Is Capitalism Adharmic?

[SomeRandom]

Which is why we should change the competitive system to a cooperative one.

Ehhhh? I don't know. Competition often makes things strong. Though I concede it's a breeding ground for corruption. Perhaps a half half kind of deal?

The workers wouldn't be doing the job of the manager, they would just be autonomously working and taking in input from their coworkers. Most jobs of managers would not exist under capital and under self organization. If someone does not want to put thought into it they can choose to stay dis-involved from the democratic process.

What job are you referring to exactly? Most if not all jobs require a bit of autonomy and teamwork. But some jobs also require leadership. Does that need to happen in every single job? I don't know, maybe maybe not.
An apprentice would still need someone to teach and lead them. They can't just rely on their fellow team mates who would often be just as inexperienced as they are.
So the management would be necessary in their line of work.

Now in my job, management are the behind the scenes, most of the floor staff barring a few departments are the front lines of customer service. Under your system, you would have very short staffed front lines if everyone was sharing the responsibilities of your average manager. I mean, geez, it's hard enough covering everyone's breaks. Sometimes circumstances are such that you just need to have different levels of responsibility. You can put your hand up for those different levels, if you are so inclined. It's still a free country.

I was referring to small business.

Well I can't comment on small business. The company I work for probably eats them for breakfast. Pack of ********.

I have adressed this multiple times in the thread.
Private property (meaning the workplaces) should be socialized and workers should produce what they earn. That is not me "getting a piece" of what they are earning.
Once capitalism ends they will no longer be earning anything through establishment of bosses and will take the position of labourers.

But bosses are already labourers. Just because they earn more doesn't mean they aren't producing what they earn. Barring the born into money types I guess.

I don't know. I'm all for the working class, but bosses aren't evil people. Some might be sure. But they're still doing hard yakka.

Someone hasn't read the thread. Where did I say every brat who didn't put the same amount of hours into work should earn a share?

I said producers should keep what they produce. Stop trying to misrepresent me I have addressed this argument earlier in the thread.

And what are they producing exactly? What do I produce when I sign on at work? Nothing. I do my job, serve some customers, clean up and get some money for my troubles.
Are you saying that people should get a fair wage accurately reflecting the amount of work they put in? I agree with you.

I might complain about my company treating the working class like stiffs. Even the management. But to be honest, I am quite fairly compensated for the work I put in. For all their faults they don't have that much of a dodgy worker's wage. Hopefully soon I will get a better job with better wages. Oh the job hunt continues.

This has nothing to do with a world without bosses. If bosses don't exist there is no point in "recompensating" them.

Then who the hell would start up companies? Who would look at a market, see a demand and fill that supply? Not everyone has that instinct. Not everyone has that sort of savvy. And if those people don't have the added benefit of being bosses in the first place, why the hell would they bother?
Like I sure as hell wouldn't. Why put in that much effort if your workers get to tell you how to run your own business? What if you have a degree in business and they don't? What if you just have that instinct and they don't?

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Wealth equality, charity and austerity are key aspects of Dharma.
And, often capitalism leads to consequences against those.
So, capitalism is against Dharmic principles.

 

[SomeRandom]

They wouldn't exist. Corporate entities exist for the purpose of capital accumulation and would not carry on into a post-capitalist society.

What about all their workers? What happens to them?

Depends on the system. Solutions would vary from a market based solution leading to mutualist economics, post-scarcity ideas, division of labour, etc.

Okay, but what if there's literally no one enticed to enter this system because they don't see the point?
I mean Capitalism does reward up and comers with lofty aspirations. Well if they are successful. So what is the ultimate reward for those using these systems?

It wouldn't be your business.

So why bother starting a business to begin with? If I can't own something I put my time and effort into, then why should I care about your model? What are the benefits for those who want to go into business? Into retail? Those who want to design something to sell to people?

If they want to listen to you, they will. If they don't they won't.

Sounds like how businesses are run now. What's the difference?

The difference is that bosses aren't producing anything with their labour. They are managing other workers and regimenting them.

They are the ones making sure everything in the business is running on target. From marketing to profits to the products it gives to the public (if any) to services provided.
Just cause they are working smart (with their heads, not their hands) doesn't mean they aren't producing anything. Christ, you self employ for a while and see how cushy a boss' job actually is. The stress, the 24/7 on call, the responsibility, the liability.
Are there lazy bosses who do nothing? Sure. But to pretend that their job is superfluous is oversimplifying things a little.

