I'm not sure if this belongs in the Politics section, or anywhere, but the statement in bold really grabbed me today. I'm a business guy, but have been increasing drawn to question the effects of capitalism, positive and negative, lately. I know the relativity of morality has already been discussed here (learned that lesson) but that aside, the eye of the needle question seems especially appropriate.
Capitalists and Other Psychopaths
There are ethical corporations, yes, and ethical businesspeople, but ethics in capitalism is purely optional, purely extrinsic. To expect morality in the market is to commit a category error. Capitalist values are antithetical to Christian ones. (How the loudest Christians in our public life can also be the most bellicose proponents of an unbridled free market is a matter for their own consciences.) Capitalist values are also antithetical to democratic ones. Like Christian ethics, the principles of republican government require us to consider the interests of others. Capitalism, which entails the single-minded pursuit of profit, would have us believe that it's every man for himself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/fables-of-wealth.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
God is usually atrributed to controlling everything the average person can't understand. The "free market" or the "invisible hand of the market" is a reference to God's control over the money system, simply because most people can't understand how the banks operate. It goes back to medicine, people blamed illness on spirits and demons because they didn't understand what disease was.
I don't believe the author of the quote is invoking God, just the opposite in fact. I believe he/she is stating that the "invisible hand of the market" is actually acting in opposition to the "higher" Christian or Democratic beliefs. That many capitalists are operating on a pure greed principal.
Quote from: harte.beest on May 14, 2012, 01:58:45 AMGod is usually atrributed to controlling everything the average person can't understand. The "free market" or the "invisible hand of the market" is a reference to God's control over the money system, simply because most people can't understand how the banks operate. It goes back to medicine, people blamed illness on spirits and demons because they didn't understand what disease was.
The invisible hand, as described by Adam Smith (who coined the term), has nothing at all to do with the Christian god or any other. Rather it refers to the supposed natural process whereby the action of self interest in a free market will result in benefit to society as a whole.
InvestorWords | "invisible hand" (http://www.investorwords.com/2633/invisible_hand.html)
Wikipedia | "Invisible hand" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand)
Quote from: technolud on May 14, 2012, 02:19:14 AM
I don't believe the author of the quote is invoking God, just the opposite in fact. I believe he/she is stating that the "invisible hand of the market" is actually acting in opposition to the "higher" Christian or Democratic beliefs. That many capitalists are operating on a pure greed principal.
yes but most people see communism as being in sync with atheism, and capitalism with religous values.
hence wackjob websites like this: http://christiancapitalism.net/
The heart of the problem with the article is this "Capitalist values are antithetical to Christian ones" I assume the author means christian values like this:
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."but in
reality most christian's values are based on things like this:
"The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."both are apparently quotes from Jesus
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" sounds a lot like "trickle down economics" to me.
I've heard some interesting commentary lately to the effect that the society with the strongest middle class tends to be the most successful.
Quote from: technolud on May 14, 2012, 03:09:17 AM
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" sounds a lot like "trickle down economics" to me.
I've heard some interesting commentary lately to the effect that the society with the strongest middle class tends to be the most successful.
I've heard fans of Smith complain of greedy types appropriating Smith and disregarding his early work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments
Adam smith did not found capitalism he helped consumerism that's all, the founding father's based the economy on consumerism AND labourism. Smith did coin the term "free market", and modern historians accredit him with inventing "laissez-faire" economics. But the term "capitalism" was actually coined by Karl Marx as an insult, basically it was the same to him as, plutocracy, or oligarchy.
Adam smith highly valued protecting the general welfare and that a sustainable economy, could not exist, without doing so.
"The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"
-Adam Smith
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on May 14, 2012, 06:58:57 AM
Quote from: technolud on May 14, 2012, 03:09:17 AM
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" sounds a lot like "trickle down economics" to me.
I've heard some interesting commentary lately to the effect that the society with the strongest middle class tends to be the most successful.
