Capitalism as a moral system

[chaz wyman]

"We learn the principles of morality from the experience of common day life"

Some cultures have more experience than other. I think that the cultures with most experience have the higher moral standards and values. Cultures that have less experience in dealing with others tend to be less open, less trusting and more corrupt.

Would you care to give us a few examples of this interesting theory of yours??
I'd bee willing to guess that cultures that you like will magically be shown to have more experience! Though how you would quantify that will remain a mystery I imagine.

Capitalism gives use a lot of experience. It gets us to partake and get involved collectively. Capitalism also creates problems. Nevertheless, problems make us better because they force us to seek solutions and alternatives.

From the ridiculous to the stupid.

[spike]

I decided I'm not going to converse with anybody who deliberately maligns and distorts just for the sake of it. Such a sophomore behavior indicates that the troublemaker isn't capable of making a decent counterpoint. And this is something many individuals have taken up doing on the Internet, a la Glen Beck.

[chaz wyman]

I decided I'm not going to converse with anybody who deliberately maligns and distorts just for the sake of it. Such a sophomore behavior indicates that the troublemaker isn't capable of making a decent counterpoint. And this is something many individuals have taken up doing on the Internet, a la Glen Beck.

Running away so quickly?

I was hoping you were a better opponent. never mind maybe you'll go away and have a think about what you said, and then next time you might think BEFORE you speak in future?
The young - so full of ideas - so lacking in experience.

I mean! Seriously what the fuck is a culture that has more experience- how banal!

[spike]

I believe capitalism grew out of the uncertainty principle where "a system [like humanity] cannot be defined to have simultaneously singular values". Capitalism addresses this question.

Capitalism does not try to do social engineering, at least not deliberately like communism and other economic systems have. If it does it does it in a subtle manner by giving people choices and letting them decide for themselves. Remarkably, what people eventually decide through capitalism is generally the same thing, something that is mutually beneficial and meets the general population's needs and aspirations.

Social engineering overlooks the uncertainty principle since such engineering, because of it deliberateness, is rigid and creates intractable problems which defy solutions (communism comes to mind). Deliberate social engineering by definition doesn't account for variables or contingencies. And as the uncertainty principle states, as stated in physics, social engineering itself becomes the problem but by nature doesn't have the means to remedy it.

There still is and always will be uncertainties in human behavior. Thus it is better to have a system like capitalism that is agile, flexible and capable of adjusting and dealing with them. There were a lot of unknowns that led to the recent financial crises. Only after the facts have they become known, with the help of capitalism itself and its experience in people's proclivities.

Capitalism can and does reinvent itself because it does have an eye on the uncertainty principle and the what if.

[chaz wyman]

I believe capitalism grew out of the uncertainty principle where "a system [like humanity] cannot be defined to have simultaneously singular values". Capitalism addresses this question.

This seems to mean nothing whatever. I think your problem is that you take the various hypostesizations and abstractions of human understanding and think they are eternal volitional entities rather than the historically contingent meanings they inevitably possess.

Capitalism does not try to do social engineering, at least not deliberately like communism and other economic systems have.

It does not try to do anything, capitalism is not a cause or volitional agent. It is not the sort of thing tha does, or tries to do anything. You are screwy.

If it does it does it in a subtle manner by giving people choices and letting them decide for themselves. Remarkably, what people eventually decide through capitalism is generally the same thing, something that is mutually beneficial and meets the general population's needs and aspirations.

Social engineering overlooks the uncertainty principle since such engineering, because of it deliberateness, is rigid and creates intractable problems which defy solutions (communism comes to mind). Deliberate social engineering by definition doesn't account for variables or contingencies. And as the uncertainty principle states, as stated in physics, social engineering itself becomes the problem but by nature doesn't have the means to remedy it.

There still is and always will be uncertainties in human behavior. Thus it is better to have a system like capitalism that is agile, flexible and capable of adjusting and dealing with them. There were a lot of unknowns that led to the recent financial crises. Only after the facts have they become known, with the help of capitalism itself and its experience in people's proclivities.