I don't think bosses are evil on the individual level, but their existence serves a purpose which works against the proletariat.

Maybe. I don't really see any model that doesn't at least have the potential to do that, though.

 

[sayak83]

Wealth equality, charity and austerity are key aspects of Dharma.
And, often capitalism leads to consequences against those.
So, capitalism is against Dharmic principles.

Wealth equality? Please show me one Hindu or Buddhist verse supporting that.
Austerity is important only for certain ways of dharmic pursuit, a householder does not need to practice austerity but moderation.
Charity is very important, and it requires wealth to be given.

You are saying thing similar to "Science and technology is often used to create weapons of war. So science and technology is against Dharma."

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Depends on the system. Solutions would vary from a market based solution leading to mutualist economics, post-scarcity ideas, division of labour, etc.

Here we go again. Blissfull thinking and happy thoughts with no real, working model to analyze.

If they want to listen to you, they will. If they don't they won't.

Really? Then the venture fails. If those who "don't want to listen" to the one who knows what they're doing don't; then the ones who "dont want to listen" destroy what is supposed to be accomplished.

So, what is the most likely end result?

Someone who does know convinces a few others that those who won't listen are working against the team and something must be done to protect the venture. What happens next? Those who agree with the said individual take action, of one kind or another, against those who are threatening the venture. So, what do those who acted against those few who won't listen become?

Bosses!

The difference is that bosses aren't producing anything with their labour. They are managing other workers and regimenting them.

That is the most ludicrous statement I've ever heard in my life. Sorry, I can't be civil about that one. They are producing my managing other workers and regimenting them towards a common goal; solving problems; settling conflicts; formulating plans; researching the same; seeing to it that the work that needs to be done, is done (thus producing); and doing a whole lotta stuff behind the scenes that I suspect you are oblivious to.

I don't think bosses are evil on the individual level, but their existence serves a purpose which works against the proletariat.

This may be true in some regards; and is certainly true of certain individuals called "bosses"; but all things considered, I again disagree. My bosses, for example, make decisions about what product to carry and what product NOT to carry; what to spend, how to spend it, how much, how often; all of this with the goal in mind to make enough money to cover the expenses and still make a profit ... and in this case, I am an expense. By ensuring the survival, competitiveness and profitability of the business, I benefit because, at the end of each month when the previous month's work is compiled, I have a job and a paycheck.

Wealth equality, charity and austerity are key aspects of Dharma.
And, often capitalism leads to consequences against those.
So, capitalism is against Dharmic principles.

My point, though, is that it doesn't have to work like that! This reflects the value of the shareholders and/or owners, etc. in charge of the business; this is not a reflection on capitalism as a whole.

imho.

Depends on the system. Solutions would vary from a market based solution leading to mutualist economics, post-scarcity ideas, division of labour, etc.

But back to my main gist: Stop evading and give us a system. Give us a what for. Give us an example.

If you are short on imagination, here is a very simplisitic idea for you to work with: You, Me, and Five others need to plant and harvest a few acres of produce, yet to be decided upon, to feed ourselves, the livestock on an adjoining ranch (in exchange for a portion of the meat they will produce at the end of the season) and trade the excess for further goods we will need for the coming year.

Go .... Outline for us how this is supposed to work ...

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Though I concede it's a breeding ground for corruption. Perhaps a half half kind of deal?

Every system is a breeding ground for corruption, imho. Greed is a human failing that supersedes economic structures.

 

[sayak83]

Buying something at an extremely low value, and selling it for loads more than it is worth....

The idea in capitalism is to make as much capital as possible, unfortunately we only have finite resources, and it always means exploiting someone to prosper.

That is impossible under capitalism. Your competitor will undercut you immediately. The last crash was caused by speculative wall street trading that has very very little to do with "normal" capitalist systems that worked till 1990 and is a direct result of some disastrous policy decisions by the US govt. (goaded on my unscrupulous special interests). You land into deep deep trouble when highly speculative selling and reselling of "promise" becomes tied to the banking sector.
What I propose is a second wall of separation, this time between commerce and the government. The government and its policy making should be made completely independent of any and all commercial meddling through donations and back-door funding. If the companies wish to donate, they should donate as private citizens in the fully transparent manner as they do in case of public universities to create self-sustaining autonomous grants for funding people who wish to pursue public life (like student fellowships etc.) Similarly, if the government wish to funnel taxpayer dollars to some nationally important technology or commercial venture, it should create a publicly funded grant or stock from which any company with a promising idea and technology in that area can access seed funding over the long haul. No direct company to specific politician or specific politician to company funding will be allowed.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Unnatural? No. We are territorial by nature; thus, it is natural for us to establish territory and ownership.

