Capitalism Is a Just Economic System

Private PropertyPrivate property is often considered a ‘natural right’, along with all of the others we take for granted.[1] Chomsky begs to differ:“Property rights are not like other rights… If I have the right to free speech, it doesn't interfere with your right to free speech. But if I have property, that interferes with your right to have that property”.[2]An individual’s right to private property is a right held against another individual. This may not invalidate it per se, but it does mean that it is a positive claim to authority, or domination, and all positive claims must be justified – a basis for most rights. What kind of domination is that of private property? “Property, the dominion of a man’s needs, the denial of the right to satisfy his needs”.[3] The thought that you may not pick fruit from a tree to satisfy your hunger because that tree is my property is very strange, yet it also seems strange to say that it is a free-for-all. Since the debate is about establishing the defensibility of capitalism, I will argue only this: extreme intuitive disgust is no rational argument, even if it is near universally felt. Moral philosophy is concerned with what may be justified - not with justifying what we think must be the case. (I do not advocate a free-for-all, but it stands that desiring something only makes it right pro tanto)The capitalist says: “Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property”[4]Unfortunately:1. This argument merely shifts the burden of proof to self-ownership2. ‘Mixing of labour’ is vagueThe idea that you can ‘own yourself’ is prima facie absurd in that it requires that you be both the dominator and the dominated; by ‘vague’ I mean the statement has no meaning other than a ‘common sense’ interpretation, which is hardly analytic. LabourIs a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?To this I feel Kropotkin answers most adequately.“If you enter a modern coal-mine you will see a man in charge of a huge machine that raises and lowers a cage… Should he waste three seconds at each touch of the lever,- the extraction, in our modern, perfected mines, would be reduced from twenty to fifty tons a day. Is it he who is the most necessary man in the mine? Or, is it perhaps the boy who signals to him from below to raise the age? Is it the miner at the bottom of the shaft, who risks his life very instant, and who will some day be killed by fire-damp? Or is it the engineer, who would lose the layer of coal, and would cause the miners to dig on rock by a simple mistake in his calculations? Or is it the mine owner who has put his capital into the mine, and who has perhaps, contrary to expert advice, asserted that excellent coal would be found there?”[5]Kropotkin further explains the “absurdity” of it all. How can the miners claim that they alone are responsible for the coal they produce, when thousands before them contributed to the technology and expertise of the mining industry?[6] They live because others are willing to feed them for their coal, which is only in such great demand because of the steam engine. Forget preconceptions and it will become clear that every individual’s prosperity is dependent on the community in which he lives, and the past he has inherited – we all stand on the shoulders of giants. Finally: “human society would not exist for more than two consecutive generations if everyone did not give infinitely more than that for which he is paid in coins, in “cheques”, or in civic rewards. The race would soon become extinct if mothers did not sacrifice their lives to take care of their children, if men did not give continually, without demanding an equivalent reward, if men did not give most precisely when they expect no reward”[7] Wage slavery a poor incentive – if every citizen worked only as much as he or she was compensated for, we would live in a terrible society indeed. Valuing what one’s labour produces is all the incentive required, quite evidently. Capitalism and the Environment“This is an anti-ecological society. It is an anti-ecological society because it forces the great majority of people to function in an anti-ecological way”.[8] Profit cares not for environmental crises, which is why some believe that only a catastrophe would be able to change our ways, because this would force capitalists to save themselves. While they are not immediately in danger, they will continue to profit from destroying the environment, and anyway, they won’t live forever. Human industry has the power to destroy this planet, indeed, it currently is destroying this planet, and so we cannot let individual profit be the driving force of the economy. Further Considerations It is said that capitalism is greatly efficient at enriching society. I disagree, for both economic and moral reasons:1. Advertising: the capitalist tells you that you need to buy something, and then sells it to you. People are pressured into buying cosmetics and ‘status symbols’, which in turn means that large industries are created to satisfy artificially high levels of materialism, which, incidentally, can cause incredible damage to someone’s self esteem. The consumer, when he has his needs dictated to him, becomes merely a tool for the enrichment of the capitalist; the capitalist, by dictating needs, can create useless, perhaps even harmful, products, in order to profit. It is snake oil chicanery on a grand scale, and an absurd amount of labour is invested in sustaining it.2. “Which works better, competition or cooperation? The answer, without equivocation, is cooperation”.[9] “Results indicate that (a) cooperation is considerably more effective than interpersonal competition and individualistic efforts, (b) cooperation with intergroup competition is also superior to interpersonal competition and individualistic efforts, and (c) there is no significant difference between interpersonal competitive and individualistic efforts”.[10] Pharmaceutical research illustrates the terrible damage caused by competition and ‘intellectual property’: organisations waste both time and money pursuing the same routes only to find failure, because they do not share what they learn. “It’s absolute madness”, says Dr. Bountra, “All these organisations are working in parallel on the same disease, the same target, and one by one these assets fail”.[11] 3. “The most rapid growth of capital, however much it may improve the material life of the worker, does not abolish the antagonism between his interests and the interests of the capitalist”[12] If a worker increases his productivity, the capitalist may decide to reward him accordingly, if he so chooses. However, rewarding him less than the increase in productivity nets him greater profit, and not rewarding him at all even greater. Considering that the ‘income of the top 0.01% of earners has increased at a 6% annual rate since 1979 (compared with a 1% increase for the bottom 90%)’ while “Output per hour worked is up 94% since 1979”, the capitalist pursues what his economic system dictates: profit is God.[13]To close:Examine many of the arguments for capitalism – it is essential to productivity, the people will not work, some are superior to others – and you will find the same was said of slavery, for they are both based on the same principle: human beings exist for profit. [1] S. Adams, The Rights of the Colonists[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] E. Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays, p.59[4] J. Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter V[5] P. Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p.152[6] Ibid. p.153[7] Ibid. p.154[8] M. Bookchin - http://tinyurl.com...[9] Dr. Buffington - http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://psycnet.apa.org...[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] K. Marx, Wage Labour and Capital[13] http://tinyurl.com...;