[lbo-talk] Living beyond one's means

[John Thornton]

Somebody Somebody wrote:
> It's
> still not clear to me what imperative is compelling us to bury
> capitalism outside of any ethical framework. We're under no obligation
> from history or the dialectic or any other useful abstraction to do
> anything. Or is Carrol making the philosophical distinction between
> morality (perhaps a shorthand for bourgeois morality only?) and
> normative ethics? Suppose we want to demolish capitalism. Either we do
> it because the mode of production is intrinsically evil or the
> consequences flowing from capitalist relations are evil. 
>
> For
> example, we can take Proudhon's position and say "Capitalism is theft",
> hence it is necessarily wrong based upon it's premises. Or we could
> argue, infant mortality and literacy rates in country X would be better
> under a system of worker's ownership of the means of production.
> There's no escaping morality, which as physical anthropologists will
> tell you, appears to extend to our primate kin. 

You can state that under Capitalism the chance of any individual being 
well off enough not to have to work until they die is greater than under 
Socialism.
Or facing extreme poverty, having a decent job and pay-scale, or 
whatever measure you like.
Then opposing Capitalism it is simply a matter of maximizing your own 
chances of avoiding poverty, having a retirement income, income and job 
satisfaction, etc.
There is no moral component in opposing Capitalism on such grounds.
If I want to maximize my chances for a decent job, decent income, decent 
retirement, etc. I should choose to support whatever system will provide 
this for the greatest number of people.
That would not appear to be Capitalism would it?

John Thornton