Re. Mark Hebard's interesting point about "when we [meaning society, I gather]
confuse morality with capitalism" "in the style of Newt Gingrich..." I think
it's more accurate to say that this "morality" (ideology) is characteristic of
the entire mainstream from the right through the mainstream liberals --i.e., the
system is "moral" (in a higher morality sense that justifies anything
--including, of course, destroying Vietnam-- to preserve the system) in that it
allows private individuals to make their own private moral decisions, rather than
imposing morality on them. This is liberalism at its core. I think Mark is
right when he suggests that the problem (the ideological one at least) arises
here --in the 'confusion' between the two. This is precisely what the
morally-grounded movements of the 1960s --from civil rights to antiwar-- argued
against: the system is not moral.
Kind of reminds me of an old favorite Toles cartoon in which Yeltsin is talking
to Uncle Sam and says "We're having problems switching to capitalism. The
trouble is that all our capitalists are criminals breaking all our laws." To
which Uncle Sam responds, "That's just an early stage of capitalism. Eventually
they become powerful enough to rewrite the laws."
Ted Morgan
Bard382@aol.com wrote:
Regarding capitalism and criminality, these concepts rise from the roots of
the same tree, and separating them would deflate both definitions.Corporate
oppression often begins as capitalist effort but then continues buried in
incompetence and lack of leadership. Many corporate big wigs are moral humans
with the ability to bleed as well as all of us when regarded as individuals. It
is when that individual tries to apply this morality on the corporate structure
that it immediately dilutes out of view. I think that when we confuse morality
with capitalism in the style of Newt Gingrich and the Empower America geeks we
see the futility of the right.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 30 2000 - 00:52:57 CUT