The morality of capitalism Can we derive a morality from capitalist ideology or is it an amoral ideology? If we can, what are the ethical rules? — Benkei
Perhaps, but why would we do that? In the US, many of the staunchest capitalists are found among the religious right who adopt a communal ethical theory (love they neighbor), yet they do not impose it on their economic ideology.
What are the ethical rules we can derive from this idea? I'm only going to mention two for now, to see what other people think is relevant since I'm enquiring here not sharing my rock-solild opinion.
- things become available for ownership either through trade or production
- respect private ownership
- respect transfer of ownership — Benkei
I agree that these are notions consistent with capitalism, but it seems a matter of degree than of type when comparing it to Marxist theory. Obviously no Marxist believes I have the right to rip his (our) shirt off his back when I'm ready to wear it. I'm just wondering to what extent you find these notions distinct to capitalism.
A first question, what happens to a transfer of private ownership to the State? Ethical rules say ok but the ideology itself resists this. So it has the possibility of an inherent contradiction if enough people would want to transfer their ownership to the State. Unlikely at the national level. On the other hand, this seems to be the self-evident method for most families. We pool our resources and spend collectively, parents are generally trusted to make decisions on behalf of the family unit. — Benkei
This confuses me a bit. The right to eminent domain exists in the most capitalist of countries and the taking of the property must be accompanied by just compensation. Taxation is another method of transfer of wealth from the private to the public. Neither of these are antithetical to capitalism, at least not how it's practiced. Even the staunchest libertarian would acknowledge some role for the state and therefore some need for taxation and sharing of wealth. Again, this turns into a matter of degree as opposed to to type. I just don't really know how your Marxist society will be structured and how it can adhere to extreme forms of non-ownership. Even should there be no private right to own land, I'd suspect that the government must provide some possessory right to land (you've got to be somewhere) that cannot be removed without some legal basis.
Another question: what is meant with private? Keeping aside for a moment the possible utility of corporations, there doesn't seem to be any reason why a State should promote corporations and allow for shareholding and limited liability. In fact, I suffer a higher liability acting as a person (in principle unlimited) than a corporation. It can also damage the first principle to respect private ownership. If I cause damages as a private person, I must repair those damages. If a corporation does it, it will only have to do so to the extent it has capital - once that's exhausted the damaged party has no recourse and his private ownership is not fully respected. — Benkei
This strikes me an diversion from your original question, which was how we were to derive an ethical theory from analysis of capitalism. There is nothing inherently capitalistic about corporations in principle. A corporation could be non-profit and could be committed to protecting the public good (the American Heart Foundation for example). A corporation's liability is limited to its assets, just like yours, meaning it's no more or less vulnerable in principle than an individual. I don't follow your suggestion that you would be liable even after your assets ran dry. Sure, I'd rather sue you personally than the shell corporation you might have set up, but I'd rather sue the major corporation you work for than you personally should you be negligent. I'd also say that it's entirely possible within a capitalistic framework to limit individual liability, which has been the push behind tort reform measures, where limits on liability would be imposed for individuals.
Another question: what is the effect of the basic immortality of corporations? Instinctually, I'd suspect there's some equilibrium with a large concentration of property and means of production in the hands of corporations, shares in the hands of elites and consumer goods for everyone else. — Benkei
This question overly tips your hand, not that it was hard to decipher the bias, but it detracts from the objectivity of the conversation. The question assumes corporations are immoral. I'd hold that only people are immoral or not, and the great injustices brought about by corporations were caused by immoral people with large financial influence. A rich son of a bitch of any stripe, whether he sits atop family money or as CEO of a major corporation is equally immoral. The corporate status does nothing to confer immorality.
Considering the above I'm tempted to argue that if you're in favour of capitalism you'd have to argue against the protections afforded to corporations. — Benkei
And yet most capitalists favor corporations. I don't follow what special protection they are afforded that you find offensive to the capitalist. I would suspect that large corporations feel they are much bigger targets to lawsuits than average citizens. In fact, the way the typical citizen of even moderate worth reduces his exposure to liability is by purchasing insurance, which is nothing more than hiring a corporation to accept his potential financial burdens. And what is insurance other than the private enterprise solution to communal burden sharing?