Has Capitalism Replaced Plunder and Violence with Production and Trade?
Is capitalism the only moral social system that humanity has developed so far? While certain inhumane phenomena undoubtedly exist within capitalist societies, do these reflect the nature of capitalism itself, or are they instead manifestations of human nature?
Author: GUDORDI | 2024-05-24
The man who first flung a word of abuse at his enemy instead of a spear was the founder of civilisation.
──Sigmund Freud
In my article “Is the Capitalist System Simply About Selfishly Pursuing Profit?”, the author has discussed the nature of capitalism and presented two well-known quotations that offer fundamentally different perspectives on the subject.
Capitalism’s Negative Image Is Deeply Entrenched
The first quotation comes from former Polish President Lech Wałęsa: “Capitalism is concerned with making money, but it does not see ordinary people.” This likely reflects the common perception many people have of capitalism—that while it can unleash productive forces, the system itself is primarily concerned with money and profit, paying little attention to things that are not directly related to economic gain. As a result, the human side of society is often perceived as being neglected.
This negative view of commerce is not confined to Western societies. In Eastern societies, merchants have often been viewed unfavorably as well. In China, the stereotype that “all merchants are deceitful” has become deeply rooted in popular culture. For centuries, society was divided into the classes of scholars, farmers, artisans, and merchants. But is this characterization really justified?
It is worth noting that being a merchant is simply one way of making a living. Beyond their commercial role, merchants are also human beings. They may be fathers, husbands, sons, or friends. They may once have been students or worked in other professions such as teaching, public service, or sales. While their identity as merchants undoubtedly influences their behavior, can it really explain all aspects of who they are?
Moreover, merchants come in many forms. Fraudsters and honorable businesspeople are both possibilities. The business cultures of Europe, China, India, the Middle East, and Japan also differ significantly from one another. Given these differences, can we truly make an a priori judgment about merchants or commercial societies as a whole?
Reflections Inspired by Schindler’s List
More than thirty years ago, the author watched Schindler’s List, a film directed by Steven Spielberg. It is said to be based on a true story; otherwise, it would be difficult to imagine anyone could have invented such a narrative from scratch.
The story centers on a German businessman and member of the Nazi Party who took advantage of wartime conditions to profit from the war economy. He employed a large number of Jewish workers in his factory and earned substantial profits. However, when he could no longer bear to see his employees being sent to concentration camps and slaughtered, he did everything in his power to save them. In the end, he exhausted his fortune and succeeded in rescuing more than 1,200 Jews from their fate.
It is a deeply moving story that reveals the noblest side of human nature. Yet if we think more carefully about it, how should we describe Schindler as a person?
After much reflection, perhaps the most appropriate description is that he was an opportunistic businessman. His original intention was simply to make money quickly during the war. At the same time, however, he possessed a strong sense of conscience and humanity. His workers helped him earn wealth, and he could not bear to see them sent to concentration camps. As a result, he was willing to spend his entire fortune trying to save these helpless Jewish people.
From this perspective, Schindler can be seen as both an opportunistic businessman and a humanitarian hero. The two identities are not necessarily contradictory. Motives and outcomes can be very different, and a person’s commercial pursuits do not automatically negate their capacity for moral courage and compassion.
Does It Reflect Human Nature or the Nature of Capitalism?
“The truth is rarely pure and never simple,” as Oscar Wilde once remarked. It is worth noting that one of the fundamental principles of scientific methodology is that the simultaneous occurrence of two phenomena does not necessarily imply a causal relationship between them.
There are indeed certain inhumane phenomena found within capitalist societies. However, do these phenomena reflect the nature of capitalism itself, or do they instead reflect aspects of human nature? This is not an easy question to answer.
Moreover, human nature may not have undergone any fundamental transformation over the past several thousand years. If human nature remains broadly unchanged, then the darker aspects of human behavior are likely to persist regardless of the social system in place; only their forms of expression may differ. From this perspective, the more important question is which social system is most capable of encouraging the better side of human nature, and of restraining its darker impulses, or even transforming them into neutral or constructive forces.
The frantic activity on a stock exchange is, without doubt, largely driven by the pursuit of profit and may not appear particularly noble. Yet is the open pursuit of self-interest less acceptable than hypocrisy, empty rhetoric, deception, and hidden political maneuvering? This, too, is a question worth pondering.
Is Capitalism the Only Moral Social System in History?
In any case, the following passage from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand is worth reflecting upon:
Capitalism is the only system in history in which wealth is acquired not through plunder, but through production; not through force, but through trade. It is also the only system that upholds an individual’s right to his own mind, his work, his life, his happiness, and himself.
As noted at the beginning of “Is the Capitalist System Simply About Selfishly Pursuing Profit?”, Rand regarded capitalism as the only moral social system that humanity has developed thus far.
As the quotation cited at the beginning of this article suggests, although the use of coarse language is hardly admirable, it is still more civilized than violence and killing. Any evaluation of a social phenomenon should take into account the realistic alternatives available. The crucial question is not whether a system is perfect, but what the available alternatives are and whether they offer a better means of addressing the realities of human nature and social organization.