So capitalism ruthlessly exploited the people it pushed out of a niche, a one-time cost to a small group of people, in exchange for permanent good effects for everyone.
That's pretty much the definition of totalitarianism (the end justify the means, like in The Prince).
Obviously it would be better if the company was giving good wages from the start, and a social safety net kept that small group from suffering at all. But even with that terrible side effect, the search for efficiency was a good thing.
Our moral compass should tell us that if achieving efficiency without exploitation is possible then it must always be chosen over achieving efficiency with exploitation.
There's another subtle thing to consider here: the capitalists seem to justify and enforce the means when the terrible side effects only apply to others. The line between socialist despotism and liberal despotism is a bit blurry.
That's a utilitarianism, not totalitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophical outlook, totalitarianism describes a category of government. I don't think this counts as totalitarian because it was not the government who did the pushing here.
There is no homogenous group that can be named "the capitalists".
There is no consensus on what exploitaition is.
There is no such term as liberal despotism.
There is no consensus on the directions of moral compass.
The definition of totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.
There is no homogenous group that can be named "the capitalists". There is no consensus on what exploitaition is.
I don't get your point. Clearly here "capitalists" refer to the group the businessman represents in the story. I didn't pass any judgment on the capitalism doctrine here. I passed judgment on the doctrine "the end justify the means", which has nothing to do with capitalism.
There is no consensus on the directions of moral compass.
In today's western society (let's just assume you are living in a western society), it is now commonly accepted that slavery, for instance, is badbad. This is a moral compass. Of course it hasn't always been like that. And it might change again. But this is still a moral compass.
That's pretty much the definition of totalitarianism (the end justify the means, like in The Prince).
I don't understand your argument here. As far as I understand it, totalitarianism means that the government has total control. Whether they do good, or bad, or both, justification doesn't play into it because they are beyond needing justification.
Totalitarian governing bodies in the making always justify their actions in regard of the coming end. But this coming end never actually comes because a totalitarian body can never truly exists because there'll always be a part of society that can't be controlled, no matter how small it is. Thus the governing body will seek more and more control but it is without end. Totalitarianism can't sustain itself without the belief (or the propagandist fake belief) that the end justify the means. Both notions are so intertwined that claiming the end justify the means is de facto a totalitarian way of thinking. Hence my "pretty much the definition" (which is different from "the end justify the means is the definition of totalitarianism).
Comments
That's pretty much the definition of totalitarianism (the end justify the means, like in The Prince).
Our moral compass should tell us that if achieving efficiency without exploitation is possible then it must always be chosen over achieving efficiency with exploitation.
There's another subtle thing to consider here: the capitalists seem to justify and enforce the means when the terrible side effects only apply to others. The line between socialist despotism and liberal despotism is a bit blurry.
That's a utilitarianism, not totalitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophical outlook, totalitarianism describes a category of government. I don't think this counts as totalitarian because it was not the government who did the pushing here.
Ah, yes! Good point, upvoted.
There is no homogenous group that can be named "the capitalists". There is no consensus on what exploitaition is. There is no such term as liberal despotism. There is no consensus on the directions of moral compass. The definition of totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.
So what's left? Oh I got it: CAPITALISM IS BAD.
I don't get your point. Clearly here "capitalists" refer to the group the businessman represents in the story. I didn't pass any judgment on the capitalism doctrine here. I passed judgment on the doctrine "the end justify the means", which has nothing to do with capitalism.
In today's western society (let's just assume you are living in a western society), it is now commonly accepted that slavery, for instance, is badbad. This is a moral compass. Of course it hasn't always been like that. And it might change again. But this is still a moral compass.
Are you trying to put words into my mouth ?
I don't understand your argument here. As far as I understand it, totalitarianism means that the government has total control. Whether they do good, or bad, or both, justification doesn't play into it because they are beyond needing justification.
Totalitarian governing bodies in the making always justify their actions in regard of the coming end. But this coming end never actually comes because a totalitarian body can never truly exists because there'll always be a part of society that can't be controlled, no matter how small it is. Thus the governing body will seek more and more control but it is without end. Totalitarianism can't sustain itself without the belief (or the propagandist fake belief) that the end justify the means. Both notions are so intertwined that claiming the end justify the means is de facto a totalitarian way of thinking. Hence my "pretty much the definition" (which is different from "the end justify the means is the definition of totalitarianism).
I hope you now better understand my reasoning.
totalitarianism -> ends justify means but ends justify means -\-> totalitarianism