Capitalism is Moral

I've heard it said plenty times, most often by "progressives" but even sometimes by ardent right-wingers. "Communism is moral in theory but fails in practice, whereas capitalism is immoral in theory but works in practice." Wow, how nice. Is this true? I think a lot of people generally start with the basic premises of what capitalism and communism supposedly represent to deduct why communism is moral whereas capitalism is not. I think that to many people capitalism represents a system based on greed and competition where there are "winners" and "losers." To many people communism is a system based on complete equality and cooperation and thus it is good because it is inherently altruistic. The trouble comes with how things work. Communism has failed everywhere. Capitalism has worked in one form or another. Thus many of those who think communism is "good" in theory favor the capitalist system.

Here is the problem though. How can you seriously say that something is moral and oppose it in practice? Either you don't take morality very seriously or you don't say what you actually mean. Morality is supposed to be above practicality, and practical concerns should always take a back seat to results. For instance, I am a libertarian because I believe the initiation of force to be immoral. If somebody raises objections to the results of libertarian policies, I simply state that results are not the reason I favor them. Morality is above results, unless you are a utilitarian. If you are a utilitarian then the results are above the means. So anybody who says that communism is moral but they still favor capitalism just because it works is self-contradictory. They aren't taking morality seriously if communism is inherently moral and if they judge things by results then capitalism cannot possibly be immoral. It is simply a dead argument.

But, moving beyond the questions of morality vs. results, we must ask ourselves if communism is truly moral and capitalism truly immoral. Now defining morality is another issue, but we will go at it from the standpoint of those who say capitalism is immoral, whether they think it works or not. First of all, we will define communism as a social system in which all property is collectively owned, and where everybody does work from each according to his ability to each according to his need. We will define capitalism as a social system based around trade and private property. We will also define it as free market capitalism. This means that under this system government is not placing restrictions on businesses other than to protect other people's persons or properties from being damaged and there are no political barriers to entry. There is also a defined system of law which is enforced to prevent other businesses and criminal organizations from infringing on weaker businesses. Also, practices like slavery are not acceptable as all transactions must be totally voluntary. This is pure capitalism as I define it and as I seek.

Now, we get to the stereotypes of capitalism. Those who say capitalism is immoral often claim the following. First, capitalism is inherently based on greed. (Whereas communism is based on altruism). Second, capitalism is based on cutthroat competition rather than cooperation. (Whereas communism is based on cooperation). Third, in capitalism there are "winners" and "losers." (Whereas in communism everybody is treated equally and the point is not to have winners and losers). Fourth, capitalism exploits workers, harms the environment, and tricks consumers. (Whereas communism seeks to aid the worker, save the trees, and since things will be shared, there is no role for consumerism). Note that this is applied to all forms of capitalism, whether pure or not. So we shall look at it from the standpoint of pure capitalism. Let's look at all of these questions and see if they are true or not.

First we have the idea that capitalism is inherently based on greed. That depends on how you define greed. Is greed just going after money and things for your personal benefit? Well from that standpoint there certainly is a strong element of greed in capitalism. People seek profits to enrich their lives. However, is it "inherently" greedy. To be inherently greedy means that capitalism is always based on greed no matter what. But if you are seeking profits is there any telling why you are doing it. It is often mainly for greed, it's true, I don't deny that. It would be great if it wasn't, but it is. However, simply seeking a profit shows nothing about how you use it. You could start a business and dedicate the profits entirely to feeding African children. I don't know of too many people who have, but you could. Or you could seek profits to focus on a higher goal, such as building something for humanity. Or you could simply be involved in business because it is something you simply enjoy doing or find fulfilling. Because it could be for any of these reasons, it is absurd to say capitalism is "inherently" greedy. In fact, I would say that most capitalists do engage in charity to some extent, do benefit mankind to some extent whether they intend to or not, and many, particularly small business owners, simply enjoy running their business. Greed is always a factor, but it is not the only factor, and virtually every time it is a combination of factors.