I've heard fans of Smith complain of greedy types appropriating Smith and disregarding his early work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments
Trickle down is dead long live Keynes
Quote from: harte.beest on May 14, 2012, 07:10:59 AM. . . But the term "capitalism" was actually coined by Karl Marx as an insult, basically it was the same to him as, plutocracy, or oligarchy.
While I can agree in general with your post and its sentiments (though I might have trouble accepting the idea that Smith "helped consumerism"), with this sentence in particular I have to take exception. Karl Marx did not coin the term "capitalism." Rather it was coined by William Makepeace Thackeray in his novel
The Newcomes, published in 1854, thirteen years before Marx's
Das Kapital (1867). According to this blog entry (http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2009/01/free-capitalist-13-january-here-carries.html), the word "capitalist" is even older.
Quote from: Recusant on May 14, 2012, 07:44:28 AM
Quote from: harte.beest on May 14, 2012, 07:10:59 AM. . . But the term "capitalism" was actually coined by Karl Marx as an insult, basically it was the same to him as, plutocracy, or oligarchy.
While I can agree in general with your post and its sentiments (though I might have trouble accepting the idea that Smith "helped consumerism"), with this sentence in particular I have to take exception. Karl Marx did not coin the term "capitalism." Rather it was coined by William Makepeace Thackeray in his novel The Newcomes, published in 1854, thirteen years before Marx's Das Kapital (1867). According to this blog entry (http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2009/01/free-capitalist-13-january-here-carries.html), the word "capitalist" is even older.
I don't think thats' 100% accurate, here's something from the same blog:
"
In modern society the term 'Capitalism' is used imprecisely and inaccurately. Many scholars suggest that the term 'Capitalism' and its related term 'Capitalist,' was first derived in the English vernacular from a translation of the pejorative term used by Karl Marx in the mid to late nineteenth century to describe the class of men he called the elite "bourgeois" society who owned and controlled "society's capital resources."
If Adam Smith is 'known' as the 'father of capitalism', it is 20th-century accolade of which he knew nothing, nor, to be accurate, deserved. This is an example of projecting modern notions onto the past."
The word capital comes from latin, basically meaning money. The Hollandische Mercurius uses capitalists in 1633 and 1654 to refer to owners of capital.
Karl Marx, didn't invent the word, but he used it so much he is considered to have "coined" it, his first reference was in Das Kapital, and many other communists after him wrote about the "capitalistic means of production": http://thecounterpunch.hubpages.com/hub/Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital
It would appear that you didn't read the entire entry. The portion you quoted is actually a quote from the apparently now defunct blog of the freecapitalist.com site. The author of the blog to which I linked is pointing out certain errors in that quote, and he cites the Oxford English Dictionary in support of Thackeray being the one who coined the term. The OED is considered by most reputable scholars to be authoritative on matters of etymology and word origins.
To "coin a term" is to invent it, as opposed to popularizing it, which is what happened with "capitalism" when Marx's work was translated into English.
The "counterpunch" piece in you first link is simply incorrect. On the other hand the Wikipedia article in your second link doesn't appear to address the origins of the term "capitalism." The actual Wikipedia article on capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Etymology_and_early_usage) also cites the OED, and agrees with the blog I linked to previously, while mentioning a book written by Fernand Braudel, which apparently gives a different origin for the term. Either way, it was not Marx who coined the term.
Quote from: Recusant on May 14, 2012, 08:45:26 AM
It would appear that you didn't read the entire entry. The portion you quoted is actually a quote from the apparently now defunct blog of the freecapitalist.com site. The author of the blog to which I linked is pointing out certain errors in that quote, and he cites the Oxford English Dictionary in support of Thackeray being the one who coined the term. The OED is considered by most reputable scholars to be authoritative on matters of etymology and word origins.
To "coin a term" is to invent it, as opposed to popularizing it, which is what happened with "capitalism" when Marx's work was translated into English.
The "counterpunch" piece in you first link is simply incorrect. On the other hand the Wikipedia article in your second link doesn't appear to address the origins of the term "capitalism." The actual Wikipedia article on capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Etymology_and_early_usage) also cites the OED, and agrees with the blog I linked to previously, while mentioning a book written by Fernand Braudel, which apparently gives a different origin for the term. Either way, it was not Marx who coined the term.
