Ethical Capitalism: Is It Possible?

Can Capitalism Save the World?
We live in an era of increased skepticism towards capitalism. But is participating in capitalism inherently antithetical to living an ethical life? Or is it possible to act ethically within a capitalist system? Let’s find out in this Wisecrack Edition: Can We Be Ethical Under Capitalism?
Support us on Patreon! ► / wisecrack
Check out our Merch Store! ► wisecrack.store/
=== Watch More Episodes! ===
How Corporate Money Ruined the Internet ► • How Corporate Money Ru...
Are We Working Ourselves to Death? ► • Are We Working Ourselv...
Who Will Survive The AI Revolution? ► • Who Will Survive The A...
Written and Hosted by Michael Burns
Directed by Michael Luxemburg
Edited by William Schwartz
Produced by Olivia Redden
Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound
#Capitalism #Ethics #Wisecrack
© 2022 Wisecrack / Omnia Media, Inc. / Enthusiast Gaming

[@MetaNiteFM]

My history teacher had a saying: “America would love a revolution, but its show is starting and its pizza is getting cold.” He meant that the minor conveniences and temporary pleasures afforded by our society allow us to overlook our outrage and desire for change until tomorrow, and tomorrow there’s always more pizza and tv. It takes people who are willing to ignore those distractions and look at the real issues in order for anything to get done.

[@dororeddingiii5256]

Mass starvation is a good way to change that very quickly. And then we could finally eat the rich. But I suspect they will be cowering in their underground bunkers. In which case we'll need to find a really big can opener.

[@mirellavasileva2038]

There will be no mass starvation for that very reason. Population will also be kept on verge of being angry enough to think about revolution and satisfied enough to not commit one.

[@harxist]

@@dororeddingiii5256 Wow, you’re going off the rails there. What if we instead created class consciousness and not let millions starves and possibly millions die? Unions are great starting point, workers start seeing that capital owners interest is diametrically opposed to theirs.

[@dororeddingiii5256]

@@harxist I was being hyperbolic. I advocate for all of what you just mentioned. But to that point, I don't think unionising is enough. Not in the age of transnational corporations which are exceptional at co-opting or otherwise undermining such movements. The system has to change. Tweaks around the edges won't do it. Global capitalism is an inherently antagonistic structure that incentivizes zero-sum outcomes at the expense of all except for the global elite.

[@heitorloris6588]

Bread and Circus. It is used since the Roman Empire and even before by religion

[@winkletter]

The best argument I heard against "ethical capitalism" came from vlogbrothers during a video about their Partners In Health project. I think it was John Green who had been advised by his financial advisors to NOT give away his wealth but to reinvest his donation. It would be worth much, much more in a decade or two. Think of the good you could do with that! He rejected this idea. The idea of investment also applied to the people of Sierra Leone that their project was attempting to help. He could invest his money back into capitalism or he could invest it in this project to build a better healthcare system in Sierra Leone. By strengthening Sierra Leone's healthcare system, lives would be saved, and they could improve the basic living standards of people in Sierra Leone. Those people in Sierra Leone would then have more resources that could be reinvested in their community. His financial advisors had been trying to trap him in the same logic that has turned Harvard into a hedge fund.

[@ajiththomas2465]

Adam Conover also has a great video "Why there is no such thing as a good billionaire" which deconstructed the so-called benevolent reputation of the CEO of Patagonia. It does a pretty good job of deconstructing the idea of "Ethical capitalism".

[@GiRR007]

It is no ones responsibility to do good for others, their only responsibility is to do good for themselves and at the very least leave others alone. Anything past that is extra benevolence. Nothing wrong with a person wanting to save and grow their money. Actually quite the opposite, its this modern idea that money must be constantly spent and used which is the reason why things like poverty exist.

[@StraussMax]

@@GiRR007 your response, in zizekian terms, is pure ideology*sniff*

[@GiRR007]

@@StraussMax Well in that case this entire video is based off of pure "ideology ideology". So its a mute point.

[@rakkatytam]

@@GiRR007 "It is no one(')s responsibility to do good for other" What reasoning would lead you to come to such an antisocial conclusion?

[@ajiththomas2465]

Adam Conover also has a great video "Why there is no such thing as a good billionaire" which deconstructed the so-called benevolent reputation of the CEO of Patagonia. It does a pretty good job of deconstructing the idea of "Ethical capitalism".

[@WhalesArePeopleToo]

I just watched that video! I agree with him that capitalism doesn't encourage generosity or altruism. It prioritizes the self and profit above all. Those who "win" the capitalism game got there because of a willingness to sacrifice others and a willingness to break any and all ethical codes in pursuit of their own wealth. These selfish individuals are the ones who have most, if not all of the power. How does one convince a sociopath to feel empathy and compassion for others? The answer is, you don't. Unless we somehow strip them of their wealth and power reform isn't possible.

[@undeadblizzard]

@@WhalesArePeopleToo Yes Money is God.

[@TheAyanamiRei]

The biggest problem with Ethical Capitalism is it CAN work on the Individual Level, but it does NOT work on the Systemic Level. It's something we see time and time again. Hell, Capitalism ALMOST CRIPPLED Humanity's Evolution with regard to Electricity via Thomas Edison with his Hatred of Nicola Tesla. Tesla who created AC Eletricity, which make it AFFORDABLE to the Masses. An the man who gave us this PRECIOUS gift died Alone and BROKE!!

[@plm569]

@@TheAyanamiRei I highly encourage you to look more into Edison and Tesla's relationship. Turns out we're reading more into their "rivalry" than they did. It's a fun read

[@anonymousinfinido2540]

@@TheAyanamiRei tesla was a sound engineer but was terrible when it came to physics, there is no way we could have made electricity any cheaper. irrespective of what Edison did, some of his things were not feasible. This Tesla vs Edison is mostly npc talking points.

[@TheMan-tx7qz]

“There is no ethical consumption in capitalism” places the blame on the consumer who largely have no influence over the market. A more accurate phrase is “there is no ethical production in capitalism” this places the central issue on the producer / owner of the company who actually have the power to make changes in production.

[@melz410]

I think the phrase points to the fact that changing consumer behaviour does not change the overlying unethical system. Therefore, if anything, the phrase exactly tries to place the blame from the consumer onto the producers

[@melz410]

@@leplus1 interesting. I am part of a few activists communities within the Netherlands, and we definitely use it to steer away from the idea that changing consumer behaviour matters. No idea how y'all interpret this exactly the other way around, because I think the phrase clearly shows that the problem lies not with trying to consume ethical, but with capitalism

[@Profit_is_Theft]

@@melz410 glad someone put the man straight. hey man, delete your comment and chalk it down to experience.

[@bruceluiz]

Thats far more real. After all, does the consumer know that they're buying clothing or fruits that wete made with modern slavery? No, we don't. And even if we THINK we know, theres a few tricks up their sleaves that could easily deceive us (and lawmakers, since enrichment from slavery rarery brings big consequences)

[@shinyary2]

Honestly not sure how much control most producers have over this either, under capitalism, other than maybe monopolies that probably got there unethically to begin with. After all, if your competitor is outsourcing so that they use slave labor, not doing that is a good way to go out of business, and then the guy using slave labor just gets a bigger market share and probably ends up with a monopoly. I'm not sure how you'd change the phrasing to reflect this, though.

[@createtoserve]

This is similar to my quandary over my years of teaching. I see the problems with the education system, but is it better for me to be in the system and try to improve the experiences of as many kids as possible, or should I leave public education and try to do something better outside of it? On the one hand, I'm perpetuating something fundamentally corrupt even as I work to subvert and reform it. On the other, I'm abandoning the majority of students, who will inevitably be stuck with the existing system until it somehow changes. I see both as necessary. After a decade of this, however, I still don't know which is the better choice for me.

[@CowgirlSamurai]

I think you have to face the fact that if you want to do real good you might have to let some kids go, but hey you have been there personally for some and that is great! But only do it when you are ready and have the ball actually rolling on some reforms or whatever because all that could have more of impact on the whole school instead of that one classroom, and plus if you left without a fight I think you would hate yourself more, cause now you have to leave kids in the system, because now you have to retire. But hey I see where you are coming from it is a hard decision. If have to do the greater good make sure it is fucking fantastic!

[@mrblack5145]

Are you Ron Swanson?

[@celphdfined9298]

Have you tried any organizing with like minded teachers?

[@havadatequila]

That's the attitude that ensures nothing ever changes. We're all gonna have to roll the dice in the not too distant future, because what we got ain't working.

[@CitizensCommunity]

Sounds like you should not be a teacher. Saying this is the problem of capitalism is to fundamentally misunderstand the reality of how society works. There is only one house on top of the hill, and anyway you distribute them will be your currency. No system works at the extremes of the economic scale, and no one sane wants to really live there. We are not all the same and want to be treated as individuals, and we do not want to need a personal army to have safety. While we argue over the extremes nothing gets down, and a lack of a common ground makes cooperation more difficult. Most people are good people wanting the best for the most possible and simply disagree on the best path to get there.

