The Ethics of Capitalism - or: Why is carrot-and-stick policy a moral obligation?
I encountered the following remark on the so called neo-liberal "Turbo"-Capitalism which puzzled me a lot but at the same time made me understand my own point of view much better - why I find capitalism itself repulsive, in its fundamental functional principle, and why I will probably not be satisfied and take it easy if the 'oh so bad' "Neoliberalism" is gone and the 'good old' "Rhenish Capitalism" finds its way in again.
"If neoliberalism implies ruthless economic competition, the dismantling of the welfare state, and the survival of the fittest, then society is loosing its “civility” in the sense of mutual respect, bonds of solidarity, and its moral obligation to protect those who are marginalized and deprived. Neo-liberalism, understood in this way, results in the hegemony of some parts of civil society over other parts, both within and across nations (Chomsky 1999). Globalization is then only a euphemism for “Turbo-Capitalism” (Luttwak 1999), the both domestic and transnational pursuit of the maximization of profit and market shares."(1)
The deprived and marginalized ones are not marginalized and deprived by nature or an "invisible hand" - as this mode of expression suggests - and they neither deprive or marginalize themselves. They're being marinalized and deprived. But by whom? Those who "should have" a "natural" moral obligation are displayed as those who - collectively - "lose" it or refuse it. But is it not illogical that those who marginalize and deprive others should have a moral obligation to "protect" those who they marginalize and deprive? They should first marginalize and deprive for then having a moral obligation to protect? Is the moral obligation a self-serving obligation which needs the marginalization and deprivation of others in first place, to make the "Deprivors" and "Marginalizors" self-affirmatively feel "moral", free of guilt, if they fulfil their obligation to "protect"? Well, protect from what? In this sense "protection" only serves the proceeding of marginalization and protection - not the end of it. Must there not be whether the moral obligation to not marginalize and deprive someone in first place or none at all? I support the former. How can moral be an obligation anyway, if it is at times obligatory and at other times totally not? How can people who refuse to show solidarity be called immoral while it is considered legitimate to refer to "factual constraints" and the "logic of the market" while recklessly exploiting others to one's self-seeking with a good conscience without being accused to be hypocritical? This is one of the contradictions in a capitalist society: on the one hand individuals are made fully responsible for their bad luck and fortune, but on the other hand ironically there are immediate claims "there is no alternative!" at every critical who wants to make a different, an ethically motivated, but at all a choice and encourages others to do so. The term "factual constraint" actually loses its effect - at least to me - if it is permanently misused for self-justification, of fear to have a crumb less of one's ten cakes if everyone would do it differently, more socially - more like everybody wants to be treatet themselves-, and to muzzle every critical voice or at best every thought of doubt. This is the reason why I will neither stop at nor fight for a "regulation", "de-neoliberalization" or "humanization" of capitalism but for an abolition of capitalism as a whole. Don't blame me!
_____
(1) Rucht, Dieter: Social Movements Challenging Neo-liberal Globalization, S. 9 in URL, In: Pedro Ibarra (ed.), Social Movements and Democracy, New York, 211-228, URL: http://www.wzb.eu/zkd/zcm/pdf/rucht02_social_movements.pdf [10.07.2010]
"If neoliberalism implies ruthless economic competition, the dismantling of the welfare state, and the survival of the fittest, then society is loosing its “civility” in the sense of mutual respect, bonds of solidarity, and its moral obligation to protect those who are marginalized and deprived. Neo-liberalism, understood in this way, results in the hegemony of some parts of civil society over other parts, both within and across nations (Chomsky 1999). Globalization is then only a euphemism for “Turbo-Capitalism” (Luttwak 1999), the both domestic and transnational pursuit of the maximization of profit and market shares."(1)
The deprived and marginalized ones are not marginalized and deprived by nature or an "invisible hand" - as this mode of expression suggests - and they neither deprive or marginalize themselves. They're being marinalized and deprived. But by whom? Those who "should have" a "natural" moral obligation are displayed as those who - collectively - "lose" it or refuse it. But is it not illogical that those who marginalize and deprive others should have a moral obligation to "protect" those who they marginalize and deprive? They should first marginalize and deprive for then having a moral obligation to protect? Is the moral obligation a self-serving obligation which needs the marginalization and deprivation of others in first place, to make the "Deprivors" and "Marginalizors" self-affirmatively feel "moral", free of guilt, if they fulfil their obligation to "protect"? Well, protect from what? In this sense "protection" only serves the proceeding of marginalization and protection - not the end of it. Must there not be whether the moral obligation to not marginalize and deprive someone in first place or none at all? I support the former. How can moral be an obligation anyway, if it is at times obligatory and at other times totally not? How can people who refuse to show solidarity be called immoral while it is considered legitimate to refer to "factual constraints" and the "logic of the market" while recklessly exploiting others to one's self-seeking with a good conscience without being accused to be hypocritical? This is one of the contradictions in a capitalist society: on the one hand individuals are made fully responsible for their bad luck and fortune, but on the other hand ironically there are immediate claims "there is no alternative!" at every critical who wants to make a different, an ethically motivated, but at all a choice and encourages others to do so. The term "factual constraint" actually loses its effect - at least to me - if it is permanently misused for self-justification, of fear to have a crumb less of one's ten cakes if everyone would do it differently, more socially - more like everybody wants to be treatet themselves-, and to muzzle every critical voice or at best every thought of doubt. This is the reason why I will neither stop at nor fight for a "regulation", "de-neoliberalization" or "humanization" of capitalism but for an abolition of capitalism as a whole. Don't blame me!
_____
(1) Rucht, Dieter: Social Movements Challenging Neo-liberal Globalization, S. 9 in URL, In: Pedro Ibarra (ed.), Social Movements and Democracy, New York, 211-228, URL: http://www.wzb.eu/zkd/zcm/pdf/rucht02_social_movements.pdf [10.07.2010]
campcat mafia - 15. Jul, 18:25