So if we concede that capitalism is not inherently greedy we need to look at whether or not communism is inherently altruistic. Karl Marx did not think so. He believed that workers should rise against the capitalists simply because they are the majority and it is in their self-interest to do so. Communism is an economic system, and as with all economic systems there is an element of greed. If you are at all concerned with your well-being then you are to some extent greedy. Maybe it does not, in its purest form, share the level of greed that pure capitalism has, I concede this, but it is not totally altruistic. Most communists are communists because they believe they would be better off under communism. I don't know many communists who favor communism because they think it will make them poor. If it is an economic system it is always in somebody's self-interest, and even if not for yours somebody benefits. That person is somewhat greedy. A 100% altruistic person would live like garbage but still work and give all their money to everbody. Even Mother Teresa was a little bit selfish, I'm sure. If you accept somebody's altruism you are being selfish, which is ironic, even if you deserve it. To call an economic system perfectly altruistic is absurd.

Now we have the objection that capitalism is based on cuttroat competition rather than cooperation. Is this true? Yes, competition plays a role in capitalism. But is there no cooperation, and in turn, is communism truly cooperative. Let's compare. It is easy to call communism cooperative because it seems that way on the surface, but is it. Under a system of each according to his ability to each according to his need everything must be shared. But how can you share everything equally in a world of different preferences. Also, how can you expect everybody to work from his ability to everybody else's need? Let alone define everybody's "needs." If everybody is working for everybody else how do you expect some people not to slack off? And why should some people get to work less? The only way to make everybody work "from his ability" to everybody else's "need" is to force him to do so. Is it cooperative? No. Communism rests inherently on the idea that everybody must work, whereas capitalism does not. Even voluntary communism requires the commune to force its way on the individual, that is just the way of communal living. In a sense a family is a small commune, and any family that lives under the same roof and lets everybody do what they want fails. There has to be somebody to keep others in check, force, if you will. And if it is force it isn't truly cooperation.

Pure capitalism, on the other hand, is different. Under capitalism people are trading. You desire X higher than your dollar bill and the other person wants your dollar bill more than X because he can trade the dollar bill for Y which he desires most of all. You agree to make a trade and in the course of that trade you get what you want and the other person gets what he wants. This is cooperation. Sure, businesses compete, but the very act of trading property for property, on which capitalism is based is inherently cooperative. Nobody is forced to do things everybody else's way because the plurality of values is recognized. Workers contractually agree to exhange their labor with a manager because they desire his money more than their time and he desires their labor more than their money. It is cooperation in labor because people are voluntarily working together to get what they want, which is what communism is supposedly based on. Communism certainly has cooperation in labor, but capitalism has it too, and is built on it, so to say that capitalism is purely based on competition and lacks the cooperation of communism is absurd. In fact, it is more cooperative than communism because it is built on voluntarism.

Now we have the objection that capitalism is a system in which there are "winners" and "losers." This is a favorite mantra of the left. Capitalism exploits the poor to make the rich richer, is what it often boils down to in their minds, but is this true. In some cases people can exploit people for profit, such as in slavery or when the system does not allow them to compete, such as under the societies of Latin America where certain wealthy people stole the land from the natives BY FORCE centuries ago and now grind them down by using force to shut them out of the market. But free market capitalism, in which there is law and order and where government and other powerful organizations do not use force to hamstring competition is not like this. Remember how I described the trade that takes place? Well, people are trading values. When businessmen are looking for your dollar they aren't oppressing you. When they hire you they aren't oppressing you. They aren't producing winners and losers. Some people will be richer than others, but this has nothing to do with winners and losers. Just because somebody is rich does not mean everybody else lost. People trade one thing they value more for something they value less, and that is how it works. Some are expert traders and get more than others, but it doesn't mean they "lost." The idea of "winners" and "losers" ultimately goes back to a constant fallacy of the left.

