’s ideas have most certainly lead to the creation of evil things. There is more to communism than Marxist ideology.
L. The implementation of capitalism is very different. Capitalism does not follow a set of guidelines, unlike the communist manifesto. It has slowly been created through the trials and errors of individuals and civilisations.
M. I agree to a certain extent. I agree that this is very complex and nuanced. But ultimately, the debate question was “Is capitalism moral” and through debate we can at the very least determine if it’s more or less moral then communism.
N. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” - Velyn Beatrice Hall