Against capital

The way in which the reward for delivery is obtained is that of higher salary and, therefore, purchasing power...

The modern world contains numerous problems. The most prominent are those of corruption, urban violence and unemployment [and therefore poverty]. Of course, there are geographic areas in which there is no significant incidence of them. The problems of the modern world are, in part, inevitable.

Where do they originate? Above all, the economic problem, from where? Would it be a human failure, or something like that, like a problem in capitalist conduct itself (and therefore in its ethics)?

Now, right or wrong, I believe that there is not just one cause when we have human and social problems before us. Such problems are always multifaceted or pluricausal. So, finally, we will navigate through the question. We will therefore look for the answer and if we do not find it, at least point you towards the problem that opens up here.

We will start with the following question:

What is capitalist ethics?

Now, it is not a word, but a concept. It designates a worker's behavior towards work, which is equivalent to saying that capitalism disciplines the same. But how? Capitalism wants someone with certain qualities; not anyone!

The qualities would be something like this, in short, like:

1) Professional commitment;

2) Adequacy to the design of the position;

3) Productivity.

Therefore, work (in the light of capitalism) requires a significant degree of individual involvement or sacrifice. Anyone who fits the standard of professionalism – so capitalism imagines – is productive because he has sacrificed himself. Therefore, the same has to be rewarded. The way in which the reward for delivery is obtained is through higher wages and, therefore, purchasing power. Thus, the commodity or even the possession of its purchasing power is a measure that is equivalent to the personal investment in the company, function or position.

I don't think I need to justify the problem in more detail! I believe, therefore, that it is self-evident that salary is a function of professional commitment, adequacy to the position and productivity.

Now, we can immediately infer that capitalism is demanding or even excluding. Any and all that is not committed, suitable for the function and productive tends to be rejected by the market. Not just because the market only thinks about profit, but because the world lacks services and products. Well, no one in their right mind — not least because it would violate the most basic notions of common sense — would want to hire someone who does not give a return, as this implies [to some degree] the possibility of ruining the company. Of course, the company, on the other hand, cannot demand more than what is possible, or even that the employee's salary must correspond to his function, that is, he cannot receive less than he deserves (however, he cannot receive more!). Which means, before the next paragraph, something like humanized ethics in labor relations and the absence of abuse on both sides.

Why, however, can the employee not receive more? And how is that a problem?

If we use Aristotle's concept of Justice, we must give each one what is his according to his equality and inequality. Hmm, what do you mean? So does Aristotle mean that justice means giving those who have done more, more? Who did less, less? And who could not do something due to any complication — for example, being born paraplegic — as needed? Who, therefore, is able to climb a ramp with their feet, great; who does not have, according to this principle or concept, must be assisted, for example, by an elevator.

However, I still haven't answered the question because of the problem that there is a conflict between the way the employee and the employer look at work. Tell yourself soon! Not everything has been said here, but I only seek to outline the problem of capitalist ethics by resorting to conflict at work.

Wellington Amorim Lima, university professor, from the channel of the same name, in his class on ethics in Weber — recorded and displayed on Youtube —, tried to delimit what capitalist ethics is, which I described above. However, when we talk about capitalist ethics, we also talk about the economy and the reason why Brazil is poor, even though it has greater resources than dozens of other countries (such as Japan, for example). It is, then, that it separates [for didactic purposes] the European behavior from the Brazilian one, in order to identify the problem that is in line with such capitalist ethics.

Capitalism — he said — is a European product, but not only; it also reflects the culture of many Europeans, especially the English and Germans of today. It tells us that — in addition to the merit or demerit of capitalism — it is characterized, in developed countries, by asking employees to have religious devotion. Yes, capitalism demands professionalism or, better, personal sacrifice to the company. However, since we—postmoderns—are secularists and no longer really believe in God, we naturally see no reason to think of work as sacrifice.

In Brazil everything is complicated! Here there is by no means, as a rule, the adequacy of the Brazilian spirit to the spirit of capitalism. No one in Brazil has their being — their sensibility — really focused on professional life and still sees such a thing as abject. It is not, therefore, in the spirit of the Brazilian or of Brazil something like fidelity to professional life, in terms of capitalist ethics. Now, in short, this is precisely one of the critical points that explain why we are underdeveloped.

Of course, this may—especially to anyone who feels personally offended—seem simple-minded! However, one does not want to explain everything with this; it is explained, however, that Brazilian culture is in dissonance with the culture of the company or capitalism, which is one of the critical points, as it shows an inability to adapt. This question, incidentally, has ramifications in fields such as psychoanalysis, which — using Marcuse (or even the Frankfurt School) here — says that Capital demands libidinal investment in the commodity, which implies a certain degree of repression of the working class so that it is deposited (or invested, as I said) in work.

Will the Brazilian be disciplined, committed to professional life, that is, placing it in the foreground, adequate to the demands of the position and productive?! I, for example, seek to be, but I am not! You know, friend, it's hard to break free from cultural habits.

Finally, as the economic phenomenon is multicausal and my hypothesis is of a psychophilosophical nature, I cannot explain the primary cause of poverty or even underdevelopment in Brazil, as I limited myself to the question of treating them in the light of the concept of ethics of capitalism versus the inadequacy of Brazilian thought.

In summary:

The market demands commitment, subordination, adequacy to the functions of the position. It seeks to value the individual in light of his return to the company. This requires a certain degree of sacrifice. Hours of study, training, vocation, love of work. However, Brazilians in general are not in tune. We, therefore, reject (as a nation) the capitalist ethic, described above. We blame [an addition], however, on others for poverty. Political parties live by attributing the cause to capitalism or the Americans.

Thiago Carvalho.

Psychologist and graduate student in neuropsychology.