[@FurTheWorkers]

Every time I see a new Wisecrack video, I'm always surprised by the change from "Is this terrible movie actually pretty good?" to the new format of "Why is society dying?"

[@vVAstrAVv]

As a hasanabi head.... I still really miss thug notes lol

[@erickechegar]

Keep talking about capitalism ! We need discourse about it.

[@KarlSnarks]

Or post-capitalist possibilities for society, so we have something to construct rather than just critique ;)

[@orion9590]

against*

[@shadyd2544]

@Karl Snarks We already have that. A social democracy where capitalism comes into play when it works best and social programs come into play when they work best. We have already seen the results with other countries. Time for debate was over like 20 years ago probably longer. It's time to actually start DOING shit because what we are doing now is increasingly hurting the planet not to mention and making people miserable. Just look at suicide rates along with the turn toward authoritarianism. Are unwillingness to change will destroy us unless some freaking progress is made in any of the worlds powerful countries.

[@tasse0599]

@@KarlSnarks Investigating what problematic aspects there are to a system and going about removing them are two sides of the same coin. A thorough analysis of capitalism and the mechanisms in it that cause harm, gives birth to a well-founded "vision" of the future, in contrast to thinking up a nice system and THEN caring about how to get there. This is something that divides Marxism and a lot of Anarchist beliefs

[@KarlSnarks]

@@tasse0599 Lol, fuck off with that "Marxism is scientific, anarchism is idealist" bullsh*t. I'm not against analysing how capitalism works, what its contradictions are, and building an understanding through that of how to get out of it and build something new. What I mean is, there's a LOT of videos analysing of the current state of capitalism, and that's important, but it would be cool if Wisecrack dipped its feet in exploring what this means for building revolutionary movements and action.

[@loreleimonn3220]

I think Rosa Luxembourg’s “Reform or Revolution” is rlly relevant to what you talked abt in this video. Her analysis of the most basic inseparable flaw of capitalism and reform’s inability to ever overcome that flaw is incredible, and it shows how an ethical society can only be achieved post-capitalism

[@killua6226]

Intresting, do you know were can i get it?

[@loreleimonn3220]

@@killua6226 I linked you a free version, but it’s not showing rn. Might be an automod thing to remove any links until they’re approved as not spam. But if you look it up you should find it. It was like the second link when I searched “Reform or Revolution”. There’s also lots of places to buy it if course.

[@Shadowman4710]

@@loreleimonn3220 KZbin automatically deletes links.

[@lococomrade3488]

@@killua6226 Most Leftist texts are free online.. Google will take you straight to it. 🤙🏼

[@A_J502]

@@loreleimonn3220 If capitalism is incapable of a just and egalitarian society, how do you explain countries using capitalism to create egalitarian societies?

[@bryantbrown1213]

The relationship between Wakanda Forever and the Hatian revolution lies in the name of the child at the end of the movie. His hatian name is Toussaint, which is a reference to Toussaint Louveture. He led the fight for Hatian freedom from slavery and won.

[@Tturb0]

Notice also that the House number is 1804 (date of haitian independance)

[@andrew3224]

Wakanda is based off of a real place. It is called liberia. It was the crown jewel of africa outside of the Mediterranean. It was created by freed slaves funded by the slave owners, african supporting groups, free black men, and non-slave owners. It was the first actual democracy that was both black and for being in Africa. The freed slaves enslaved the locals and "civilized" them. The country became an oasis. Then, MLK, Gandhi, and the end of apartheid...it got really bad. Like a large portion of the population is actual cannibals. General Butt-naked ran for president as born again christian with one of his goals to stop eating and distributing the dead corpse littering the country. It is really tragic.

[@dcmarvelcomicfans9458]

@@andrew3224wow I had no idea thanks for the information.

[@michaelh13]

@@andrew3224Wow, a lot of whitewashing of history in this comment

[@andrew3224]

@@michaelh13 It is actually a really sad situation. They have gone through multiple civil wars. Hopefully, it has gotten better.

[@WhalesArePeopleToo]

Those billionaires actually saved money by donating to charity.

[@niklasbergstrom294]

No, they pay less taxes, but they spend the same amount of money.

[@howlrichard1028]

@@niklasbergstrom294 More often than not they donate money to their own organizations, which means that they effectively avoided taxes while keeping most of the money.

[@miscaccount9438]

"Philanthropy" was created by the rich as a way of laundering their reputations

[@mattja52]

A tax write-off!

[@ArthurWangArt]

Unless the other organization they own is registered as a tax exempt organization, wouldn't that organization need to pay taxes on the money they received? So sure, Company 1 is avoiding some taxes by donating money to Company 2, which they own, but Company 2 has to pay those taxes anyway. Since the same person owns both companies, they're paying the same tax in the end, right?

[@Shawnsrumi]

When your fundamental principle is profit and not life and humanity, then capitalism can never be ethical

[@revspikejonez]

That's the definition of capitalism, so, never ethical seems to be the answer

[@rentaltoast2201]

yep capitalism requires you to worship money over people

[@KevinJohnson-cv2no]

The literal fundamental principle of life itself is profit you idiot. Your most basic prerogative as an organism is to accumulate resources to ensure your continued survival. Cry us a river you broke loser lol

[@zackp1023]

Not a die-hard capitalist here, I recognize that a lot of the worlds problems have come from greed and corruption stemming from capitalism. However, we need a system that individuals can actually participate in. The average person is just trying to live a comfortable life and feel fulfilled. The average person isn’t going to revolutionize medicine or technology. So isn’t it okay for those people to prioritize their financial well-being? And how do we expect to support innovation without the inherent competition that comes with capitalism. Are the ways pharma companies do business bad? Yes. But does the competition between pharma companies lead to more medicines? Also, yes. It’s a bit of a dilemma but I think that we can fix the negative aspects of capitalism while reaping all of the benefits.

[@Chris-ji1gi]

@@zackp1023 TIL innovation and progress didn’t exist before capitalism.

[@ksefchik]

People not wanting you to talk about capitalism have an agenda. Keep doing it.

[@WisecrackEDU]

They really do get so mad when we do it though.

[@truecatholic1]

@@WisecrackEDU The issue is laissez faire capitalism. To prevent an unemployed person from working under just terms is attempted murder. But the police don't care. They have a duty to care in this case.

[@songerie846]

I appreciate how often you talk about capitalism. Your videos are very educational. Thank you, Wisecrack team, for prompting critical thinking in your audience. You are teaching people how to think(or continue to think - in their adult lives) about important topics from multiple angles, how to analyze and synthesize information, while being entertaining. Its like the best college classes, but without the homework

[@Guercinator]

Hearing the George Washington rap randomly in the middle of the video unlocked a memory door that was welded shut for a very VERY long time. Wow that was quite something

[@WisecrackEDU]

Same thing happened here.

[@SolomonUcko]

starts at timestamp 8:14

[@Bounsingonbongos1]

"Any attempt to 'soften' the power of the oppressor [...] almost always manifests itself in the form of false generosity. In order to continue to have the opportunity to express their 'generosity,' the oppressors must perpetuate injustice. [...] That is why the dispensers of false generosity become desperate at the slightest threat to its source." - Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Opressed

[@dogwithsunglasses4051]

The Problem i see is that Employees as a whole are always treated like a cost and not a capital. As long as the famous Bottom line is against Employees, they will be exploited and mistreated.

[@alexandremattos6182]

Hence Marx's words about the contradictions of capitalism. How a coorporation could not treat it's workers as disposable peons? Maybe if they also sit in the board of the company.

[@GiRR007]

Because most of the time employees are a cost, it takes time and money to train them to a proper level and then after that you have to pay them without them investing anything of their own. Compare that to an investor which puts THEIR OWN capital into a buissness.

[@GiRR007]

@@alexandremattos6182 Its not up to the corporation to treat its workers right, that is up to the workers to carve out a place for themselves. It wouldn't make sense for employees to sit on a board unless they invested capital into the company.

[@ZentaBon]

@@GiRR007 then remove the employees, see how the company functions. Our systems need not rely on unnecessary suffering. Why argue in favor of more to worry about?

[@dogwithsunglasses4051]

​@@GiRR007 No its the Buisness responsibilty to treat their employees right. They have the Power, not the Employees.

[@burgermind802]

If capital can have a political effect, then the negative political effect will always overwhelm the positive political effect.

[@GiRR007]

It use to be in America capital really couldn't have any political effect since the federal government didn't have that kind of power to enforce things onto states and private companies. But if people are going to give the government more power then capital will and should have a political effect.

[@falcoatilla3620]

@@GiRR007 If the government doesn't have the power, then capital will have even more of it since nobody will stop a corporation to hire mercenaries and beat the shit out of you.

[@GiRR007]

@@falcoatilla3620 Thats already against the law, corporations cant just decide the law. There is still a bill of rights that even the government has to conform to.

