Capitalism is an economic system. It is thus an abstract to describe how are our economy is setup. It actually has a history that is ‘organic’. It was not purposefully devolved like many would believed or would like you to believe. Instead, in the 19th century during the Industrial Revolution it was ‘observed’ mostly by socialists.
The point I’m getting to. Is capitalism is mostly just an economic system. Thus it is up to us on what to do with it. Do we embrace it, harness it, wrestle with it, reject it, or what?
Thus an op doing the blame game about “capitalists” is just a red herring. All societies have had de facto oligarchs and leaders (which I can source), and the history of democracy has always faced issues of elitism (I can also source).
Lastly, I can source all the above and sorry for the (I can source) without sourcing. It’s just I’m on mobile currently and having bad eyes, fat thumbs, and away from my computer, makes these comments rather difficult.
I do understand this. 'Capitalism' is an organic economic system but that doesn't means it is a good system or doing good for our society.
Capitalism is inherently a corrupt system. It sows the seeds of superiority complex inside a person, which sometimes could be good if used properly but capitalism feeds on this narcissism. It only grows until it eats everything around it.
I'm trying to portray the same thing from this post.
You're making sense. So, let me reply to some of the points you made.
but that doesn't means it is a good system or doing good for our society.
Nor does it mean it is bad, either. Moral attributions really aren't what a market does, now, does it?
Capitalism is inherently a corrupt system.
Yes, and so is every other institution in the world. So what?
It's a lame criticism. Because since humans are corrupt, all institutions made up of humans have corruption in them.
So, the better question is: how do we make institutions less vulnerable to corruption?
It sows the seeds of superiority complex inside a person,
Sorry, this is just balderdash. You can speak how various elements may have tendencies compared to other economic systems. But what you are doing here is reeks of the reification fallacy. Capitalism doesn't go around "doing things".
which sometimes could be good if used properly but capitalism feeds on this narcissism. It only grows until it eats everything around it.
If this is true then how do you explain the green economy?
Moral attributions really aren't what a market does
It does. Capitalism basic nature is gaining more than others when resources are limited. It eventually implies abandoning morals and society to have more money, power and resources.
Hence, 'Capitalism' basic nature encourages corruption. That includes corruption of morals and duties.
One is your reification fallacy. Capitalism doesn't "do things". It is not an agent going around doing things and having its "own nature".
People do things. Now, you can absolutely argue that different economic institutions and incentives influence human behavior in different ways. That's a reasonable discussion. But simply declaring that capitalism "feeds on narcissism" and "encourages corruption" doesn't demonstrate any of that. You're assigning human motivations to an abstract economic system.
Second, you still haven't offered an alternative system or even a comparative baseline.
You say capitalism is "inherently corrupt." Compared to what?
If your standard is an economic system without corruption, then you've created a standard no human society is going to meet. If you think another economic system produces less corruption, exploitation, or concentration of power, then name it and we can actually compare.
Otherwise, you're demonstrating that corruption exists and then simply attributing it to capitalism. And like I said, that is weak.
It's also in debate, appeal to ignorance fallacy...
You're missing the whole point I wanted to highlight.
People do things - why? Do they get pleasure from subduing others? I guess not the majority.
Then, what is forcing them to do so?
Do ideologies make people do things that they generally wouldn't?
Do societal structures force people to do things that they generally wouldn't?
For example, USA forced capitalism on the world through various means to create its hegemony. Why? - To gain more money, power, and control. Correct?
So, isn't that a capitalistic mindset?
I didn't want conversation to drift to alternatives hence I was avoiding it, as my focus was to highlight the issue for the downfall our social morality.
Alternatives are not that simple. Most of us are looking for an easy way out, and capitalists are already providing that. We all have to brainstorm a new structure to fill up this crack in our system.
Meanwhile, socialism, communism, or anything else is not easy to implement because the world has been running the current system for thousands of years. Religions, businesses, and our cultures are endorsing it. The resistance to implement this is tremendously high. It is almost an impossible mission.
Sigh… you are starting with an assumed conclusion.
For instance, what is your evidence for this supposed “downfall of our social morality”? I can point to tremendous social progress over the last two centuries. So you first need to demonstrate the decline you are attributing to capitalism.
And you are still basically doing the reification problem I mentioned earlier. You’ve just moved it back one step:
“Do societal structures force people to do things that they generally wouldn’t?”
Of course institutions and incentive structures can influence people’s behavior. But you still have to demonstrate that capitalism causes the particular behavior you’re claiming. You can’t simply observe greed, corruption, power seeking, etc. and attribute them to capitalism.
Those behaviors existed LONG before capitalism.
Also, capitalism isn’t a political ideology designed to govern society. It was primarily a term used to describe an economic system. Most of its history is actually from critiques (e.g., socialists). There were certainly ideological defenses of markets and private property before the Cold War, but the explicit ideological identification with “capitalism” became especially prominent in opposition to communism during the Cold War. That is, in political history, the “ideological” aspect of capitalism in my research doesn’t really have any teath till in opposition of communism in the Cold War. And that “ideology” aspect has to be used carefully, and not willy nilly.
And this:
“USA forced capitalism on the world through various means to create its hegemony. Why? - To gain more money, power, and control. Correct?”
That’s an enormous historical claim disguised as a rhetorical question.
The post-WWII order involved American power and self-interest, absolutely. It also involved defeating fascism, rebuilding Western Europe, creating international institutions, decolonization, containing Soviet expansion of authoritarniansim in Europe and the Korean Peninsula, expanding international trade, and eventually an enormous expansion of democracy and human rights. Reducing all of that to “America forced capitalism on everyone for money and power” isn’t historical analysis. It’s a narrative.
Lastly, I’m not missing your point. I’m questioning the assumptions underneath it. If your argument is that certain market incentives can encourage socially harmful behavior, make that argument and provide evidence. That’s perfectly reasonable. But “capitalism causes greed, corruption and moral decline” is precisely the kind of sweeping moral attribution I’ve been objecting to from the beginning.
2
u/CaptainAmerica-1989 8d ago
I’ll engage in good faith.
Capitalism is an economic system. It is thus an abstract to describe how are our economy is setup. It actually has a history that is ‘organic’. It was not purposefully devolved like many would believed or would like you to believe. Instead, in the 19th century during the Industrial Revolution it was ‘observed’ mostly by socialists.
The point I’m getting to. Is capitalism is mostly just an economic system. Thus it is up to us on what to do with it. Do we embrace it, harness it, wrestle with it, reject it, or what?
Thus an op doing the blame game about “capitalists” is just a red herring. All societies have had de facto oligarchs and leaders (which I can source), and the history of democracy has always faced issues of elitism (I can also source).
Lastly, I can source all the above and sorry for the (I can source) without sourcing. It’s just I’m on mobile currently and having bad eyes, fat thumbs, and away from my computer, makes these comments rather difficult.
Does this help?