Yes you are right!!!
So we could say Marx popularized the term "capitalism", and did so by using it as an insult. Either way, Adam Smith did not found capitalism, and Smith would certainly not approve of the current attitude towards, cutting public welfare programs, and taxes for the wealthy, and this so-called "trickle down" economics which right wingers call capitalism.
I personally think conservatives refer to themselves as "capitalists" because it's sounds better then "trickle-downers"....(might be wrong)
I respect your willingness to learn
harte.beest: My opinion of you has improved during the brief time you've been posting here. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg717.imageshack.us%2Fimg717%2F2339%2Fbluethumbup.gif&hash=5fe03c6701607da88624dfc89a3acd7df124c467)
Quote from: harte.beest on May 14, 2012, 09:42:10 AMI personally think conservatives refer to themselves as "capitalists" because it's sounds better then "trickle-downers"....(might be wrong)
It certainly does sound better than "trickle-downers," but it's also a broader and more legitimate term. However, not all conservatives (nor all capitalists for that matter) support the ideas behind what has become known as "trickle-down economics." It's just that that particular approach has gained ascendancy in conservative circles, especially in the US, to the point that more moderate conservative voices have practically been drowned out.
With all due respect to the coinage of the term capitalist, I was looking more at the tension of capitalistic vs Christian or Republican (for the sake of this arguement lets call it altruistic) behavior.
Quoting my own post (is this rude?):
QuoteCapitalist values are also antithetical to democratic ones. Like Christian ethics, the principles of republican government require us to consider the interests of others. Capitalism, which entails the single-minded pursuit of profit, would have us believe that it's every man for himself.
Capitalism seems to work because it addresses peoples ambitious nature. Individuals will work really hard to "get ahead" if they believe that work will be rewarded. But, speaking from the point of view of a middle class American, does this philosophy necessarily represent the antithesis of altuistic behavior? It seems some societies (Europe?) have struck a better balance then the US.
human nature has inherent many many behaviours spanning a range and including brutal and nasty alongside honey love. frantic emotionality through to cool clarity to the limits of stone cold psycopathy
people also are pliable and suggestable hence prone to be fed, force-fed direction and desire if not educated,if constantly subjugated and not allowed to develop knowledgable choice
there were anticonsumer slogans and inscriptions on large walls in front of bazaar markets in Ionian epicurean communities in minor asia, advertising not to purchase easily things you did not come for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_living#Secular (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_living#Secular)
http://www.hanrott.com/epicureanism/epicureanhistory.php (http://www.hanrott.com/epicureanism/epicureanhistory.php)
capitalism allows psychopaths to expand, develop, but also work wonders for the more normal hyposadistic and beligerant mass
christian morality outlaws ALL organised churches in the US but that is offcourse forgotten
so actual christianity of today does not relate or contribute to capitalist-restricting ethics since a thousand+ years
The thing is that if rich people get money, they're not going to start businesses with that money. Why? Because people start businesses in order to make money. And rich people are already rich. What the fuck they need to produce goods for? They already have money and wealth, right?
Therein lies my point. The upper crust only invests in an economy so long as the upper crust still desires goods and services and improvement in themselves, thus generating improvement in the lower classes as a side effect. One the upper crust becomes satisfied with what they have, they no longer effect society in a positive way, and therefore should be replaced by some other, hungrier, section of society.
Why does this so seldom happen? Because if you're rich, you tend to enact laws that keep you rich and reduce competition. That's why. Bloody bastards. >:(
There's a group of people who quit their jobs to travel and receive handouts. They're called the first followers of Christ. Jesus and his following were communist in a way. But they also lived on the welfare of Jesus making fish and bread multiply. They also benefited from his free health care plan. So yeah, Christians should be the communists, and may be disposed to except for the Soviet Union. The atheist Soviet Union had a reigning "Communist Party" so in reaction we had to be the good, Christian, capitalist nation... everything the USSR was not. If anybody should be capitalists it should be the evil atheists who have no idea of right or wrong and no conscience about their fellow human beings, and should be more than prepared to step on their fellow man to get to the top of the chain, right?