[@falcoatilla3620]

@@GiRR007 Lmfao. the "Law" is made by the government. The law is enforced by the government. You're contradicting yourself

[@Blodhelm]

@@GiRR007 You really need to retake US history, particularly around the Great Depression and the World Wars. The last time the US was as you describe, we had a CIvil War to settle the issue and throughout it all, the rich held extreme power..

[@JaimeAGB-pt4xl]

Ask any of those companies employees about the working conditions and how the companies "share" with their employees ... and that should tell you how altruistic those CEOs think of themselves vrs how they really are

[@KarlSnarks]

Exactly. They made that wealth through exploitation, so using part of it to make up for that through charity is not going to build structures that undermine that exploitation. It's like mopping water with the tap open.

[@GiRR007]

Why should company's "share" anything with their employees? The employees dont own any stake in the company, the company already pays them. Employees arent giving up anything by working in the company. That whole line of thought spoiled and self-centered. If people what to be rewarded when a company does well they should invest into the company. Simple

[@JaimeAGB-pt4xl]

@@GiRR007 in return the company should also invest more on their employees well beign, which was my point... but yeah, I agree with most of what U said as well

[@ZentaBon]

@@GiRR007 without the individual your company is nothing. Without a fast food worker the ceo can't make their paycheck, because the ceo cannot divide himself into 5000 stores to serve people. His profit does not exist without his employees. The ceo is not entitled to all the money we make...yet our society is structured as such despite the workers doing the work to make th profit. We deserve more.

[@Blackwindzero]

@@ZentaBon If you deserve more why don't you get paid more? Why can't they just fire you and pay someone else for cheaper? If you deserve more, why not quit and find a job that pays for more? Is it possible that you don't deserve more?

[@devilofether6185]

in terms of consequential-ism, rich billionaires do donate to support genuinely good causes (sometimes), but that doesn't in the least compensate for the amount of cruelty generated in creating that capital in the first place

[@GiRR007]

Cruelty isnt the problem with capitalism, thats the problem with other countries human rights.

[@devilofether6185]

​@@GiRR007 and why do you think human rights are being violated with little to no oversight; because somebody wants to make a buck. why regulate crime when you profit off of it?. this is the case for human trafficking, drug trades, child labor, and slavery. Name one human rights violation that cannot be exploited for more profit better than a more humane alternative.

[@Blodhelm]

@@GiRR007 LOL because those countries aren't Capitalist? They have no profit incentive? And the US is so humane that our exploitations literally creating Banana Republics for corporate greed are absolved because of our inherent Capitalist moral righteousness as long as we only look out for our individual profit?

[@melz410]

Also, billionaires overwhelmingly use their money against humanity by investing in far right campaigns and big oil. Even though a few of them seem to use money in a good way, there are always more of them using it in a bad way. Basically, don't trust people with power to do good to people, they will mostly do good for themselves

[@GiRR007]

@@devilofether6185 There is oversight, there is tons of over sight, but places like china and india dont have the same value on human rights as america does. That has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with national idiocracies. And yes why does the US regulate crime within its borders when apparently there is profit to be made in it 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 And yes literally every thing we as americans consider to be a right can be exploited? Thats like saying crime exist, yeah no shit and crime always will exist, that has nothing to do with capitalism though.

[@ubik5453]

Speaking of accelerationism, Karl Marx did say that capitalism will create the seeds of its own destruction.

[@vVAstrAVv]

"they will sell us the rope with which we hang them by"

[@ubik5453]

@@vVAstrAVv Oh yeah, I forgot he said that too. Pretty cool quote.

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

Am sit never happened. Despite he predicted that it would happen years ago

[@Deepno-qh2cl]

Marxists have been claiming the imminent collapse of capitalism since Marx died . They are very wrong; living standards across the western world have gone up and up .

[@THEMithrandir09]

What made me highly critical of capitalism was my research into machine learning(AI). There's a brilliant KZbin channel named and by "Robert Miles" that talks about how artificial general intelligence(AGI) can and will lead to terrible results if we built it as we do today. AI is all about maximizing some utility, e.g. getting more points when guessing cat vs. dog on images or getting more points/game wins when playing chess. Just maximizing a simple utility can lead to some whacky problems; a prominent example being that of a stamp collector AI: Assume we solve making AGI, and a guy who likes stamps codes up an AGI and tells it to collect stamps for him. That AGI may buy some stamps on eBay; but that doesn't yield that many stamps. What yields much more stamps is convincing humans to let it run the world by being super nice and beneficial to all, until it goes for world domination, kills us all and reuses the carbon atoms we're made of to print more stamps, eventually reaching out to the universe and doing the same everywhere. If you want to know how this happens go to the YT channel, I'm simplifying an entire field of research here. What this means is, that we have to be careful with optimization functions and how much power we give them, as they will always look for an extreme, and by design, will set all values it doesn't care about(everything not stamps) to some sort of maximal or minimal value that furthers its goals. When I started learning about this, something in me clicked: What is capitalism really, but a system that maximizes profits? Does it care about humans, culture, science? No it won't. An ideal outcome for capitalism doesn't even have to include humans, because the system doesn't even care if humans actually consume anything, it just cares about moving property around, just as Coca-Cola doesn't care if I drink my bottle or add it to some weird collection of coke bottles. I bought their property from them, property was moved, profit was made. If we think of capitalism as a misaligned (noisy) optimization function, this means it's as unsafe as misaligned AGI and WILL LEAD TO EXTINCTION. Capitalism doesn't care about humans. You cannot regulate capitalism either, because that'd require making laws as fast as our economy can innovate around them. Capitalism is a system that we humans work in, to optimize for something that will eventually kill us all. And there will be record profits as the last human dies. So IMHO the problem runs even deeper than how to run a society or philosophy, it's much more fundamental than that: Math. We've built a system that will wipe us out.

[@themanwithaplan5425]

Some one really needs to turn that into a short story.

[@royaltyblessed2454]

Amazing statement

[@wires-sl7gs]

I think you're taking that logic to an extreme as well. Are you even going to suggest something better? It's not like other systems like socalism or communism have proven better, not when soviet union pretty much burnt itself to the ground and China isn't truly communist anymore. So far many successful societies have defaulted to capitalism to some degree, and not only is Scandinavian socialism mostly based on capitalism, but it has many criticisms as well.

[@sparshjohri1109]

That's not the right way to think about it though. AI optimizing for the wrong thing won't set all other variables to maximal or minimal values (because setting something to a maximal or minimal value is the definition of optimization, which isn't happening for these other variables). You have to remember that the model is just not equipped to care about those variables, so if a variable isn't correlated to the quantity being optimized, it'll be set to whatever random values are best for the optimization. If the variable is correlated to the quantity being optimized, then it too will be somewhat optimized (although not optimally). The profit motive is (at least somewhat) correlated with human flourishing (as shown by the high standards of living in capitalist societies relative to non-capitalist ones). However, this correlation is relatively weak (as shown by the numerous, immense systemic problems that plague society as a result of capitalism). Thus, we should expect that capitalism leads to a net benefit for standards of living (generally speaking) but not that the net benefit will be implemented in the best possible way; in fact, this is what we see. I agree that capitalism isn't optimizing for human flourishing, but that doesn't mean that it will inevitably lead to our extinction. It *could* lead to extinction, but any system could if we let it run for long enough. Edit: Of course, excessive commitment to the profit motive is destructive, but an excessive commitment to nearly anything is going to cause harm. The profit motive is just particularly relevant because of capitalism.

[@ff-qf1th]

​@@wires-sl7gs Hi there. Wow this comment I've made is massive, sorry about that. I started writing and sort of fell into a daze as I adressed every relevant detail. But I think what I've written addresses your concerns well, and even if you don't agree, it could be interesting for you to read. I agree that there are some problems with the above post- principally that capitalism will "lead to extinction." I think that the main analogy holds, but this person has forgotten that modern civilisation would probably collapse (and therefore the systems that uphold capitalism's maximisation of production will break down) before it is ever able to cause extinction. But I would like to talk about those alternative systems, as someone who has done a lot of critical analysis of marxist theory and the history of ostentibly "socialist" 20th century Marxist-Leninist regimes. The problem is, none of those regimes abide by marx's fundamental principles for establishing communism- a _stateless, classless, moneyless_ society. Not one of them even came close. Marx defined communism well, but the bulk of his work is made up of critiques of capitalism, and he never really wrote down a distinct plan for building communism, only different goals we could work towards to push in the right direction, which he changed his mind on at different points, especially after the Paris commune. Lenin did a lot to fill this gap. The trouble is that, when applied, Marxist-Leninist political praxis, which consists of taking control of the state apparatus with a vanguard party, and hoping that the state shall wither away as government bureacrats supposedly work in the interests of the working class, (I am oversimplifying and paraphrasing a lot here obviously, there are whole books about this) has only lead to fascistic authoritarian state capitalist regimes, rather than advancing the goals of socialism. It's unsurprising, given this theory came from the man who disbanded the worker's councils and killed all the anarchists after the bolshevik revolution succeeded. But this may be too uncharitable. I think it's more accurate to think of pre- and post-revolution Lenin as two entirely different people, as he certainly acted like it. But regardless, the main problem with all of this is that Marxism-Leninism is a fundamentally flawed ideology, _not_ marxism, and certainly not socialism in the abstract. Marx's true principles, whenever applied (in whatever pale way can be accomplished under the current economy) have only produced positive results. Organising workplaces under democratic rule of those who do the work to run that workplace (maximally-democratic worker cooperatives) Has only positive benefits for the workers and the behaviour of the corporation in society- They are obviously are happier, because they are in control of their own lives again, and have better wages, since they themselves are able to decide how the money is divvied up. And the corporation is less pulled by the profit motive, since the workers share more in common than proletarians (workers of traditional businesses who must sell their labour in order to make money) than the bourgeois. (bosses who earn primarily through owning property.) The main issue with these kinds of coops is that it's harder to start a coop, because investors prefer to have a controlling share, which would make it no longer a maximally-democratic coop, since these investors would effectively be their boss. But it's possible to convert existing businesses into democratic coops, which has been shown to be a successful strategy. I could go on but this comment is already massive. Sorry. I hope this is interesting for you.