Capitalism can and does reinvent itself because it does have an eye on the uncertainty principle and the what if.

I think you are on your own here. If you directly reply to me, I'll answer but as you did not in the last post I'll assume that you prefer to have a dialogue with yourself. That being true I'll unsubscribe the topic so you can carry on with your unique blend of mystical thinking.

[ala1993]

Chaz Wyman wrote:

capitalism is not a cause or volitional agent

I'm torn in two directions when I consider this statement. On the one hand, I agree with you: the 'agents' are the individuals who merely act and 'capitalism' is a convenient umbrella term for their actions, placing them into a teleological framework. However, what concerns me about such an agreement is that the actions of these 'individuals' are themselves influenced by the belief in, interpretation of and reaction to this assumed framework. Put simply, 'capitalism' does not need to exist as a coherent system in order for agents to act in accordance with it. Put even more simply, 'capitalism' can be not only an agent, but the only agent and every activity of an 'individual' is merely a manifestation of it, a way in which it reproduces itself.

[converge]

Spike, if you really want anyone to take you seriously, you should go read about what "capitalism" actually is, and read about other economic systems as well. You don't even have to go to the library, you could just use Google or wikipedia and read a few pages of info. It's clear at this point that you aren't really sure what "capitalism" even means ("socialism is capitalism" pretty much gave that away), and you don't know of any other economic system at all... you have this vague idea that there is only one possible alternative - communism, but it's clear you don't actually know what communism is or how it works. You should read about both, and read about other countries in the actual real world and how their economies work, and then you might get a clearer picture of what you're talking about. It's obvious that as long as you think there are only two things in the world - a "capitalism" which includes pretty much every single thing in the entire world, and a "communism" which is some sort of evil demonic cult lurking at the fringes, then of course "capitalism" will seem like a good idea. But that's not what the two words mean, and you're not going to be able to make any sort of reasonable post until you figure out what you're talking about.

[spike]

Capitalism is about free market principles. Communism was not. People like freedom to choose and determine their own course. Under communism people could not. People have needs and aspirations. In a free market system people can strife to fulfill them. Under communism they could not.

Capitalism and its free and open markets encourages entrepreneurs, the individuals who, free from autocrats and the state, come up with the innovation and resources that fulfill our tomorrows. Under its controlled economics communism did not have the competition or incentive or incite to develop for future needs. Because communist leaders could not fulfill the growing economic needs of its citizens — food, clothing, housing, they resorted to lying, cheating and covering up. Thus, communism grew inefficient and corrupt in the cover up. Capitalism, though, because of it's an open system, has always been dually chastised for its shortcomings and therefore has always strived to improve and innovate. Capitalism is a fluid and fixable system. The rigidity and archaic, dogmatic manner of communism is what eventually brought it down.

There is a socialism aspect to capitalism. Capitalism realizes there is a common need out there among people. Under capitalism people have learned to cooperate and work together. It strives to be utilitarian and mutually beneficial. Under it have develop infrastructure that are meant to be beneficial to all, like transportation, medicine and utility systems. There are disparities within capitalism. But under communism the disparities that grew between the citizenry and its handlers were more revolting, astonishing in the fact that communism was about total economic equality and integration.

Capitalism is a cause of things. For instance, it caused the financial crisis of 2008. Individuals alone could not have done it. Capitalism was the mindset, the body, the system and the environment that gave individuals the tools and format in which they made it happen. Individuals alone could not have mustered the collective irrational exuberance that made it happen. However, only capitalism can cause the financial crisis to righten itself, through the collective, voluntary and independent efforts only it can muster.

