Preamble:
There is no end to the explanatory power of revealing the deep-seated psychological bases of ethical standards. The ethical types prevelant in the United States can be shown to arise from stances taken on philosophical questions that could not possibly ever be proven. One is the question of whether human nature is inherently good or inherently evil. The other is the vexed question of capitalism. Here we investigate this connection.

Two topics dominate all intellectual currents. If you, the reader, are familiar with my older writing, you will know that I have discussed some of these issues before.

To put us in the proper frame of mind, consider ethics and how it polarizes into Leftists and Rightists. I have already written at length about how the difference between Left and Right cannot be summarized in one sentence. When one attempts to reduce the difference between Left and Right to some singular slogan or motto, one inevitably encounters some sort of simplification which is at odds with the real, dynamic reality of the problem.

One conservative (Rightist) might complain to a liberal (Leftist) that their fundamental error is that they beleive deep down (unconsciously even) that all people are basically good. That bad behavior is the result of bad conditions in life, and that any criminal might be "healed" with the proper care. The problem with this indictment (however accurate it may seem) is that a very rational Marxist would say that this babble of a GOOD/EVIL metaphysic has nothing to with the real world, and that in fact it is the issue of man's relationship to natural resources and wealth that lies "at the heart" of the Leftist/Rightist dichotomy. Clearly then, it is an issue of a Capitalism versus Socialism.

I will attempt to assert now that niether one of these explanations "covers up" or "cancels out" the other. I have reached the conclusion that both ideas work simultaneously to form certain types of intellectuals, and inform their thought, respectfully.

To clarify, we have two topics, either of which we can answer upon in either way, independent of the other.
1. Is human nature inherently good or inherently evil?
2. Is capitalism destructive to human happiness or conducive to human happiness?
The first question is rather clear, but #2 is rather ambiguous on several sides. What is "capitalism"? Marx said capitalism is "generalized commodity production". And when reading Marx, we must take his word literally, or else risk misunderstanding him. We can parphrase this definition with "Everything is a commodity to be bought and sold." But even that does not accurately depict what Marx meant. The word 'production' is the noun, so, according to Marx, capitalism is firstly "some sort" of PRODUCTION, and secondly, "some sort" of commodity PRODUCTION, and lastly, generalized commodity PRODUCTION.

Marx, despite his literal wording, was a deeply theoretical thinker who operated at a certain level of social abstraction. When Marx used the word 'capitalism', he was referring to a WHOLE WAY OF LIFE that a society engages in, not just some sort of esoteric, technical term. So in reaching a better definition (in terms of Marx), capitalism is a "way of life in which we all produce commodities to be bought and sold."

But the issue does not end there. The eagle-eyed reader will notice that the above definition is far different from the one found in the dictionary. Furthermore, many different thinkers define "capitalism" in many different ways. Some, in their attempts to formulate an exhaustive definition, might refer to things such as a "free market" and "competition". The issue of what capitalism really is, is so unclear to some thinkers that they go as far as to assert that capitalism has "always been around" through all of history. Reversing this absurd line of thinking will take up no further space in this essay.

But I would like to clear the smoke so that we can get on with the discussion at hand. From this point forward, I will refer to "capitalism" in the same sense that a person like George Lukacs would use it. Or in the same sense that Max Weber used it in the title of his The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism. Lukacs's book is called History and Class Consciousness. If niether one of these appeal to you, simply default to Marx's sense of the word as outlined above.

Now that we have that out of the way, let us focus on the two questions above and how they are answered to give rise to certain kinds of intellectuals. Both are essentially philosophical. Once we form a consensus on what "capitalism" means, there is still ambiguity in "human happiness". Freud asserted that civilisation is at odds with the happiness of the individual. Hitler said a nation of people are only happy when they are united against a common enemy. (One might cross-reference Hitler's sentiment with the current "War on Terror"). Sartre said it best when he stated that "we have figured out everything... except how to live." Marx was a not a lone pariah forming an indictment of capitalism as a situation producing alienation, contradiction, and unease among a people. Many thinkers after him not only reached the same conclusions, but did so in different ways than Marx.

I assert now that stances taken on these questions work at the psychological basis of ethics, whether or not the intellectual feels them operating consciously. I present now, a breakdown of these choices on a graph. I will then explain each type by a candid testimony. These testimonies might be seen as the "little voices" acting in the mind of the intellectuals.

C O M M U N I S T
"Capitalism is going to disentegrate anyway and furthermore, it exploits the proletariat for the benefit of a wealthy elite. Let us live communally and act cooperatively. Human nature is inherently good, and hence, cooperation is the goal of good people who desire the benefit of all."

American Liberal Left
"We are going to create jobs by spurring economic growth of our local free markets. We will empower our citizens with education. A good economy and good education is all we need since we know that people are good deep down and that all crime and dissonance is only the result of civic unrest."

Christian Conservative
"Crime and anti-social behavior is the result of the devil/inner demons/straying from God. Evil is a NATURAL ASPECT of human nature, since man is fallen. Evil must first be contained (imprisoned) and dealt with on an individual basis by conversion to Christ and the Word. The capitalist free market is natural, and if you do not succeed economically, then you must be lazy, because God "creates all men equal."

A N A R C H I S M
"
All social power gained by an individual is wrought at the expense of a corresponding loss of social power by another individual. For this reason, all forms of civil society are erected under the pretense of a hierarchy of of powerful and powerless.

Capitalism emerged as a technocratic pacifier to man's greed. The goal of capitalist society is monetary acquisition as an end justified by any productive means, regardless of any conceivable sense of dignity , morality, or taste ('Boobs sell beer') (child labour) (coal mining). When industrialized nations outlaw child labour, the capitalists pack up their businesses (and their marble busts of Ayn Rand) and move to some other part of the world where they can legally employ children.

For the above reasons, capitalism equates and makes identical social power and material acquisition. It then codifies social power with dollar amounts. It makes 'expensive' synonymous with 'good'. It makes "Are you successful?" exactly equal to "How much did you make last year?"

A communist revolution only serves to create a power vacuum, which is then meant to be filled again by despotism, only to start the process over again.

Humans create societies for themselves not for love, or out of contractual sense, but for their lust for power. The are particularly well suited for this because humans are, in the end, vindictive, greedy, exploitative, manipulative animals. The history of large societies, and in particular, those societies that historians claim as vainglorious, only demonstrate these facts clearly.
"