3 replies to this topic

[Mr. Roboto]

???

[wedjat]

Technically no but the practice behind it, yeah.

[freedom78]

Capitalism simply means private ownership of industry and enterprise so, no, that's not immoral. It's not the ownership aspect I have an issue with so much as the way some are treated as worth nothing, others next to nothing, and others still are worth more than millions of other people combined. Of course, a Marxist would see this as a natural outcome of capitalism. In their view, the nature of capitalism is to compete, so a business that sacrificed profit for the well being and improved quality of life of its workers would be uncompetitive and, in an economic sort of Darwinism, would eventually fail as others were more successfully capitalistic and undercut this business by exploiting their own workers. I don't know how much I buy into that, though the logic of it makes sense.

In truth, capitalism has been an incredible driver of quality of life and should be applauded for it. It does tend to create a class structure, but I'm not as interested in relative class so much as absolute quality of life. So while capitalism has benefited "the West", it's not as if the poorer areas of the world used to be fantastic and are now destitute...they were always poor and simply haven't moved on from that condition as other parts of the world have.

[artcinco]

No.