Capitalism is Immoral

Alex, nice work!I like the counterpoint ideas.The discussion is shaping up!Historical Narrative:Again, the historical narrative is invaluable here for perspective -- but let's go a little further back this time and then fast-forward to Marx: In a natural state plants and animals are inherent "consumers" -- requiring energy and resources. It is the biological and ecological - Tao - way things are. We are governed by the Laws of Thermodynamics and there is no way of escaping this. We have to consume life of some kind (plant or animal, vice-versa) to survive. We need to build shelter(s). We need to stay warm. We need to secure resources to do these things.I wish it were different. I wish the environment and the species in it were 100% safe -- and the world and every living being lived in a happy utopia -- safe from me when I need to eat or shelter my body from the elements -- but I'm sorry -- I will destroy a tree in order to build a shelter or make a fire while out foraging for some endangered species to eat so I don't starve! HA! And I'm sure you would do the same! You could decide to eat nothing but some berries maybe in the hopes of minimizing the suffering of the little creatures, but, since meat has a higher caloric-value, in a survival situation, I wouldn't be mad at ya if you did eat the little forest dwellers, which are busy consuming to survive as we are. It's the Circle of Life my friend [Lion King, Disney]. --Least I point out you are still consuming the berries and effecting the environment and rest of the ecosystem! Now, besides being somewhat off-point and silly, the reason I bring up these ideas is because even Marx recognized this. Humans are social animals who often benefit from performing these basic survival functions together -- coming up with better and more efficient ways -- requiring less energy and resources to secure more, etc. As you pointed out in your first argument, "Capitalism is without a doubt the most productive economic system ever created." Marx, whose orientation was largely materialist and historicist (influenced by conditions and inherent processes beyond the control of humans), framed his analysis around four central points: 1) the physical reality of people, 2) the organization of social relations, 3) the value of the historical context of development, and 4) the human nature of continuous praxis [anthropology.ua.edu/cultures/cultures] (Marx had to study history to locate an original accumulation as an external starting point of capital -- which is an interesting point I hope we will have time to get back to in later rounds).But let me ask you a series of questions for contrast and to elucidate a point further: Did communist groups throughout history ever cut down trees in excess and accumulate a resource-surplus? Did communists ever destroy environments or species to secure these resources? Do you think communists ever produced undesirable pollutants that were expelled in the environment in order to manufacture goods or products, regardless of how they held class systems or distributed and created wealth or prosperity?If the answer is YES to these questions, you might want to consider Capitalism, as a system, is equally used by people -- like other systems even though different -- capable of being misused, abandoned, and abused to excess. Your N. Korea example is to this point; as is the spousal-cheating example. We can agree to whatever, BUT if we don't stick to the original agreement then we have violated what it was we originally agreed to. You said: "My “beef” with Capitalism is very much so rooted in the modern capitalist system, the moral repugnance of this model is grounded in the modern realities not theoretical possibilities." So we actually agree.But, again, it's like when folks say, "money is evil," when someone else might disagree and point out that it depends how money is actually used. Again, the problem isn't Capitalism.The problem is how we have chosen to be capitalistic or use Capitalism. According to what you're saying, I should then judge Marxism or Communism only by the fall of the Soviet Union! Or should I still consider variations of Marxism or Communism that might still be successful?Historic Challenge Rebuttal -- provide a historical example of Capitalism devoid of “human greed, consumerism, imperialism, overpopulation, rapid industrialization, and the institutionalization of currency and money-lending. I can't speak of the greed in one's heart but here are a couple of good examples:1) "A strong market economy was a very important aspect of Meoamerican cultures. Although much of our information about the market economy in Mesoamerica comes primarily from the Aztec/Mexica world during the Late Postclassic, there is clear evidence that markets played a major role throughout Mesoamerica in the diffusion of goods at least as recently as the Classic period. Beginning during the Classic Period (AD 250-800/900), merchants supported urban specialists with raw materials and finished goods to convert into luxury goods and exportable items for trade" [http://archaeology.about.com...].2) "One interesting feature of Native American money is how something which seems to have relatively little value beyond the context of Native American life and culture can in the end become quite valuable. For instance, many Indians in North America used wampum for Native American money. Wampum consists of clam shells and was initially used by coastal tribes, until the use of wampum spread throughout the continent and was store by the Iroquois, which was one of the most prosperous and powerful tribes. Although many settlers scoffed at Native American currency in the beginning, wampum was later used by many colonists as a form of currency. For instance, Peter Stuyvesant paid his workers in wampum when they constructed the New York citadel. The island of Manhattan was purchased for wampum. Wampum was used as the main form of Native American Money because it had value as a decorative item, and many Native Americans pierced holes at the top of their wampum and wore them in a belt rather than carrying wampum in a bag" [indians.org/articles/native-american-money].Green Capitalism & China Rebuttal:Bear in mind "going green" is a relatively new occurrence -- even in the US! It's going to take some time. Sure, with globalization there are other countries jumping on the bandwagon, wanting to produce and manufacture goods and create wealth in the same kind of ways the US did -- unfortunately following in many of our same footsteps and making some of the same mistakes. And for them the pros might out-weight the cons financially -- though you and I would both agree not environmentally.But it's interesting to note that this week in national news: 1) John Kerry in China -- “A unique co-operative effort” with China on the issue of combating climate change" [theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/15/john-kerry-china].2) "John Kerry Calls Climate Change a 'Weapon of Mass Destruction" [http://abcnews.go.com...].Note the most capitalistic nation's Secretary of State is visiting China and working on these issues. Again, Civilization is now reacting to a new perspective and trying to understand and find it's environmental equilibrium while maintaining it's livelihood.Philanthropy Rebuttal:Con never asserted Corporate philanthropy is "enough" -- but will in later rounds demonstrate capitalistic societies have and do "give" more when presenting utility and addressing the Working Class.Source References:[1] [Lion King, Disney][2] [http://anthropology.ua.edu...][3] [http://archaeology.about.com...][4] [indians.org/articles/native-american-money][5] [theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/15/john-kerry-china][6] [http://abcnews.go.com...]