I was gonna include a third option about how money is easier to achieve without considering the morality of your actions but that’s not really a philosophy as much as it is an objective fact.
Not really sure. Somebody wire me an obscene amount of money and I’ll report back. Probably.
Anything in where there is a motive for competition, will attract questionable people, especially if competition would not benefit the general populace.
Money creates competition by having something to rank others by. How much they earn or own. Whoever creates the source of wealth, has the power to hoard it.
It is thus necessary, that for example landowners should be unable to monetise their land; instead, what they produce, should be a public good for everyone.
For every asshole billionaire there’s at least one millionaire you’ve never heard of, giving money away and never trying to have too much to themselves. At least, I’d like to believe that.
It’s complicated. The relationship people have with money is subjective and related to your personal background (culture, social class, country, etc). Also, societal norms define this a little further - while its clear most countries connect money and power, societal behaviours towards those topics can differ tremendously, at least in theory. Typical example: a country like France had a revolution to ensure all citizens are equal regardless of their social status or any types of differences (race, social class, etc), a country like Germany also had its share of influence in history that brought them on a more social side, while a country like the United States is very heavily influenced by money-related theories (such as hard core capitalism) thus money is culturally a more dominant topic. What it means in practice will depend on who you ask, everyone thinks they are more poor than they actually are and not as rich as they want to be, many will say Germany is not social enough and France is losing its identity, but in the grand scheme of things when you compare countries and the way each of them is changing you can really see the relationship money-power is much stronger in some countries than others. The more there’s a social gap, the stronger it will be
Yes
/thread
In this world, money is power, and power absolutely does corrupt people.
I’ve seen a lot a fair amount of people that started off with humble beginnings, got really popular, made a ton of money, and turned into shitbags as a result because they can just fork up a bunch of cash to make problems go away.
Money and power enables you to get away with immoral stuff, if not straight up illegal.
Both. Money attracts corrupt individuals, but it also causes people to become corrupted in some scenarios. It can be a gradual thing, and it doesn’t always have to be drastic things like a black market kidney. Having money opens up options, some of which are more corrupt.
The Mode of Production determines what ideas and traits are more expressed among society. The Base determines the Superstructure, which in turn reinforces the Base.
Ok yes but this makes no sense to someone with zero background in marxist theory.
This is what is being referenced ^
This means that the values of a society are determined by the economic structure but also that these values then reinforce that structure. So you end up with societal values that closely allign with whatever best reinforces the base. In the case of capitalism that is typically greed. So no, money alone doesn’t corrupt people or make them greedy but the economic system that money facilitates does.
Correct me if I am wrong about anything 👍
Fantastic elaboration, comrade, that’s exactly what I am saying.
This is a very moral framing, maybe even a Christian-adjacent one, which I don’t think is helpful. Historical materialism, which other commenters are working from, is an amoral framing.
Speaking of morality & philosophy, here’s prof. Hans-Georg Moeller:
