Sunday, 7 June 2015
Isn't capitalism morally corrupt? An answer to a friend
"How far do you extend the logic before some kind of intervention is justified though? Should banks be allowed to freely collude with one another to artificially manipulate the LIBOR rates, for example? Capitalist organisations have proven time and again that they cannot act with integrity without state intervention. The problem with treating everything as a marketplace is that it disadvantages the already-disadvantaged (and this cannot fairly be attributed to their performance in the marketplace). If capitalism is allowed free rein what then happens to the disabled, the old, the infirm? Under capitalism they are treated as valueless or even a drain on resources. The gap between the richest and the poorest has widened greatly in our lifetime, under capitalism. By what measure can that be considered a success?" - HB
Modern banking is not a free market phenomenon - the entire system is created on a huge state sponsored scam called fractional reserve banking. It is the tumour at the centre of our modern world: banks are permitted - by the state - to unleash money created out of thin air, creating huge business cycles and distorting economic activity while enriching the few who control the banks at the expense of the rest of the population. A lot of our suffering and our wars, by the way, find their source in the modern banking system. It was created with the formation of the Bank of England in 1693ish to get the government out of debt. It went bankrupt in a few years but then was given special protection by the state to ensure that it had a ready supply of cash (paper notes) to fund wars and government excess.
It's not capitalism that is inherently out of integrity - people are; and the market system is such that if you are an ethical incompetent, you're not going to last long. It's the opposite in government: a failing industry that's well connects gets more money (other people's).
Yes, some people are massively disadvantaged - sometimes by themselves, sometimes by no fault of their own; as a humanist I cannot bear suffering - it's not necessary. You'll find generally that the most successful in the market place are also the most giving people: where do charities come from, scholarships, hospices?
Whatever system we live under, we cannot be feel for other people and want to do them well: our welfare state in the UK has lost the plot though - those in real need are consigned to bureaucratic nonsense and self-serving managerial systems: that's inevitable when welfare is run by government bureaucracy.
Have a read of Kropotkin's mutual aid - he's an anarchist of what may be called the socialist variety, and he's amazing at explaining why human life and history (and that of the animal kingdom) is not a war of all against all but one of mutual aid and assistance: freely, and lovingly given - without governments.
As for the gap between the rich and the poor - it will grow when the elite connect to the banking systems to suck resources from the productive sectors to their own pockets; but take a good look at what the productive family or individual has available today compared to forty years ago even: heating, two cars, mobile phones, iPads, holidays abroad...The market words, and has always worked to serve. When we don't serve in the market, we don't earn, when we don't earn, we can't do what we want nor help others who can't earn (disabled, children, old folk, the ill...).