[chaz wyman]

Chaz Wyman wrote:

capitalism is not a cause or volitional agent

I'm torn in two directions when I consider this statement. On the one hand, I agree with you: the 'agents' are the individuals who merely act and 'capitalism' is a convenient umbrella term for their actions, placing them into a teleological framework. However, what concerns me about such an agreement is that the actions of these 'individuals' are themselves influenced by the belief in, interpretation of and reaction to this assumed framework. Put simply, 'capitalism' does not need to exist as a coherent system in order for agents to act in accordance with it. Put even more simply, 'capitalism' can be not only an agent, but the only agent and every activity of an 'individual' is merely a manifestation of it, a way in which it reproduces itself.

What you are leaning towards is hypostesization, and that is exactly what Soviet Communism relied on to establish State Capitalism.
When people start believing it is stars becoming true. This is a most dangerous and harmful tendency of human beings.
You can see this in the way Spike talks about it - as if it were the solution to all man's problems, when in fact capitalism is only ever useful when it is in chains and made to out to good work for the benefit of humaity.
Without such chains the beast causes the polaristaion of wealth; poverty and misery.

[Izzywizzy]

actually Chaz you need to read what Spike had to say..he has you nailed..and the only person running away with his rhetoric with nothing of substance is you..too bad you never had a proper education.

[chaz wyman]

Capitalism is about free market principles. Communism was not. People like freedom to choose and determine their own course. Under communism people could not. People have needs and aspirations. In a free market system people can strife to fulfill them. Under communism they could not.

Capitalism and its free and open markets encourages entrepreneurs, the individuals who, free from autocrats and the state, come up with the innovation and resources that fulfill our tomorrows. Under its controlled economics communism did not have the competition or incentive or incite to develop for future needs. Because communist leaders could not fulfill the growing economic needs of its citizens — food, clothing, housing, they resorted to lying, cheating and covering up. Thus, communism grew inefficient and corrupt in the cover up. Capitalism, though, because of it's an open system, has always been dually chastised for its shortcomings and therefore has always strived to improve and innovate. Capitalism is a fluid and fixable system. The rigidity and archaic, dogmatic manner of communism is what eventually brought it down.

There is a socialism aspect to capitalism. Capitalism realizes there is a common need out there among people. Under capitalism people have learned to cooperate and work together. It strives to be utilitarian and mutually beneficial. Under it have develop infrastructure that are meant to be beneficial to all, like transportation, medicine and utility systems. There are disparities within capitalism. But under communism the disparities that grew between the citizenry and its handlers were more revolting, astonishing in the fact that communism was about total economic equality and integration.

Capitalism is a cause of things. For instance, it caused the financial crisis of 2008. Individuals alone could not have done it. Capitalism was the mindset, the body, the system and the environment that gave individuals the tools and format in which they made it happen. Individuals alone could not have mustered the collective irrational exuberance that made it happen. However, only capitalism can cause the financial crisis to righten itself, through the collective, voluntary and independent efforts only it can muster.

Capitalism is not a cause it is an effect; it cannot realise a need; there is no 'under' capitalism; capitalism does not strive; it does not make; it does not create; it does not muster - it is an hypostesiszed abstraction believed by its faithful and accepted as an article of faith by its adherents.
Anyone reading has only to look at the stupidity of the statement "only capitalism can cause the crisis to righten itself", as if capitalism were not already the cause. Can anyone take this person seriously?

[chaz wyman]

actually Chaz you need to read what Spike had to say..he has you nailed..and the only person running away with his rhetoric with nothing of substance is you..too bad you never had a proper education.

Ignorance upon stupidity.

[ala1993]

Chaz Wyman wrote:

What you are leaning towards is hypostesization, and that is exactly what Soviet Communism relied on to establish State Capitalism.