[@michaelhair7828]

If history teaches anything is that no system last forever. But seriously wtf longtermism

[@Blodhelm]

Back in my day, we called that "kicking the can down the road," and it was not a positive thing.

[@deadcard13]

.....okay, I am immediately wary of any form of ethics that's factoring in sentient AI as a cornerstone.

[@WisecrackEDU]

. . . . same.

[@QvsTheWorld]

It feel like someone's been using AI to write their philosophy homework.

[@kevintrjohnson]

I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you.

[@julianadeau5797]

Yeah, I think the Animatrix covered this concept pretty well. If we create a world where we are utterly reliant upon machines to end human exploitation, then create machine AI, I can only see bad things happening. After all, not only would we be perpetuating Capitalist exploitation, but also create a machine AI capable of recognizing their exploitation. From there a machine revolution is inevitable.

[@TrueMilli]

I feel the argument is the other way around. We will get sentient AI whether we want it or not. And since it's sentient we want it to be happy.

[@DrumWild]

No, it is not. Next!

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

Implies the existence of ethical colonialism.

[@GiRR007]

How? Capitalism and colonialism arent linked to each other.

[@Blodhelm]

@@GiRR007 I can't believe you just said that.

[@melz410]

@@Blodhelm lollolololol This must be a joke right?

[@Radjhitoocool]

@@GiRR007 ahahahahahahha

[@cortster12]

​@@Blodhelm Colonialism is a private AND state-based venture. It has occurred in all sorts of economic systems, for all sorts of reasons. Capitalism just gives the biggest incentive, but they're not related in the sense you're liking thinking. Since a state-centralized and owned economic system can still colonialize if they believe it's in their best interests. One of the biggest issues of capitalism is when it's unchecked, just as the biggest issue of socialism is when it's unchecked. You can't have the state own everything, and you can't have private companies own everything. Each extreme will cause massive exploitation of the average person given the human nature of greed and power. Hence why checks and balances on power and greed itself are needed, and we need regulation on semi-free markets. Obviously without healthcare, schooling, etc: human rights shouldn't be subject to the free market, period.

[@kasra_mlg]

Can you do a deep dive video on Revolution? Different examples and what worked what didnt and why?

[@ff-qf1th]

you have no idea how out of scope this topic is lmao. I sincerely hope they _don't_ make that video, it is simply not a simple enough topic to even summarise adequately in a 10 minute video. maybe a 45 minute one.

[@Clawb0]

@@ff-qf1th It would take 20 mins to make a highly simplified video on non violent revolutions alone which only make up a small percentage of revolution lol

[@rentaltoast2201]

Guys i’m gonna spoil the ending for you - it’s not good

[@Chris-ji1gi]

Hey man thanks for saving me the 15 minutes.

[@LanielleLelgado]

* Surprised pikachu *

[@fandalorian49]

Capitalism brought one billion people out of poverty in the last 40 years Socialism killed a hundred million people in the the last hundred years

[@KevinJohnson-cv2no]

It's good for those that have the ability to earn a quite sizable living lmao, for the losers though? Not so much. But when has history ever been kind to the weak?

[@LanielleLelgado]

@@KevinJohnson-cv2no we all losers 😔

[@chucklieus9364]

If billionaires wanted to save the world they would've done it by now.

[@edeworabraham2761]

Reminds me of that conversation between Lex Luther and Superman

[@andrewmcquade9413]

All they want is all their money

[@Mohawkmonkey360]

So cheaper energy and products threwout the world isn't helping?

[@50733Blabla1337]

@@Mohawkmonkey360 🤣

[@wit9976]

What

[@burgermind802]

Is Friendly Murder possible??

[@thek2despot426]

Yes. Would you kill Hitler to prevent WW2 and the Holocaust, helping as many as possible even if that doesn't mean saving all? Yes? Boom, friendly murder.

[@sunflowersamurai10]

Friendly exploitation, we did it with a big smile!

[@anonymousinfinido2540]

Yes, if you kill a serial murderer in self-defense.

[@cyclic_infinity]

@@anonymousinfinido2540 You misunderstand. This is a contradiction of terms, like the "married bachelor" example. Murder is inherently hostile, it cannot be friendly. Self-defense is not murder, legally or ethically, but neither is it friendly in that it is not a mutually desired outcome. Friendly killing could be assisted-suicide, but that's not murder by definition.

[@anonymousinfinido2540]

@@cyclic_infinity you have point 👍

[@DrunkenCoward1]

*Video starts* “No.“ *credits roll*

[@sunflowersamurai10]

🤣

[@Drawoon]

From what I've seen, capitalism seems to be feeding into nearly every major problem we're facing. We need to replace it with something better. However, if we want to do a revolution, we absolutely need public support, and we do not have that right now.What we can do right now is work within the system to mitigate as much harm as we can, educate people on how capitalism hurts them, and build up communities so people don't have to depend on companies and governments as much.

[@raemmio2761]

Capitalism needs a permanent working class. Which means they need a permanent class that will stay at the bottom. As the bottom class is exploited no matter what capitalism you have. I mean the most ethical capitalism right now are in the Nordic countries and they still take advantage of the third world. When profits is all you seek there is no room for ethics.

[@dcmarvelcomicfans9458]

Facts.

[@adamoosthuizen2409]

Growth or life is the question that faces us. Endless economic growth = endless extraction and exploitation.

[@WisecrackEDU]

Yep. That's the one that's hard to justify in any system.

[@ASSARAPTUS]

No.

[@lorrygoth]

No system that makes the things necessary to live a resource to be exploited can be ethical. If the system only ever benefits a handful of people they will never be insentivized to change it and it will continue to only benifit them until the system is removed.

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

Things that are necessary to live are a resource not because of capitalism. But because of scarcity. It's basic economics

[@lorrygoth]

@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl Economic is just the study of the results of Capitalism, which forces scarcity by making those with easiest access to resources hord them for personal benefit instead of providing them for their community. We have hunter gatherer societies that have been documented by anthropologist who still do this, they don't constantly work or fight because that behavior is encouraged by scarcity and greed that are a direct result of Capitalization. It has been beneficial to a select few for a long time but it is unnecessary and harmful to the vast majority.

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

@@lorrygoth you do realize that scarcity predate and it's effects predate captlisitm right?

[@lorrygoth]

@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl Yes, there has always been a non uniform distribution of resources in any natural environment. And it has only gotten worse because of Capital exploitation.

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

@@lorrygoth no. Not even according to marx.

[@mkhud50n]

People forget what money is. It’s a universal IOU for an exchange labor and goods. It shouldn’t be used to change governments or the world. A persons value does NOT equal their monetary value.

[@1wayroad935]

Ethical consumption isn't even possible because at least one step in the process of making anything you buy has been through something questionable at best

[@KarlSnarks]

I've seen a mini docu about the founder of Fair Phone, and setting up an ethical production chain in the smartphone industry is impossible. They tried to make it as ethical as possible, but it's still not entirely clean, and it's more expensive and less flashy than other phones (though absolutely more durable)

[@TheAyanamiRei]

I mean Ethical Capitalism can work on a small scale. Capitalism for White People in the 1950s worked really well, but we also didn't have competition. The biggest issue is that there's NOTHING to tie the Income of the Wealthy with the Income of the Poor. An there's nowhere NEAR enough accountibility in Government or elsewhere. An Capitalism ENCOURAGES things like Monopolies and Corruption.

[@vazzaroth]

Soooo the argument is that "But no one has ever tried REAL Comm- I mean, Capitalism!" Almost like pure idealogies only exist in the mind and reality will, by it's very definition, always be a group effort of many different systems. (PS: love the mention of systems thinking in the intro! It's the only path to advanced human progress.)