Quote from: fester30 on May 27, 2012, 09:51:22 PM
There's a group of people who quit their jobs to travel and receive handouts. They're called the first followers of Christ. Jesus and his following were communist in a way. But they also lived on the welfare of Jesus making fish and bread multiply. They also benefited from his free health care plan. So yeah, Christians should be the communists, and may be disposed to except for the Soviet Union. The atheist Soviet Union had a reigning "Communist Party" so in reaction we had to be the good, Christian, capitalist nation... everything the USSR was not. If anybody should be capitalists it should be the evil atheists who have no idea of right or wrong and no conscience about their fellow human beings, and should be more than prepared to step on their fellow man to get to the top of the chain, right?
What I have always found interesting is that the communist manifesto (which everyone should read as its really short and debunks a lot of propaganda) and the teachings of the bible(s) have far more in common than the bible(s) do with capitalism. But also from reading the communist manifesto you realise that Lenin didn't really understand the book or didn't agree with it in its entiretyand created a bastardised version, then Stalin created a bastardised version from Lenin's. Mao's was just a total mess and wasn't until Deng Xiaoping managed to sort out the shit storm that a more accurate form of communism was formed in reflection of the original source material.
Quote from: RenegeReversi on May 26, 2012, 11:16:02 PM
The thing is that if rich people get money, they're not going to start businesses with that money. Why? Because people start businesses in order to make money. And rich people are already rich. What the fuck they need to produce goods for? They already have money and wealth, right?
No, people create money to make
more money. Bill Gates didn't sell Microsoft after making his first few million. Steve Jobs worked until he was too unhealthy to continue working. Many sell there companies and become venture capitalists, essentially helping start many new businesses. Hell, even Opera, who hasn't produced a single product I like and is one of the richest women in the world, keeps finding more ways to make more money. Her show goes off the air and she creates an entire crappy network, O magazine, etc.
Quote
Therein lies my point. The upper crust only invests in an economy so long as the upper crust still desires goods and services and improvement in themselves, thus generating improvement in the lower classes as a side effect. One the upper crust becomes satisfied with what they have, they no longer effect society in a positive way, and therefore should be replaced by some other, hungrier, section of society.
Starting businesses is not the only way to "invest in an economy." The rich constantly want things, just like the middle class and poor does. Many, when they have the money, create more jobs through the luxury spending. Valets, maids, tutors, nannies, personal chefs, landscapers, pool cleaners, carpenters, car detailers, boat cleaners, boat storage, marinas, personal trainers, interior designers, party planners, etc.
Quote
Why does this so seldom happen? Because if you're rich, you tend to enact laws that keep you rich and reduce competition. That's why. Bloody bastards. >:(
I agree with this statement. The problem is more because of government than capitalism. What most people think is capitalism is really crony capitalism. No one, including businesses, should get special treatment from the government. Without these laws, it would be much easier for the poor to start and open businesses, giving them a much better chance to rise from poverty. Instead, this system has created a system that makes it too expensive and onerous to start a business unless you are already rich. Not to mention protectionist guilds that protect a job field from competition; requiring law school instead of simply passing the bar, test for flower arrangement in at least one state, certification requirements for interior design, etc.
Here is a great new video from Institute for Justice about licensing requirements.
http://www.ij.org/license-to-work-release-5-8-12
All of this is allowed to happen because the government has the ability to allow it.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 27, 2012, 11:20:00 PM
No, people create money to make more money. Bill Gates didn't sell Microsoft after making his first few million. Steve Jobs worked until he was too unhealthy to continue working.
Bad choice of examples but I get your point and agree with it. It was the attitude of using wealth to create that was the Victorian eras legacy. The government has absolutely no power in forcing this to happen again, if they do force it big business will move else where, the main solution is to turn this type of activity into a pissing contest and then the truly wealthy may start engaging in the creation again but this also requires imagination.