At the end of last class, we began to discuss whether capitalism should be considered immoral or amoral. In some sense capitalism is not a moral system, but an economic system, and doesn't make moral valuations. We brought up a few of the "moralities" which seem to result from a capitalist mentality--that the poor are underemployed because they are lazy, for example--but demonstrated that these kinds of moral pronouncements are in no way essential to capitalism. Certainly, a thorough identification with a capitalist mentality and lifestyle--and its attendant valorization of efficiency and condemnation of leisure--seems to foster these sort of moral biases. But, as we also mentioned, it is possible to imagine a capitalistic system that doesn't involve this sort of "moral" framework.
Despite this, I can't seem to get past my (at this point pretty deep-seated) belief that capitalism is, in fact, immoral. (Note: I wouldn't actually say immoral, but unethical, but for simplicity's sake I'm going to stick to the terminology we used in class). I understand that many of the "immoral" consequences of the capitalistic system are not essential or necessary. But as we also discussed last class, capitalism leads to an uneven distribution of goods which over time only worsens until the poor become poorer and rich become richer. This already strikes me as a morally problematic situation (to say the least). And in so far as the purpose of capitalism is to generate surplus value, the success of this system depends upon valuing commodities more than the workers that produce them, and "with the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion the devaluation of the world of men" (71). This also seems in and of itself immoral. Or at least, it seems impossible that an economic system whose success depends on the devaluation of men could not lead to immoral consequences. Which, for me, doesn't seem much different than saying the system is itself immoral. Again, we might say theoretically, that capitalism in and of itself is amoral; but if its practical and material consequences are immoral, what good does it do to say its theoretically amoral?
Now, however convinced I am of capitalism's immorality, this issue becomes much more slippery in the context of "late" capitalism. The fact that the estrangement of labor and private property lead to the devaluation of the worker is much easier to see in the industrial revolution, where the connection between the growing wealth of the factory owners and the growing poverty of the factory workers seems almost self-evident. Factory (or property...insert any industrial means of production) owners exploit the factory workers in order to generate a greater profit for themselves--it's a pretty clear illustration of the disparity between the bourgeoise and the proletariat. But this relationship between the property-owner and the property-worker is harder to trace when a significant portion of late capitalism's surplus value is generated in very nebulous situations like venture capitalism, as we mentioned in class. In short, though the disparity between the 1% and the 99% is obvious, what causes this disparity isn't quite so obvious. This disparity isn't the result so much of actual exploitation of the 99%; rather, it seems to be orchestrated on a much larger scale, one more easily obfuscated by all kinds of finagling. Again, this is not to say I've conceded that capitalism is amoral. But it does seem that the context of late capitalism could make it easier to argue for some kind of moral exemption...even though I would argue this type of capitalism poses an even greater moral problem. How such arguments would even begin to deal with the effects of global capitalism totally escapes me.
Frankly, I'm not so sure I agree that "capitalism doesn't tell you what to value, it tells you what you do value." Capitalism does seem to provide a framework for valuing not only other people but ourselves. Sure, it doesn't force me to value commodities over other human beings, and in that sense it isn't morally prescriptive. But it does encourage this mindset, and in fact its success as an economic model depends on people adopting this mindset. It may not be a moral system, but that shouldn't necessarily permit us from evaluating certain assumptions of its system from a moral standpoint.
To him who looks upon the world rationally, the world looks rationally back. --G.W.F. Hegel
The other day in class, Dr. Rudy sardonically observed that money seems to be the only thing that everyone agrees about. Indeed, this belief in a representation of value appears improbably obdurate and universal. Although this framework seems to subsume other social categories, who has and does not have money, statistically speaking, depends, predominantly, on your race, nationality, and socio-economic genealogy. Because of the systems tendency to push capital upwards, one can see how a moral (hear used as a descriptive term not a prescriptive one) system like slavery maintains its umph even after it is translated into an economic one.
ReplyDeleteIn your second paragraph, you kind of make a point that I've been thinking about myself. Capitalism necessarily involves surplus value which seems to mean that commodities are valued over men. This inherently seems to be immoral. For, it involves the person generating the surplus value puts his or her own gain (manifested in surplus value and commodities) above other people. This isn't entirely the point you made, but it is a related one, if not merely a variation. Before class on Tuesday, I had never really thought about this being immoral, but since then, I've begun thinking about it. I do have a problem with it, however. That is, how can we expect people to stop themselves or stop the system from generating surplus value if it (at least immediately) seems advantageous to them? If someone has an opportunity for gain and can gain without any serious repercussions, I'm not so sure we can expect them to pass the opportunity. Maybe it's the case that we simply haven't gotten to the point yet where we could expect someone to act morally in this situation and to the point where we can expect society to act morally, but I'm not really sure.
ReplyDeleteI still stand by the what I said in class, capitalism is not a moral system it is THE moral system. Our utter immersion in the capitalist system engenders us with its Devine logic. I say Devine due to its transcendence, we are born into this reality and it acts on us as an immense external force. Capitalism has allied itself with liberalism, which is undoubtedly a moral system, and in utilizing the language of freedom, equality, and liberty it has come to be associated with them. Capitalism is not moral yet it has made itself so by taking ownership of a moral system and imprinting that system in each of us. Really think about it, through what ethical lens have we been debating this? What's more, it is entirely acceptable to judge capitalism, as a moral system, on its own terms, and it fails even by its own logic, it fails liberalism, and it even fails to regulate itself if left unchecked. What was that Lehman bros? Oh, you want less regulation, lower taxes, and a bailout. Sure thing.
ReplyDelete