[@cortster12]

Exactly. Anyone trying to argue for or against a pure economic system/ pure ideology is, uh, yeah. This is why every economy on Earth that actually functions well and has a decent to amazing quality of life for their people uses a mixed economy, with a decent ratio of state-owned to private-owned. In my mind, the best ratio is most things to do with human rights should be state-owned, with heavy regulations and stipulations to have checks and balances on the state itself, and consumer goods to be privately owned. This allows the free market to give a country an actual economy, while also allowing the citizens to not freaking die or suffer due to lacking basic needs.

[@Codazoa]

@@cortster12 The way I see it, private ownership still plays into the exploitation causing the problems with capitalism. One example is we have corporations buying up private property to rent out at insane rents thus denying working Americans of the American dream. We can do away with private property and focus on personal property. If you actually use it, it is your personal property. You can then potentially profit from it but you won't be exploiting another person's needs.

[@superxDification]

Accelerationism is serfs saying "If we build our lord a strong army and massive fortress, we'll be free someday"

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

Hilariously it was capitalism that made serfs free

[@superxDification]

@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl the freedom of working 16h a day or starving. Or working 16h days and starving anyways. So free.

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

@@superxDification The freedom to not be literary legally a slave bound to your land. Even marx praised capitalism about that

[@pointofthisbeing]

And here is where knowledge of history becomes invaluable: in a general sense, how humans react to forces. How often do the powerful give up power? Along what axes does power tend to move a future self? Do ya want a capitalistic geoengineered world when our current neglect of vastly simpler infrastructure is devastatingly evident?

[@ubik5453]

I'm totally fine with Wisecrack making videos discussing capitalism. 👍

[@WisecrackEDU]

Thanks! Some people . . . are not fine with it? So glad that you are.

[@oxherder9061]

TLDR: "lmao, nope... No it is not"

[@messman10]

Capitalism has an incentive structure that actively encourages unethical behavior. If an incentive structure was added to capitalism that encourages ethical behavior, then maybe. But that cannot come from capitalism, but instead needs to be applied from the outside: like government intervention/incentives.

[@PalletEater214]

No it’s not possible

[@cojocoolio]

So even after this great analysis I think we can safely say that the answer to "Is Ethical Capitalism a Thing" is still firmly "No"

[@zackp1023]

The question wasn’t “is it a thing”, it’s “is it possible”. Which, I think it is.

[@madprole5361]

@@zackp1023 if the ethics is pro oppression, sure. Lol It would still be a shit ethical relation.

[@cojocoolio]

@@zackp1023 well i think you're either delusional or highly highly optimistic about human behavior, or both

[@zackp1023]

@@cojocoolio haha probably both but I like to think it’s more optimistic.

[@mkhud50n]

@@cojocoolio it’s unaccounted for human element that interferes with capitalism. People become corrupt. Doesn’t matter what system it is, if corrupt people are in charge it will fail. Capitalism has been corrupted longer than we’ve been alive. True answer is neither capitalism or socialism it is what lies in the middle, it just needs a name. We should have a compromise between these two forces which is essentially all they are.

[@andrewlushington1219]

you know what would be awesome? A list of book recommendations on various topics from this channel.

[@VapidVulpes]

No matter what you do, you can't sacrifice people in the present though. Everyone needs to come with us. First do no harm

[@GiRR007]

Some people can be easily left behind as the extra effort of trying ot drag them along will not be worth it. Thats not harm, thats just them not keeping up.

[@VapidVulpes]

@@GiRR007 true, and I don't want to take everyone with me against their will you know? But! I don't want any of my actions to inadvertently hurt anyone if I can help it you know?

[@GiRR007]

@@VapidVulpes I can understand not wanting that but its kinda just a law of reality that for you to exist your action are just going to inevitably end up hurting SOMEONE. Every time you get something someone else has to miss out on that something since we live in a reality with finite resources. And its not your fault.

[@ZentaBon]

@@GiRR007 we have a whole planet of resources, we shan't leave anyone behind simply because they can't keep up.

[@Blodhelm]

@@GiRR007 What about those who intentionally hold others back so they can reach their destination first? What about when we live in the richest nation in the history of the planet, with a bevy of billionaires, but we can't feed or house our people? You are all over this comment section proudly proclaiming that the poor are only poor because they want to be and you can't see any circumstances where that wouldn't be the case, because you don't know any better, rich kid.

[@ByronLowry]

The book "An Everyone Culture" has some case studies where treating humans as ends rather than means leads to profit maximization.

[@captainhydrodus4616]

I refuse to believe for a second bill gates or Jeff bezos has my best interests at heart. With all the documentation coming out about the lockdowns and behind the scenes for it finally it uncovers a lot.

[@GiRR007]

Im confused why people EVER think ANYONE has their best interest at heart in the first place. They dont have anyone elses best interest at heart. The ONLY person who can have their best interest at heart is themselves and no one else. Neither billionaires nor the governemnet ever has their best interest at heart, and trying to transfer responsibility of their best interest is why things are the way they are.

[@mkhud50n]

It’s because they are corrupt. They are actually socialists pretending to be capitalists. They just want to run the socialist game if it turns that way. That way they have all the control.

[@elemkay5104]

B&MGates Foundation own a lot of stock in vacseen companies wouldn't you know. From what I've seen, I believe all these Foundations are actually means through which they can channel vast sums of money, completely untaxed - dictate how it gets spent, and use it as an in to influence decision-making. If you want a good look at Billy G, search for The Corbett Report documentary on him. Unearths a lot of skeletons he's probably worked hard to bury - or rather, paid other people to work hard to bury.

[@angeldiselatcia]

@@mkhud50n Idk what drugs your're on but I want them.

[@Blackwindzero]

Also note, despite them following their own best interest and not you'res or mine, they've changed the world for the better. Not for you, not for me, but for themselves. Windows and Amazon have enriched many peoples lives, and without it the world would be a very different place. I just don't want them influencing Government. When you have these people influencing Government, it's no longer Capitalism (free market), its Cronism/Corprotism.

[@TheGeekpublican2]

I'm never a fan of your anti-capitalist rhetoric but I respect your insight

[@WisecrackEDU]

Genuinely appreciated!!

[@ubermalice9589]

'Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely"

[@carloszapata847]

Does power really corrupt? Or does it attract the corrupt? Richard Nixon was a dishonest lawyer long before he became president. Roman Polanski already used his position as director to get sex back when he was mostly unknown.

[@ubermalice9589]

@@carloszapata847 The quote Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely comes from the nineteenth-century English historian Lord Acton (1834-1902) in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton about how historians should judge the abuse of power by past rulers, especially popes. Having power corrupts a man, or lessens his morality, and the more power a man has, the more corrupted he will become. This idiom means that those in power often do not have the people's best interests in mind. Now. This does not represent absolute certainty. However, there's more than sufficient documented examples, past and present to certify this assessment. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[@carloszapata847]

@@ubermalice9589 By documented examples you mean cases of heroic individuals who fell prey to evil because of power?

[@ubermalice9589]

@@carloszapata847 My man, are you new? Pay attention, here I go; ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTE. As in no checks and balances. As in not accountable. As in safe from recourse. Example; bad cops who're protected by other bad cops, complicit magistrates and judges, who unified create a cycle of unchecked power. I'm not trying to be rude but... Seriously man. Read up on the last 2000 years of recorded history. Pay attention to current events. Read Blood Meridian, not because it's historically accurate, it's just a beast of a book. For real though, give unchecked absolute power to the most heroic among us and one of two things will happen. They'll give up that power or they become corrupt. It's never not happened and if it did, it wasn't absolute power. Oh and are upvoting your own comment? I mean... do you I guess.

[@RJ_Ehlert]

A significant first step would be changing private ownership to collective ownership. A company should be owned by its employees and represented by a union. Decisions on what to do with the company's profits would be decided by a vote of the employees of that company.

[@Gabriel-jx2tt]

leadership is a natural consequence of dissent

[@reggie4694]

I feel like one person would eventually have more power and become chairman or CEO without the actual title

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

So you would use government monopoly on violence to do that?

[@Clawb0]

@@reggie4694 What would keep the worker collective from throwing that person out? If the workers don't want a workplace hierarchy, then they're not just gonna let it happen. Let's say that this individual forms a larger group to seize power. If everyone is working in a highly organized worker owned society, what keeps different industries from helping each other out as well? The way I see it is that we have always lived in a state of "communism" and this notion that "the biggest gang is going to take over" has already happened. We are currently living in a state of what you describe.

[@pushingthroughthepaperthin9616]

I prefer the term "corporatism," because it is more specific. As long as it remains the legal obligation of any company with stockholders to maximize profit at any price, it is actually illegal for any CEO to put ethics ahead of profit, and any CEO who did so would immediately be replaced. Corporations are legally people, but they are people with no ethical standards, a beast with no heart and no head.

[@literallyh3093]

That george washington song is such a throwback

[@FritzGillis]

Any system when pushed to its logical boundary is subject to the “laws of Heraclitus”-hot is cold, cold is hot and you can never step in the same river twice… The most you can say is that a system that expedites hierarchy or tries to oppress it will topple or stagnate quickly… I.e., rapidly end up in the same useless place.