Humans evolved as nomads, and the earliest human societies have no conception of private property.

 

[arthra]

Is capitalism away from the natural order of things, and another false part of reality, that blinds us from working for the greater good?

I think capitalism is a natural economic development but on a small scale... The problem is when large corporations begin to form monopolies that curb the normal course of competition, also monopolies can control wages and influence elections and laws.

What you need is a combination of public control for the public good along with natural competitive economics.

You need a common store house for insurance and collective response to disasters and conditions like severe drought, issues of public health and national security.

We also need to reduce the extremes of extravagant wealth on one hand and extreme poverty on the other.... hence there needs to be ways to distribute wealth fairly to avoid extreme class polarity.

Workers should have more of a stake in sharing profits.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

As far as "adharmic" ... I don't know. My gut says, not really, but I have little knowledge on the subject of Dharma/dharma; though I have been vaguely introduced to the philosophy. Whether or not it is or is not, imho, depends on who is in control of, and making decisions for, the capital venture in question. A person who cherishes D/dharma and follows its philosophies will naturally manage the venture with those values and principles in mind, thus the venture will not be adharmic. One who does not value or understand D/dharma will not manage the venture with those values and principles in mind, thus the venture will be adharmic.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Wealth equality? Please show me one Hindu or Buddhist verse supporting that.
Austerity is important only for certain ways of dharmic pursuit, a householder does not need to practice austerity but moderation.
Charity is very important, and it requires wealth to be given.

You are saying thing similar to "Science and technology is often used to create weapons of war. So science and technology is against Dharma."

About the Hindu and buddhist verses, I m simply going to ignore as Adharma isn't an Abrahamic idea that it is based on texts only.
Austerity is mostly defined as control over speech, desires, etc in the Gita. So in the context of sucking up money from the 99% continuously, austerity is simply control and not Tapa.
Science and technology also creates better options for the environment and living beings, not solely evil.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Wealth equality, charity and austerity are key aspects of Dharma.
And, often capitalism leads to consequences against those.
So, capitalism is against Dharmic principles.

(emphasis added)

Then I guess that about cinches it; Capitalism, as well as most other economic structures, is adharmic.

Now, what I find perplexing about that is that most spiritual paths value simplicity and not accumulating wealth and such material objects which serve as only things of attachments and distractions. Does your religion have a synonymous principle? If so, then why would "wealth equality" ... distribution of wealth ... be a facet? If wealth and material gain serve as objects of attachment and distraction ... why would you wish for it to be distributed to others thus providing the instruments of that vice?

 

[Vouthon]

(emphasis added)

Then I guess that about cinches it; Capitalism, as well as most other economic structures, is adharmic.

Now, what I find perplexing about that is that most spiritual paths value simplicity and not accumulating wealth and such material objects which serve as only things of attachments and distractions. Does your religion have a synonymous principle? If so, then why would "wealth equality" ... distribution of wealth ... be a facet? If wealth and material gain serve as objects of attachment and distraction ... why would you wish for it to be distributed to others thus providing the instruments of that vice?

Good question.

I would say it is less a question of "wealth", than it is of equal access to the goods of the earth. By nature these goods are not subject to any boundary lines, divisions and/or appropriations in the hands of one at the expense of others.

Access to and even possession of resources - whether in the form of goods or capital to acquire goods - is not by itself sinful (or 'adharmic'). But living beyond what you need to live comfortably is. In this sense 'wealth,' if understood to mean the gross accumulation of resources as opposed to merely accessing the common store to live comfortably by the fruit of one's labour, can be a means of occassioning sin.

Charity, like that of the poor widow in the Gospel, is not about "giving out of our abundance". It is about self-giving love: giving to others something that constitutes a genuine sacrifice on our part, even if a small one.

Giving out of our 'superabundant' wealth - or 'excess' wealth - is not considered 'charitable' but a solemn duty according to the catechitical tradition of my Church.

Because of the universal destination of goods that precedes the division of property (despite the latter being a right), the right to property is not 'absolute' - it is conditional on its efficacy for the common good.

According to Pope Leo XIII:

"But when what necessity demands has been supplied and one’s standing fairly provided for, it becomes a duty to give to the needy out of what remains over.”​

So what we possess for "necessary demands" of life and for "our standing" (i.e. our social role) is legitimately ours and we should be charitable from that resource.

