... and Marx bothers!

(Blog n°8)

  

Ethic is now in the core of the discussions, of the reflections and of the classes about finance. Ethic must be distinguished from the concept of moral. The latter is a set of rules corresponding to an idea of what is good. Ethic is more complex, less dogmatic. It refers to the argumentative reflection held to reach a good action in the framework of defined circumstances. More simply, the concept of moral refers to a general rule, ethic refers to the personal behavior that takes the concrete events into account. (For those who are interested in that subject, the philosophical debate between E. Kant & B. Constant on the right to lie is a very captivating topic, Kant would favorize the morale and Constant the ethic.)

Considering that nowadays finance needs to be studied with an ethical prism, perhaps would it be possible to conceive a system where moral is in the center of the financial system. This would imply to follow absolute rules, without considering the circumstances. Of course, in the current capitalist system, it sounds unreal. Nevertheless, a system based on the prosecution of a good act under any circumstances should be put into question, because it means that there is no constant law, so no real idea of what is good in such a whole.

Here comes Marx. The person who imagined a world of harmony. The documentary Masters of Money: Marx, with its so objective eye, began to describe Marx’s ideas as dangerous. Indeed, they are dangerous for a system, because Marx preaches the establishment of public property of the means of production. This would be the fundamental law of the Marxist economic morale.

However, the most important aspect of Marx’s theories is not purely economic. Indeed, and therefore is Marx both an economist and a philosophe, his theories focus not only on the economy but also on the society. Moreover, he conceives society through economy. The final goal of Marx’s is das Ende der Geschichte (the end of the history). A state where only proletarians remain, where every human are equals.

Since the middle of the ninetieth century, the basis of the idea of democracy is the center of a debate. The liberalist side argues that to own the power, people only must be free, so they can establish their own individual success. Conversely, the socialist side claims that only a perfect equality between people allow them to rule together. With this debate about the essence of democracy, it is also a debate on what creates the happiness of a society that is proceeded. This opposition degenerated in a confrontation of ideologies during the cold war, until one of the (Leninist-) socialist side collapsed.

Still, the question of the possibility of a free society without any kind of equality is asked. In the UK, in France and in Germany, this problematic finds an answer in the place of the state. A compromise is agreed making is sort that inequality is tolerated under the strict condition of solidarity; the state acting as a regulator in this process. Besides, French motto (Liberty, equality, fraternity) and German motto (Unity and justice and freedom) are directly linked to this idea of compromise allowed by the solidarity between people. This phenomenon is seen by the economist J. Schumpeter as a degradation of pure capitalism facing its own contradictions and evolving to an implementation of providence states.

Explaining society through economy (method called Economism, called into question by J. Schumpeter) allows a clearer view on what can be proposed to solve a so complex debate. True balance cannot be established within one only system because dogmatism does not allow to any healthy and durable situation. In economy, private property and market economy seem to be essential for the dynamism and the growth of a system (according to J. Schumpeter agreeing with F. Hayek), however it becomes unfair, inequitable if not controlled by an entity established by the whole stakeholders of that system, which should correspond to the idea of state in a democratic society.