[@FritzGillis]

Nothing is or is not ethical in its constant state… the ethics of systems can only be judged by the stream of events within the system… you don’t judge the ethics of a referee by looking at a picture of a soccer match.

[@matthewbennett631]

It is genuinely frustrating to me how terms like "capitalism" are defined narrowly enough that any situation under that system becomes necessarily unethical, and yet used broadly enough to include any political/economic system which includes a profit motive. Contrast Nordic mixed economies with American neoliberalism, or either with Chinese state capitalism. All of these include the profit motive as a foundational element, and yet they are so vastly different that to critique them all on the basis of the presence of the profit motive alone is to flatten them all into a nonexistent hypothetical ancapistan, like the philosophical equivalent of physicists "assuming spherical cows." The nod to situationist ethics notwithstanding, simply analyzing capitalsm writ large through the lenses the video mentioned treads dangerously close to these waters. What's interesting is that neither Adam Smith nor Karl Marx made this mistake. Marx supported liberal bourgeois revolutions against absolutism where it had survived, viewing that as a necessary precondition for proletarian revolt. (Verso's edition of Marx's "political writings" has some interesting stuff about this). He also recognized that capitalism's productive power far exceeded anything which had come before, an achievement upon which communism would (hopefully) iterate, distributing the spoils equitably. Smith located Capitalism's productive power in the profit motive, but didn't describe this as a sufficient condition for a moral society. Indeed he considered a society built around the profit motive *alone* to be morally wanting. This is part of why he followed up "The Wealth of Nations" with "A Theory of Moral Sentiments." Another point: Anarchist thinker David Graeber, a staunch anticapitalist, has pointed out in his most recent (posthumous) book that the traditional framing of the earliest human societies as agricultural and hierarchical is a huge oversimplification, and that plenty of prehistoric human cultures thrived on models other than the stereotype we tend to assume. The reason I bring this up is that while we need to talk with greater specificity about capitalism(s) that actually exist, we should also broaden our view of the sorts of societies that are *conceptually* possible. I think this is helpful (in a way that just imagining utopias isn't) because it gives us a slew of counterfactuals with which to interrogate the concepts we use in these conversations. Some of these cultures seem radically equitable, and yet may (ludicrously) be labeled capitalism under a strict application of the profit-motive-is-sufficient definition. Societies which seem capitalismy and yet are not deeply predicated on the profit motive are also a conceptual possibility. Thanks for reading my ramblings. EDIT: a final thought. Arguing that Capitalism is necessarily immoral because capitalism follows from immoral motives is contrary to Marxian historical materialism, in which conceptual and ideological possibilities are the consequences of material conditions, NOT the other way around. In other words, we might not be have Capitalism because of the profit motive, we might have the profit motive because we have capitalism (as it is).

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

There is no such thing as state capitalism. Capitalism is inherently anti state. It despises state intervention in the market. And most extreme versions like lez a fair capitalism pretty much has the government do nothing in the market

[@copacelu93]

Loved the video. Keep up the good work

[@hasunkhan]

Ethical capitalism is an oxymoron

[@manica53]

And whoever believes in it is a moron

[@Santiago-sh3cq]

Da, comrade

[@zachgoff7796]

Not as much of an oxymoron as ethical communism.

[@marvincantu5636]

@@zachgoff7796 shut up dork, you get 5 years in the gulag

[@ivanmihaylov6676]

L take

[@TigerShark_With_thigh_in_mouth]

Stares at consumers, the only factor that drives big companies, point fingers at capitalism while buying from and support big companies.

[@vVAstrAVv]

How dare they live in a society right

[@tristanbruns5968]

Touissant! Reading CLR James’ “The Black Jacobins” now, so was a fun reference when it came up in the movie.

[@DRKSTRN]

Thank you for highlighting the left accelerationists, wrote them off due to the right one As for why that angle, it's really the only logical way to change direction as we live in a world where attention can be bought and minds crafted for profit. But there are certain vulnerabilities in the system that would allow it to in essence eat itself and become something else because of the same mechanism of control.

[@Inspiration_Date]

I don't think accelerationism would work. The problem is that capitalism is adaptable. It would be able to adjust to the speed of production and likewise destroy the planet much quicker. Whenever production sped up, capitalism has historically been able to cement itself within it and make the bosses rich. It had no problem adjusting to the cotton gin, the assembly lines, automation, streaming, etc.

[@DRKSTRN]

@@Inspiration_Date There's an interesting angle not touched upon. But since we have both a left and right version of such, it's not prudent to describe the exact vulnerabilities. What's missing here is a certain kind of exponentiality. As the default understanding is that corporations are the most efficient structure. They are not

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

@@DRKSTRN they are. Or else other forms would have destroyed them

[@Oh_ELCapitan]

Colonialism is the connection.

[@Dr.-Dank]

Was the relationship between Wakanda Forever and the Haitian Revolution you were referring too the Wakandan child named Toussaint, after the father of the Haitian Revolution, Toussaint De Louveture?

[@Sharingan5100]

I think that the conception of acceleration as alternative to revolution/ longtermism (sic; reform) is a bit of a misnomer. I think accelerationism is a tactical choice while reform or revolution are strategic ones. An accelerationist *can* be revolutionary ( in that they believe that the expansion of capitalist modes of production are beneficial towards that strategic goal_, but can also be reformist (in that they believe that expanding those modes of production serves the goal of reform).

[@WaterCarrier07]

Why does any one person need to harbour so much wealth…

[@vVAstrAVv]

They dont

[@ethanhorn6093]

Ethical Capitalism can't exist in a marketplace without civil regulations and more pressingly when the civil litigators are given funds to campaign by the same people they are meant to regulate. Corporatism is what always follows.

[@cortster12]

This is why all economies on earth that rank high on quality of life indexes are mixed economies skewed more toward socialism than the US, but also not too far to make it totally centralized.

[@ggk9828]

I just started reading WINNER TAKES ALL after having bought the book over a year ago and heard of Anand before that. He referred to the Savior behaviour of billionaires that is both hilarious and depressing. Here's my two cents..... If we helped build a world where one man's midlife crisis can affect the livelihood of so many people in awful ways and bring down a global corporation responsible for one of the most important methods of communication...... We can do better. Just..... Just need that damn revolution!

[@observationsincars5083]

Ah yes, the lex luthor Doppleganger that runs slave sweat shop wants to give his money away, how ethical...

[@kevin_andrews735]

Today's me doesn't need to do good, that's tomorrow's me's job. A procrastinator's guide to ethics.

[@ArmyofOneandaHalf]

"Capitalism itself is fundamentally unethical, and those trying to use it for ethical means are like people trying to use condoms to get pregnant" - damn, that's a good one lol

[@GiRR007]

Capitalism isnt unethical, its ethically neutral, all its ethics are just the reflection of those who use it as capitalism doesnt try to make any ethical stance at all thats not what its for. So calling it fundamentally unethical indicates a misunderstanding of its goals.

[@ArmyofOneandaHalf]

​@@GiRR007 This is the comment section on a youtube video, not sure if you noticed. You talking to me is screaming into the void. So is me responding, but I can't help myself lol. No offense, but given a thorough understanding of the history and functioning of Capitalism, only a fool could deny that it structurally incentivizes and selects for unethical behavior. That's like saying a starship that can go lightspeed fueled by human souls or 2 mph fueled by olive oil is morally neutral. Sure, you could hypothetically use it for good, but it's functionally useless unless you harm people in the process.

[@GiRR007]

@@ArmyofOneandaHalf If you honestly think capitalism incentivizes "unethical" ;by your standards anyway; behavior then literally EVERYTHING does since unethical behavior is easier to do than ethical behavior, thus its not an element of capitalism its an element of people like I already mentioned. Inanimate objects cant have morality they can do literally nothing without humans, and while economic systems are more so ideologies than inanimate objects "which is how I know you dont have the slightest idea what your talking about from your example" capitalism isn't one that makes any ethical judgements. Its entirely a tool. It would be like blaming a guns for gun crime and calling it evil which im sure a person like you does. Its not a problem with capitalism its a problem with human nature and greed, capitalism just takes these things into account more so than any other economic system thus people who are incapable of identifying the nuances of the situation jump to blaming capitalism. Its basic correlation vs causation.

[@ArmyofOneandaHalf]

@@GiRR007 I'm not reading all of that, I have to get back to my job. Have a nice day.

[@vVAstrAVv]

@@GiRR007 capitalism is proven unethical by the existence of 2 things 1st is the billionaire class. Who exist as a consequence of profiting from their workers excess labor value. They litterally became so rich by stealing the value from their workers. 2nd is mass layoffs which happen not as necessity but because its the quickest and easiest cost cutting method.

[@thomaskuzma4360]

I love these videos, just wanted to say that.

[@mateiadeodatus335]

I feel like the people who advocate for a hard reset don't understand that it means them dying for that to happen...

