Does Capitalism Cause Racism?

[Purple Knight]

Does capitalism cause racism?

Does it cause hate in general?

The idea is that in a system with some redistribution, if someone in the system is exceptional, that is a benefit directly to you. But in a system without redistribution, if someone is better than you, they take away opportunities and their higher buying power reduces the value of your currency when they compete with you for goods and services. Indeed, if that exceptional person was removed from a system which their earnings were redistributed, starvation. But if they were removed from a system where redistribution is nil, suddenly a regular person has a job (though they won't be paid as much which is a good thing) and the disproportionate buying power of the dynamo is no longer raising prices for everyone else.

The idea is that then, all instances of jealous racism (for example, racism against Jews for the simple reason that they succeed disproportionately) are actually caused by capitalism and would disappear if people did not have to compete with those who were simply going to be clear winners. And if every instance of racism is jealous racism, then perhaps inherent bigotry and hatred are hardly the real issues.

Let's play with this concept a little more by adding the idea of T, for Take. In a natural system, without government, those disproportionately endowed with skill and ability would be subject to Take, which here I define to mean any time someone else who does not have that skill or ability, benefits instead of the person who does. For example, if one individual in a cave of cavemen has a huge pile of food, while the others are starving, they're going to take at least some of it and maybe even all of it. If the rest are smart, and the ability is natural, they will not starve the high-ability individual even if only so he continues to gather food which they will take some of. However, if the "ability" is some trick that is actually sabotaging their ability to gather, they might be better off taking it all and starving him. So there is some Optimal Take where if they take less, then they hurt themselves, and if they take more, they lose their cash cow.

If Take is always 0, if property rights are assumed, the starving cavemen should always eject the great gatherer because he might be gathering in a way that starves them, and if he dies, his death can only benefit them. Even if his better gathering was 100% not affecting theirs, ejecting him is, at worst, neutral to the rest of the cave. If however no capitalist stands in their way and they can use their natural force to take some of his food, he can be a benefit to them.

A government that limits Take can also be a benefit to the cave. The idea that the great gatherer should never be allowed to starve would benefit all, assuming he's not using some trick that saps gathering power from others and he really is just better at gathering. A government that stops Take from exceeding Optimal Take can also benefit all. A government that caps Take below Optimal Take can even be a benefit long-term, if the extra resources mean the great gatherer breeds and passes on his greater ability. All a government can do by outlawing Take is hurt the cave. The great gatherer is not even better off, because as a liability to the group he is now very likely ejected and might die from exposure even with all his bags of food. They now also have to outlaw murder even though nobody might have wanted to kill each other before, because even with some weird rule that his things must all be burned to avoid him being killed so he can be stolen from, the cave can only see more resources from getting rid of him.

You can add an economy to fix this, and other cavemen might be motivated to rub his back, wash his feet, or give him manicures for some of his extra food. But I have to ask this: If he just didn't exist, then either I starve or I don't. (And to be fair, before he came I didn't starve, which is why I'm alive now.) And if I don't starve, then I don't have to work for him. And isn't that better for me, in case he doesn't need a manicure right now?

I can only conclude that Take is natural and should not be outlawed, and that criminalising Take just causes much of the hate and jealousy in the world.

[Purple Knight]

What kind of precedent does that set?

It doesn't matter. You don't shoot your kid to make the world better.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #11]

You don't shoot your kid to make the world better.

You also don't shoot someone else's kid to make the world better.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #11]

You don't shoot your kid to make the world better.

You also don't shoot someone else's kid to make the world better.

No you don't. You shoot neither. You can burden yourself or someone willing to make the world better, but not someone unwilling or someone who isn't born yet and might be unwilling.

If you don't pay a debt that you KNOW will be levied against your kid after you, regardless of whether you really owe it, you have an opportunity not to impose a lasting burden on someone else who does not have a choice, or to impose it.