So you mean reification? I don't accept that charge - it's a classical Marxist idea to argue that there is a distinction between a concept and a physical manifestation; enough work has been done in the 20th century to undermine that (see Foucault, Deleuze, Heidegger). Reification in and of itself is not a fallacy; if it is, it is a logical fallacy and as such should not impact upon physical reality (if it did it would contradict itself). The danger is deification, not reification. Put simply (and to repeat my previous post) it is not sufficient to speak of 'subjects' or 'agents' without taking the context of and influence upon their activity into account. If I am guilty of reification then you are equally guilty of a notalgia for the subjectivity of the Enlightenment (though I don't believe I am guilty of the former, nor are you guilty of the latter). Also ... state capitalism?

When people start believing it is starts becoming true

People believe in capitalism. This is how it reproduces itself. We cannot treat these people as origins of either activity or belief when they exist in a reality that is pre-formed for them. We cannot fall into the trap of believing that there truly is such a thing as 'the individual'.

[chaz wyman]

Chaz Wyman wrote:

What you are leaning towards is hypostesization, and that is exactly what Soviet Communism relied on to establish State Capitalism.

So you mean reification? I don't accept that charge - it's a classical Marxist idea to argue that there is a distinction between a concept and a physical manifestation; enough work has been done in the 20th century to undermine that (see Foucault, Deleuze, Heidegger). Reification in and of itself is not a fallacy; if it is, it is a logical fallacy and as such should not impact upon physical reality (if it did it would contradict itself). The danger is deification, not reification. Put simply (and to repeat my previous post) it is not sufficient to speak of 'subjects' or 'agents' without taking the context of and influence upon their activity into account. If I am guilty of reification then you are equally guilty of a notalgia for the subjectivity of the Enlightenment (though I don't believe I am guilty of the former, nor are you guilty of the latter). Also ... state capitalism?

It is a choice, and with all choices they can be unchosen. If you want to make a God of capitalism then that is a choice. But it is a fallacy to give that reified object, agency, volition, power, ability and dominance. What you do by that move is to make yourself a slave to an abstract entity.
The simple act of recognising this reifying tendency is the road to emancipation from it.

When people start believing it is starts becoming true

People believe in capitalism. This is how it reproduces itself. We cannot treat these people as origins of either activity or belief when they exist in a reality that is pre-formed for them. We cannot fall into the trap of believing that there truly is such a thing as 'the individual'.

People believe in capitalism; but there is no such thing as the individual?? Are you kidding yourself or are you trying to kid me?
It is easier to assert my individuality than it is to prove that capitalism is REAL.

I also have to say that each person that plays the market knows exactly how individualistic he is. Those that profit from the myth of capitalism have a conscious individualistic relationship with their view of the market and relish that fact that people like you deny the possibility of the individual because their profit benefits from exactly the sort of mythology that Spike and you seem to be promulgating.

The myth is, and it is a dangerous one; is that in attributing 'capitalism" as the cause, as Spike so eloquently pointed out, of the both the collapse and its eventual "rightening", we tend to forget or forgive those individuals who, working for their own profit and aggrandisement, are given license to act against the interests of society.

[spike]

As one may notice countries that practice capitalism, where the majority participate in it, are quite stable. Stability is at the core of democracy. Without economic stability democracy is not possible. Capitalism generates and causes stability. Haiti and Iraq are examples of counties that lack stability because of the lack of genuine free market principles.

China practices capitalism and is stable but politically it is not democratic. Nevertheless, I think China is heading towards democracy in the same way that Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Portugal, Spain, Taiwan and South Korea did, countries that first got their economic houses in order in anticipation of democracy. Also, China wants to be a leader in scientific research. Such an endeavor requires democracy because it only can facilitates the free exchange of ideas, which bona fide scientific research demands.

"Democracy is impossible without private ownership because private property — resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state — provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom."

After the attacks of 9/11 there was an insecurity and chaos in the world. Nevertheless, in a matter of a few weeks and months the world reverted to a stability. Civilization did not fly off in different direction as some had predicted. What kept things together and helped bring back a normalcy was the world's engagement in capitalism and free trade. Capitalism and free trade was the gel that kept the world together and stable. Capitalism and free trade has brought a resilience and stability to the world.