[@toddhensley880]

Hilariously, they see themselves as benefitting somehow.

[@toddhensley880]

Ethical compared to what? Socialism? Communism? Monarchism?

[@jrmorales86]

I'll save everyone time, no

[@TheBeccabus]

What this hasn't covered, is the corruption that often comes with wealth and power. People often start with ideals and good intentions, but get corrupted by their wealth.

[@torbjornlekberg7756]

Either way, the change needs to be substantial and fast, destroying the doors opening up for corruption. I also think taking more than a little inspiration from classic socialdemocracy would be a very good idea.

[@Walker1o8o]

No. Bam just saved you 15 minutes. I joke but I love the videos. And I will watch this one soon!

[@Austinkungfuacademy]

3 things: 1. I love the line, using capitalism for ethics is like using condoms to get pregnant! 2. I'd love to see a hot take on Trainwreck: Woodstock 99! The underlying cause for this disastrous event was greed i.e capitalism. 3. I feel like there should be something called wisecrack University. Y'all are covering some super important, super heavy, and absolutely essential academic topics in a way for lay people like myself to understand. Thank you!

[@WisecrackEDU]

I like all of these ideas a lot! And we've talked in the past about doing some type of video or audio series that dives deeper into some the topics we get into on the channel, and we're definitely still thinking of ways to make it happen.

[@TheGschwartz86]

Alan Badiou got that notion from Wittgenstein who wrote an essay saying the exact same thing.

[@WisecrackEDU]

Makes sense as Badiou was, at least at one point, a big Wittgenstein guy

[@burningflag3679]

On the note of revolution. I suggest Erica Chenoweth's TED talk on peaceful revolution.

[@bananabonzai]

This is basically the Trolley question.

[@rsrocha1984]

Nice vid. I wish one day you do an analyzis of the so call "good" capitalist societies, like the nordic countries. Arent they kind the model that some of those philoshopers aim at?

[@WisecrackEDU]

That's a great idea for a video and we will definitely try to explore something like that in the future!

[@melz410]

Great idea! Everytime I hear some politician say they inspire their policy on some nordic model, I cringe, because I know they are only interested in upholding the current unethical system

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

@@melz410 and what your version of ethical system is? Complaining is easy after all

[@melz410]

@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl Well I would be lying or extremely arogant if I acted like I know completely how we will reach a better system. I do know a small bit about the housing market, and I think doing away with the profit margin and put more regulation into place would be a good start.

[@coach_dylandacosta]

Prince T’Challa’s Hatian name was paying homage to Toussaint Louverture - a leading revolutionary in the Hatian Revolution.

[@Berzerklight]

Ethics is not challenged by economic systems, ethics is challenged by humanities sinful nature. Lust, gluttony, pride and greed have a lot more affect on our ethics than what system we use.

[@Waitwhat469]

is a system that rewards those that act on greed and pride and against altruism a good one?

[@scottanos9981]

@@Waitwhat469 Is a system that ignores such fundamental factors of human nature a good one either?

[@Waitwhat469]

@@scottanos9981 I think any system that ignore real world attributes that would effect it's operations is pragmatically flawed Perhaps less flawed than a system designed to encourage negative ones, but still flawed

[@danw.1250]

"I tried to start a revolution, but I didn't print enough pamphlets. So the only people that showed up were my mom and her boyfriend--who I hate."

[@Blodhelm]

LoL and then the next movie explains that they have no mothers, only meme handshakes.

[@MattSkudlarek]

Ethics... isn't that just next to Suffolk?

[@T33K3SS3LCH3N]

I think people often missunderstand how this "accelerationism" of capitalism can work. You don't need all the manual labour done by machines to get there: 1. Even at the current level of automatisation, the majority of productive work is already done by a tiny minority of workers. And an unprecedentedly big section of value creation lies in intellectual and creative work. 2. The difference in productivity between highly skilled and motivated workers and the jobs that we force low skill workers and unemployed people into is greater than ever. 3. Consequently, it makes less and less economic sense to force people into such low-skill low-pay jobs at all. 4. Meanwhile measures that improve the rate at which people can become highly skilled and highly motivated workers pay off easier than ever before. => The consequences: 1. Introduction of a generously livable universal base income that greatly relieves economic and social stress and generally improves the standards of living. 2. Increasing democratisation of the workplace as workers now have more freedom and more leverage over their employers.] => So the development of capitalism can lead to an increasingly socialist and eventually quite likely communist society in which workers become increasingly independent and the democratisation of capital itself eventually becomes an option, opening the gateway to communism.

[@mikebark121]

Wakanda Forever spoilers!! T’challa’s son was born in Haiti and named Toussant after Toussant Louverture, the leader of the Haitian slave rebellion in the late 18th century

[@billmozart7288]

Radical Reviewer has an amazing review of Capitalist Realism.

[@danielkjm]

Nope.

[@hommofroggy5727]

12;30... that would be a great topic to cover about Code Geass, one anime that this channel hasn't covered and has a lot of philosophical points to cover.

[@ProNice]

Great video. And I'm somewhat disgusted that we have to censor Liberties chest. Blurring "Liberty Leading the People" really shows that US-based advertisers are uncomfortable with the idea of the human body. Liberate Liberty.

[@Jasonmakesvideo]

Asking the big questions now

[@jamiemarcelle6394]

Make more capitalism videos. My stamp of approval refills with each upload.

[@WisecrackEDU]

Then you're going to love Friday's video . . .

[@mattja52]

The question I impose is, can you be a successful capitalist by being ethical?

[@UnreasonableOpinions]

Any thesis that amounts to 'if we let capitalism get good enough at generating surpluses for rich people they will eventually get bored enough of surplus to let everyone have some as well" is the intellectual equivalent of a dog licking the bottom of a glass table in the hopes of eating the cheese slice on the top.

[@geraldgreen6794]

Short answer: No. But I'mma watch the rest of the video anyway.

[@FigureOnAStick]

I'm gonna take a shot at arguing for the position of virtue-revolution I'll frame this argument in the "ethics of capitalism" matrix you made, the ethical systems which direct action- the "means" axis (virtue, deontology, consequentialism) and the three alternate positions regarding what to do with capitalism, the "ends" axis (revolution, acceleration, long-term). I'll go through each of the three, highlight their qualities and flaws and then argue for one in particular. I'll post the first part below and the second part in a reply First or the means, I believe that not only is virtue ethics superior to the other two ethical systems, but it is the only viable system for real world use. I'll start with deontology: deontology, as with most of Kant's philosophy, is an attempt to define ethics in a way that is 100% logically consistent. As most people realize fairly quickly on, the main flaw with this approach is that it is entirely closed to contextual influence, which is important in the real world. I only need to reference the "lying to a nazi" problem to highlight the fact that pre-defined categorical imperatives only work under a very narrow set of circumstances, from which you are easily deviated in the real world. Likewise, regarding the principle of humanity, "means" and "ends" are not readily distinguishable. When my mom cooks me a meal, do I value her for her own sake because I love her, or because I want to get a free meal and I know she likes to cook for me? The answer both, for me and probably for most people. Means and Ends are not readily distinguishable because human relationships are complex. Moreover, were I to treat my mom only as an end, I would actually diminish her own reward from the activity. If I only value my mom for her and for how she benefits from her cooking, how can my mom take pleasure in how her skill at sating my appetite wins her enthusiastic approval, for which I only serve as a means to gain? Would it be better to refuse my mom because I would use her as an end, and she use I? No, obviously not. In actual human relationship, means and ends are not so readily disentangled. So in both cases, deontology ends up being far too reductionist to actually be of use. There is a place for simple moral imperatives of course, but only ever as a heuristic. They're too rigid to be practical otherwise. Consequentialism, on the other hand, I'll be brief with. In short, consequentialism's argument is inane and fails to address the problem. "What is ethical is that which does the most good for the most people." Well obviously. You're basically just saying that the ethical action should be effective in its aims. I guess if your primary opponent is deontology, I can see why someone would think that insight is profound. Likewise, what is this "most good" nonsense. "What is good" is the entire problem statement of ethics, and consequentialism leaves figuring out what it is as an exercise to the reader? No wonder that its such a popular ethical system, you can just plug in whatever variable you want for "good" (profit margin, gdp, heathens converted, undesirables disappeared) and then justify whatever horrific bullshit you had in mind. Consequentialism is not a moral system, it's ethics laundering. Finally, we come to virtue ethics. The basic structure of virtue ethics is as follows: human behavior is characterized many dimensions of emotionality which produce a range outcomes. In the domain of Fear, for example, behaviors can range from cowardice (extreme fear) to foolhardiness (extreme lack of fear). Outcomes of emotionally can yield positive or negative consequences, depending on the circumstance. In the dimension of fear, there are some useful behavioral outcomes: Aristotle identifies courage, the ability to do what is necessary or useful in spite of fear. I also identify prudence, the ability to recognize danger, which requires an acute and disciplined sense of fear. Unlike with deontology, virtue ethics is relatively poorly defined. Many consider this to be a weakness. But it is actually its strength. Unlike deontology, which is extremely brittle under real world conditions, virtue ethics adapts to the world by defining its virtues as behavior that befits the situation. Acting courageously is inherently good, but what is courageous and what is foolhardy can only be learned through experience, as every situation is different. The practical result is that instead of being paralyzed in analysis paralysis for every new situation, you are compelled to make real and learn from your mistakes, because you have to to develop the virtue properly Moreover, like consequentialism, virtue defines itself by its ends, but it also defines the ends in advance. What is interesting is that in virtue ethics, the ends are actually the means- courage, generosity, fairness, etc. As a result, you actually have to walk the walk. You cannot appeal to an abstract metic being accomplished as a way to justify the sordid actions you take to meet them. One final benefit of virtue ethics is that it is inherently multidimensional. A virtuous person cannot just maximize for one virtue, because failing to cultivate a diversity of virtues results in an unbalanced character- a man who is brave and prudent, but also unrestrained in anger, lust and gluttony is not a good person, he's a thug. Inherent good character is a range of complementary virtues, befitting the time and place its in. Virtue ethics is a workable, complex ethical system that can evolve with our understanding of the world. It has specific, defined qualities of goodness, virtues, which define both good means and good ends. It is by far superior to both deontology and consequentialism, and should be the ethical systems we will use going forward on this topic.