But what we have in 'superabundance' (in excess of what one needs for these two purposes), belongs by right to the poor. As Pope St. Gregory the Great said:

“When we furnish the destitute with any necessity we render them what is theirs, not bestow on them what is ours; we pay the debt of justice rather than perform the works of mercy.”​

If it comes from our 'excess' wealth (which is superfluous to our actual needs and station), then it isn't reckoned a "work of mercy" but a duty.

According to Cardinal Cajetan, the great commentator of the Summa, and other Thomistic glossers, the king (or "government") can - if the need be grave and manifest - "take from someone who is unwilling to dispense from what is superfluous for life or state, and to distribute it to the poor".

To prove you with the full quotation:

"...Now what a ruler can do in virtue of his office, so that justice may be served in the matter of riches, is to take from someone who is unwilling to dispense from what is superfluous for life or state, and to distribute it to the poor. In this way he just takes away the dispensation power of the rich man to whom the wealth has been entrusted because he is not worthy. For according to the teaching of the saints, the riches that are superfluous do not belong to the rich man as his own but rather to the one appointed by God as dispenser, so that he can have the merit of a good dispensation...as Basil said, it belongs to the indigent..."

- Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on the Summa Theologica," vol. 6, II-II, 118.3

​

So it depends what one means by "wealth". If by it, you mean what a person requires to satisfy his needs and station, then "no," it is not sinful but a person is still expected to be charitable from these resources - albeit entirely at his own discretion. Only a tyrannical Marxist state would expropriate or take away the wealth a person has to maintain their needs and standing in life. Whatever wealth a person has for these two ends legitimately belongs to them, by right.

But if by wealth you mean possesion of resources exclusively for oneself beyond whatever is required to satisfy your needs and standing, that is wealth which is superfluous to these two ends, then "yes" I would say this is most definetly 'adharmic'. And if an economic leads not to widespread ownership of wealth/capital but monopolies of superfluous wealth, then I would say it too is "adharmic"

But equalizing access to wealth is a demand of natural justice. That does not mean everyone will have the same degree of wealth - i.e. we all have different "stations" to provide for - but at the basic level the access to one's requisite needs and whatever else one requires to fulfil their "station" should be as egalitarian as possible.

 

[Vouthon]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...e_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#The universal destination of goods and private property

174. The principle of the universal destination of goods is an invitation to develop an economic vision inspired by moral values that permit people not to lose sight of the origin or purpose of these goods, so as to bring about a world of fairness and solidarity, in which the creation of wealth can take on a positive function. Wealth, in effect, presents this possibility in the many different forms in which it can find expression as the result of a process of production that works with the available technological and economic resources, both natural and derived. This result is guided by resourcefulness, planning and labour, and used as a means for promoting the well-being of all men and all peoples and for preventing their exclusion and exploitation.

175. The universal destination of goods requires a common effort to obtain for every person and for all peoples the conditions necessary for integral development, so that everyone can contribute to making a more humane world, “in which each individual can give and receive, and in which the progress of some will no longer be an obstacle to the development of others, nor a pretext for their enslavement”[367]. This principle corresponds to the call made unceasingly by the Gospel to people and societies of all times, tempted as they always are by the desire to possess, temptations which the Lord Jesus chose to undergo (cf. Mk 1:12-13; Mt 4:1-11;Lk 4:1-13) in order to teach us how to overcome them with his grace.

b. The universal destination of goods and private property

176. By means of work and making use of the gift of intelligence, people are able to exercise dominion over the earth and make it a fitting home: “In this way, he makes part of the earth his own, precisely the part which he has acquired through work; this is the origin of individual property”[368]. Private property and other forms of private ownership of goods “assure a person a highly necessary sphere for the exercise of his personal and family autonomy and ought to be considered as an extension of human freedom ... stimulating exercise of responsibility, it constitutes one of the conditions for civil liberty”[369]. Private property is an essential element of an authentically social and democratic economic policy, and it is the guarantee of a correct social order.The Church's social doctrine requires that ownership of goods be equally accessible to all[370], so that all may become, at least in some measure, owners, and it excludes recourse to forms of “common and promiscuous dominion”[371].

177. Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute and untouchable: “On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone”[372]. The principle of the universal destination of goods is an affirmation both of God's full and perennial lordship over every reality and of the requirement that the goods of creation remain ever destined to the development of the whole person and of all humanity[373]. This principle is not opposed to the right to private property[374] but indicates the need to regulate it. Private property, in fact, regardless of the concrete forms of the regulations and juridical norms relative to it, is in its essence only an instrument for respecting the principle of the universal destination of goods; in the final analysis, therefore, it is not an end but a means[375].

178. The Church's social teaching moreover calls for recognition of the social function of any form of private ownership [376] that clearly refers to its necessary relation to the common good[377]. Man “should regard the external things that he legitimately possesses not only as his own but also as common in the sense that they should be able to benefit not only him but also others”[378]. The universal destination of goods entails obligations on how goods are to be used by their legitimate owners. Individual persons may not use their resources without considering the effects that this use will have, rather they must act in a way that benefits not only themselves and their family but also the common good. From this there arises the duty on the part of owners not to let the goods in their possession go idle and to channel them to productive activity, even entrusting them to others who are desirous and capable of putting them to use in production.

179. The present historical period has placed at the disposal of society new goods that were completely unknown until recent times. This calls for a fresh reading of the principle of the universal destination of the goods of the earth and makes it necessary to extend this principle so that it includes the latest developments brought about by economic and technological progress. The ownership of these new goods — the results of knowledge, technology and know-how — becomes ever more decisive, because “the wealth of the industrialized nations is based much more on this kind of ownership than on natural resources”[379].

New technological and scientific knowledge must be placed at the service of mankind's primary needs, gradually increasing humanity's common patrimony. Putting the principle of the universal destination of goods into full effect therefore requires action at the international level and planned programmes on the part of all countries. “It is necessary to break down the barriers and monopolies which leave so many countries on the margins of development, and to provide all individuals and nations with the basic conditions which will enable them to share in development”[380]...

181. To the subjects, whether individuals or communities, that exercise ownership of various types of property accrue a series of objective advantages: better living conditions, security for the future, and a greater number of options from which to choose. On the other hand, property may also bring a series of deceptive promises that are a source of temptation. Those people and societies that go so far as to absolutize the role of property end up experiencing the bitterest type of slavery. In fact, there is no category of possession that can be considered indifferent with regard to the influence that it may have both on individuals and on institutions. Owners who heedlessly idolize their goods (cf. Mt6:24, 19:21-26; Lk 16:13) become owned and enslaved by them[383]. Only by recognizing that these goods are dependent on God the Creator and then directing their use to the common good, is it possible to give material goods their proper function as useful tools for the growth of individuals and peoples​

 

[SomeRandom]

Every system is a breeding ground for corruption, imho. Greed is a human failing that supersedes economic structures.

Hmm good point.

 

[sayak83]

About the Hindu and buddhist verses, I m simply going to ignore as Adharma isn't an Abrahamic idea that it is based on texts only.

If something is not found in a reasonably established text or philsophy or shastra, its nothing more than a personal opinion. You are free to have any opinion as a Hindu, but please don't claim that it is an established response of any branch if Hinduism or Buddhism.

Austerity is mostly defined as control over speech, desires, etc in the Gita. So in the context of sucking up money from the 99% continuously, austerity is simply control and not Tapa.

Your understanding of capitalism is childish. There are good and bad actors in the market place since time immemorial. Bill Gates is the richest man and the greatest contributors to charity in the world.

Science and technology also creates better options for the environment and living beings, not solely evil.

Yes clearly the evil villain who's who list is below.
1) Microsoft is solely evil (Bill Gates #1 rich in Forbes)
2) A French clothing company Zara is solely evil. (its founder 2nd richest man).
3) Warren Buffet is solely evil.
4) Amazon is solely evil (Jeff Bozos, its founder, the 5th richest man)
5) Facebook is solely evil. (Zuckerberg is the 6th richest man in the world.)
6) Oracle is Solely evil. (Larry Oleson founder 7th richest guy.)
7) Bloomberg (8th richest man, founder of Bloomberg, 3 times mayor of New York, noted for his work after 9/11) is solely evil.
8) Ok the Koch brothers are mostly distasteful. (9 and 10)

The most serious concerns today are indeed the rising wealth inequality. A lot (in fact most) current work on economics is done on this trend and why it occurs and how it can be stopped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century

 

[Revoltingest]

There are 2 fundamental problems with ditching capitalsm.....

1) What kind of economic system would replace it?
It would have to be predicated on existing human nature, because we cannot change that.
It would have to be something which has already worked, ie, nothing which exists only in theory.

2) What kind of governmental system would we need to prevent people from capitalistic behavior?