4 ms·

This only happens under capitalism?

erikb 9y ago
Nope. But the attributes used in this case (money, taxes, company ownership) are core elements of capitalism. Therefore the reference. I'm happy to present this in whatever terms you prefer. In fact it's the core of all systems, but people don't like to talk in abstract terms. Think about how people would react if you tell them feudalism, fascism, communism, capitalism is actually not so different.
- tertius 9y ago
  Not because of the systems, rather just that people are involved.
  - erikb 9y ago
    In other words you consider a system not to be the sum of what people do but the theoretical definition of how it should be. When I say "system" I mean "all of what the people are doing including which kind of theories they back their actions with".
    - tertius 9y ago
      > When I say "system" I mean "all of what the people are doing including which kind of theories they back their actions with". That's a little opaque. That could include criminal or immoral activity, think money laundering or mass killing of political opposition. Capitalism, for instance, is silent on types of immoral behavior that it could encourage. Thus classifying that behavior as "capitalist", i.e. as a part of the "system" which you reference may be what people are reacting negatively to.
      - erikb 9y ago
        Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Money laundering, mass killing of political opposition or mass killing of workforce are attributes of this system. You understand the way I define it very well. But for some reason you don't accept that yet. Second point: In Feudalism you do immoral things to gain land and title. And communism you do immoral things to gain a higher position in the party hierarchy. In capitalism you do immoral things to gain money. That's what I mean. The terms change but not the morality of actions. You always exploit weaker people to compete with other exploiters, or you choose to be an exploited part of the system. You can choose the moral path, but that automatically means being a loser according to the system. In capitalism the winner is the company owner that makes millions. Think about our celebrities. Steve Jobs is a celebrity, right? And wage slaves, sararimen, are the losers we frown upon and try not be associated with, while actually most people are in fact in this group. This is very capitalism specific. In Feudalism the businessmen also make lots of money, but they are frowned upon, because they don't have inheritable land and title. Same game, different vocabs. What makes it capitalist is not the question of whether or not it's immoral What makes it capitalist is that the always occuring exploitation takes the form of money, tax avoidance, and company ownership. That's my point. You can disagree with it, no problem. Many people do. But please try to understand and accept it as possible point of view first.
        tertius 9y ago
        I understand your point of view. I accept your position that even though a system (theoretical) is not immoral in its design, it is very probable to be immoral in its execution. This is something that I think most people don't argue about and only focus on theoretical. I like your directness here. Now we probably disagree on what is immoral and not. I, for instance, think that theft of private property is immoral. Therefore the concept of private property is required in a moral society to begin with. Let me ask you a question and see if I can get an honest response, and let's assume that utopia will never exist. Which system do you think is best for society at large. (*Best being, least amount of people killed, most amount of people not in poverty.) If you'd like to argue about the definition of best (it's loose) I'd be happy to.
        9y ago

Nope. But the attributes used in this case (money, taxes, company ownership) are core elements of capitalism. Therefore the reference. I'm happy to present this in whatever terms you prefer. In fact it's the core of all systems, but people don't like to talk in abstract terms. Think about how people would react if you tell them feudalism, fascism, communism, capitalism is actually not so different.

tertius 9y ago
Not because of the systems, rather just that people are involved.
- erikb 9y ago
  In other words you consider a system not to be the sum of what people do but the theoretical definition of how it should be. When I say "system" I mean "all of what the people are doing including which kind of theories they back their actions with".
  - tertius 9y ago
    > When I say "system" I mean "all of what the people are doing including which kind of theories they back their actions with". That's a little opaque. That could include criminal or immoral activity, think money laundering or mass killing of political opposition. Capitalism, for instance, is silent on types of immoral behavior that it could encourage. Thus classifying that behavior as "capitalist", i.e. as a part of the "system" which you reference may be what people are reacting negatively to.
    - erikb 9y ago
      Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Money laundering, mass killing of political opposition or mass killing of workforce are attributes of this system. You understand the way I define it very well. But for some reason you don't accept that yet. Second point: In Feudalism you do immoral things to gain land and title. And communism you do immoral things to gain a higher position in the party hierarchy. In capitalism you do immoral things to gain money. That's what I mean. The terms change but not the morality of actions. You always exploit weaker people to compete with other exploiters, or you choose to be an exploited part of the system. You can choose the moral path, but that automatically means being a loser according to the system. In capitalism the winner is the company owner that makes millions. Think about our celebrities. Steve Jobs is a celebrity, right? And wage slaves, sararimen, are the losers we frown upon and try not be associated with, while actually most people are in fact in this group. This is very capitalism specific. In Feudalism the businessmen also make lots of money, but they are frowned upon, because they don't have inheritable land and title. Same game, different vocabs. What makes it capitalist is not the question of whether or not it's immoral What makes it capitalist is that the always occuring exploitation takes the form of money, tax avoidance, and company ownership. That's my point. You can disagree with it, no problem. Many people do. But please try to understand and accept it as possible point of view first.
      - tertius 9y ago
        I understand your point of view. I accept your position that even though a system (theoretical) is not immoral in its design, it is very probable to be immoral in its execution. This is something that I think most people don't argue about and only focus on theoretical. I like your directness here. Now we probably disagree on what is immoral and not. I, for instance, think that theft of private property is immoral. Therefore the concept of private property is required in a moral society to begin with. Let me ask you a question and see if I can get an honest response, and let's assume that utopia will never exist. Which system do you think is best for society at large. (*Best being, least amount of people killed, most amount of people not in poverty.) If you'd like to argue about the definition of best (it's loose) I'd be happy to.
        9y ago