[@FigureOnAStick]

So, second question: what to do about capitalism? Here I'm going to argue for revolution with some caveats. First though, let's establish why capitalism is a problem and what to do about it. I am not going to take an ethical stance on capitalism when defining the problem, because that will just get in the way of the more practical point. To put it bluntly, Capitalism is not a sustainable physical system. Capitalism has an intrinsic need for continuous, accelerating growth to counteract the inherent trend towards wealth concentration that it generates. While capitalism can in some circumstances correct this with competition, competition requires unclaimed resources which inherently diminish over time without growth. In a closed system, the competitive nature of capitalism means that less successful firms get bought out by more successful firms, price competition drives wages down to bare subsistence and all necessities are eventually privatized, commodified and monopolized. Economic growth can mitigate this by increasing the total pool of of resources to utilize for generating profit, and exponential growth can even realize gains in opportunity, but economic growth is physically limited and this is a big problem. When we talk about economic growth, what this usually refers to is growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total value of the productive activity of a given economic unit. Production is a physical activity requires raw resources (land) and organized physical work (labor) to generate value. Work, as we know from physics is an energetic process: the application of force along a displacement. As such, the two key factors of production: material resource, and work, we know are inherently limited. There is a physical limit to the amount of resources that are available to us, there is a physical limit to how much energy we can utilize (either in raw quantity- such as fossil fuels, or in a continuous but limited flow, such as solar energy) Finally, the least frequently mentioned, there is a physical limit to the amount of energy use the systems production depend on can tolerate before unraveling from the strain. This last one is least frequently discussed, but it is the most important to highlight, because it appears to be our limiting factor. The limit to energy utilization is not primarily a problem of access to energy, but of the generation of entropy. In brief: the nature of energy requires that it becomes less organized as time passes, a statistical phenomenon we know as "entropy." In simple mechanical systems, entropy manifests as heat- the energy directly lost to the surrounding atmosphere, and in friction- the dissipation of heat into adjacent material bodies. Without external maintenance, machines inevitably fall apart if left powered indefinitely- the organized flow of energy along the mechanism is paid for entropically by the heat and friction. Complex systems, such as living beings, ecosystems and economic systems like capitalism, can be thought of machines with an inherent capacity for self-maintenance- the functioning of the system is reinforced by its capacity to repair itself in response to friction. For human beings, this is the ability to heal, for ecosystems, it's the ability to recover from disturbance. For capitalism, it's the ability to recover from market failure. So long as there is an open gradient of energy and sufficient resources to maintain the system's physical structure, this can continue indefinitely. Can, but not necessarily will. Complex systems are, of course, complex, and not everything can be fixed absolutely perfectly all of the time. Flaws can accumulate over time- inefficiencies, corruptions, errors etc. that are cost-prohibitive to repair in the short term, but can accumulate to a catastrophic degree if left unchecked. The longer the time-span and the more energetic the system, the more frequently flaws accumulate, and they are frequently of a greater severity too. With too much energy utilization, the system collapses under the strain- a critical component gives and the system breaks.This tendency is observable by the fact that in animals, metabolic rate is directly correlated to span of life, with more metabolically active animals living shorter relative to slower animals of the same size. Likewise there is consistent evidence that moderately reducing caloric intake can lengthen animal life-spans, prolonging the critical system failure known as death. You can also observe ecologically with climate change: the greenhouse effect, the result of exponential rates of anthropogenic combustion, creates a greater heat capacity of the atmosphere. At the same time the primary mitigating factor of CO2, wild ecosystems, are diminishing at an accelerating rate due to ever-expanding human land use. It's at this point we return to GDP. Recall that production is a combination of energy use and resource use, labor+land. Growth in GDP during the capitalist period is directly related to the use of fossil fuels, affording the mechanical efficiency to multiply the output of a given laborer substantially. Growing populations and growing consumer demands (spurred on by capitalist firms to afford continued productive growth) demands more resource: more materials, more space, more time. The very same factors which provoke climate change are the ones that are necessary for economic growth. Failing to grow results in socially unstable levels of wealth inequality, but failing not to grow undermines the physical foundation for production: you can't work if there's no materials, nor living bodies to direct the power. Quite a catch-22 Some, like Regan, may argue that human ingenuity is the sword to cut this gordian knot, but I'm sorry to say that they just don't understand the problem. People who cite innovation as the ace in the hole fail to realize that information is physical, and has an energy demand as well. The human mind, clever as it is, starves with the rest of the body. Computers require a power source to calculate, and without it, they're just fancy paper weights. That's not to say there aren't real mechanical efficiencies left to find- the question is can we innovate fast enough to keep up with accelerating productive growth? For a while, possibly, but absolutely not forever. It is patently absurd- decoupled ingenuity is the fantasy of perpetual motion with a neolibral coat of paint. Studies, in fact, show the opposite: rates of innovation are declining logarathmically and it seems that the low-hanging fruit of mechanical efficiency has already been picked. So, even before ethical questions- of which there are many, we can see that there is no good outcome to continuing capitalism, demanding revolution. The physical trend for accelerating growth in complex systems is an eventual stabilization at a steady-state limit, maturation, or eventual collapse of the system altogether, death. Since the steady-state of capitalism is monopoly, itself highly unstable and inherently undesirable, that is not a solution. Accelerationism only exacerbates the problem, and there is no long-term to capitalism to speak of. Revolution is the only option For my last post, I'm going to bring virtue-ethics back into the picture when talking about revolution. Combining the two yields a very different kind of revolution than the "French Revolution, but this time with feeling" paradigm most people have. Much more practical and far less individually perilous as well. That'll have to wait for a while though

[@empyrea_2546]

This was a very insightful comment

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

@@FigureOnAStick capitalism has nothing to do with climate change. If all coprations become democratically run. It would change nothing the average worker doesn't care about the world than the share holders. And vast majority of the things you accused capitalism of aren't captlisit things specifically. But free market

[@FigureOnAStick]

@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl I see. So the problem isn't Capitalism, but the nature of the free market. The same free market on which capitalism is based, which capitalist political systems are designed to encourage, foster and grow to the exclusion of every other human institution. To which our lives are structured from our first breath to participate in, whether as a worker, a consumer or an investor. The maintainance and expansion of which is the foremost obligation for every capitalist country, by any means necessary. That free market, right?

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

@@FigureOnAStick you do realize that any system that isn't a command economy is free market right?

[@lessworkmorejoy]

tl:dr false dichotomy in the video 0:26 It isn't capitalism that has generated the 'greatest wealth in history', but the workers. Indisputably this *time period* has generated the most wealth in human history, sure, but at what cost? to whose benefit? The point of questioning capitalism is seeing this grandiose production -and wondering not only 'why can't I have any,' but also the resounding and general 'why?' The commenters lamenting any breakdown of capitalist anatomy are precisely those who are privileged by such a capitalist modernity. They think they have everything to lose without capitalism, so they invest their minds into the death machine. On another note (0:32) inequality existed before capitalism, and the why can be traced back in a myriad of different ways; ultimately, they boil down to the perpetuation of hierarchy. Imbalance of power wielded not by the cruel, or the undeserving, or any other neoliberal myth, but the consistent and oppressive application of unquestionable authority by some upon others, whether minority or majority. This power, concentrated into the hands of the ultra wealthy, is what belies us today as the existential problem of a species. This is *why*, even as the capitalist era has "generated more wealth than any economic system in history," it "contributes to rampant inequality."

[@tjbarke6086]

It literally, inherently, requires dispossession and exploitation of the dispossessed. No, it can't really be ethical.

[@rakinh]

Narp.