I often hear leftists complain about how one person's slice of "the pie" is bigger than another persons. Or how the "distribution of goods" is somehow unjust. Let's take a look at these. First of all, there is no such thing as "the pie" or the "distribution of goods" under capitalism. First of all, under capitalism there is not some fixed amount of wealth and resources that everybody is trying to get their hands on and that some people hoard for themselves. Wealth can be created, resources developed. The way leftists talk it sounds as if the world started out with X dollars and this was handed out to people and some wound up more than others. This is where "distribution of goods" comes in. But goods aren't distributed, they are earned, under capitalism that is. The only system under which goods are "distributed" is communism. And what is a "unjust" distribution of goods. Is it inequality? How is inequality "unjust." Inequality has nothing to do with poverty, and if one man can be rich then why is it bad if others can be richer? Inequality is not poverty and poverty is not inequality, but the left makes it sound this way. If inequality is evil, why is envy not? Also, I myself define a "just" distribution not as equality, but as a distribution that came about justly. If it came about by force, as inequalities in Third World countries do, then it is unjust, but if it came about by voluntary trade as under free market capitalism then the inequality is just. If things are done on a voluntary basis there are not "winners" and "losers." Everybody wins on a voluntary system since everybody voluntarily trades to get what they want. Only under an involuntary system can their be winners and losers.

Communism is just such a system. It is absurd to say that communism is good for everybody. People who don't want to work or don't have skills are the "winners" under communism whereas those who do are the "losers." Not everybody is getting what they want because it isn't a trade. The people who produce the most lose, those who produce the least win. And communism has to be administered somehow. Those doing the administering win, those under it lose. And if we are producing goods cooperatively rather than on a consumeristic basis of supply and demand then somebody gets to decide which goods are produced. The people who get produced what they want are the winners, and those stuck with good they don't want are the losers. There ARE winners and losers under communism, but under free market capitalism EVERYBODY wins. In a voluntary system, NOBODY CAN LOSE, it is only an involuntary system that produces winners and losers.

Now we have a list of a few common objections to capitalism, that it "exploits workers, kills the environment, and tricks consumers." Again, this can only take place under crony capitalism, capitalism made unfair by government or by lack of law and order, not free market capitalism. Yet it is free market capitalism that is often accused of being the worst. As for the exploitation of workers, remember what I said. Workers under free market capitalism agree to contractually labor for an employer because they desire money more than time and he desires their labor more than his money. Capitalism is inherently based on a free labor pool, with laborers free to go and come as they like. Only under slavery, feudalism, or some other system are workers exploited because the labor pool is not free. Surely people can profit off these, but it isn't capitalism because it isn't based on trade. Next we have the idea that capitalism poisons the environment. Well, if businessmen are poisoning the environment then they aren't practicing capitalism, but socialism. The cornerstone of capitalism is private property. Pollution of air, water, and land infringes upon the private property of others. Pollution is a form of socialism since under pollution people are socializing the costs of doing business by passing it on to society. It is a classic example of the worst form of socialism; business socialism, with private profits and social costs. We see it all too often in America today, but it isn't truly free market capitalism. Now we have the idea that capitalism tricks consumers. Well, if consumers are being tricked then businessmen are infringing on their rights via fraud. This isn't capitalism because it isn't a voluntary exchange. When you genuinely believe you are getting one thing but they give you another, it was not fair and thus you are a victim. It isn't unjust regulation to demand that businesses not trick consumers. It is a truly free market since it requires everything to be truthful.

So there you have it, my moral defense of capitalism. I am defending capitalism as a moral system against all those who believe communism morally superior, whether they think it "works" or not. As you can tell, capitalism is not guilty of the things it is accused of in its free market form and true communism is in fact the culprit. Of course, neither authentic free market capitalism nor authentic communism have ever been tried, since other interests have always gotten in the way. Even in the supposed "free market" era of the turn of the century, consumers were defrauded, governments intervened to help Big Business, and subsidies distorted prices and wages from their true form. Under the Soviet Union and other communist regimes, true communism was never achieved for one, because it is impossible, and for two, because the supposed "communists" were more interested in turning the bureaucracy into a for-profit business. Now, even if it seemed as if I was trying to say capitalism is 100% good and communism is 100% evil it is not true. I don't think either one is 100% angelic or 100% Luciferian. I simply know that capitalism is often derided, even by capitalists, for the percieved flaws in its moral character. It is certainly true that greed plays a role, it is just human nature, all I was trying to do was to show the fact that greed is not inherent. I also believe that voluntary communism is an okay thing, I just don't think it would work. However, even if communism were achieved I am just trying to show that it wouldn't be as moral as some intellectuals crack it up to be. I am simply encouraging people to analyze things more deeply than the surface.