That's the gist of the question somebody asked me in a chat group, then was surprised by the length of my answer (which is expanded upon below):

Frankly, as questions on morality go, that's a difficult one to answer definitively. (I even started reading a book on it, titled Can I be Rich Without Stealing? Sadly, the author was a religious bigot full of homophobia and other nonsense, such as thinking his being religious made him above committing any sin, including financially. That put me off reading any further.) To my mind, it's a question a person has to ask themselves. Individuals have to honestly assess and decide if they are earning more than what reasonably covers both their current needs (bills, food, rent, etc.) and future ones (retirement; house, health/medical and vehicle insurance; etc.). With the way inflation and other fiat nonsense goes, can one even be sure that their future needs will be adequately covered by the money they put aside today? If so, is that excess justifiable/justified (because the work they do is worth what they're paid, fairly and honestly, for example)? Is it motivated by fear or greed, on the other hand?

The Book of Revelations

"John the Revelator,
Put him in an elevator,
Take him up to the highest high.
Take him up to the top
Where the mountains stop.
Let him tell his book of lies!

[...] Well, who's that shouting?
John the Revelator!
All he ever gives us is pain!
Well, who's that shouting?
John the Revelator!
He should bow his head in shame!"
 — Depeche Mode (Martin Gore); John The Revelator; Playing the Angel (2005)

I would argue that if the underlying motivation is that of fear and/or greed, then the answer to the main question is a definite "yes". Otherwise, it's "no" or "maybe". A younger and more idealistic version of myself would have answered "yes" to the question, regardless of circumstances or scenario (hence the tale of my disgust with John the Revelator and his attitude that if he's going to make money — "dirty silver", as I called it — he might as well make as much as he can get away with, regardless of that being more than he requires). However, as I've moved on from my absolutist and idealistic stance(s), I've realised that I can't give a definite answer for anyone other than myself. Besides, whom am I to judge the actions and intentions of people I don't know? I can only go on what I feel is right/acceptable for me. It doesn't mean I have to accommodate or tolerate people whom I feel are being dishonest or greedy, however, but it's perhaps not up to me to call them out on it.

"You can drive a Rolls Royce,
Claim you have no choice
But you can't fool the children of the revolution."
 — T-Rex (Mark Bolan); Children of the Revolution

Maybe John was right. Maybe there is no line, no cut-off point where what we do is immoral. Maybe earning money under capitalism is absolutely wrong, always. However, he failed to convince me, given how he argued for going the opposite direction (might as well be caught for a sheep as for a lamb, then ask the Almighty Father for forgiveness later). I don't think taking an absolutist stance is the answer to anything. It's one of the ways we get intolerance and religious maxims/rules/ultimatums like the Ten Commandments (which, as anyone with at least half a working brain knows, usually don't do us much good).

"Never do business with a religious son of a bitch. His word ain't worth a shit, not when he's got the good Lord whispering in his right ear, telling him how to fuck you on the deal."
 — William S. Burroughs

Sad but true, if my experience is anything to go by. If you want to find a truly devious, horrible and morally bankrupt person, look for a devout Christian, preferably a priest or member of the clergy.

Debt Bondage (No Rest for the Wicked)

The sad truth is that, try as we might, most of us cannot escape Capitalism (at least without a huge amount of capital), no matter how disgusted by it we may be: As much as living the Collapsologist/Survivalist life (learning bushcraft and outdoor living/survival skills) might be highly appealing, it's not currently possible without at least paying someone to teach us such skills and for any equipment we will need. To be an iconoclast, to abandon all that is familiar/known and walk the road less travelled, is difficult. That's not (or shouldn't be) an excuse to not commit to it our very best effort(s). Even Henry David Thoreau, living at Walden Pond, had a stipend (unless I'm mistaken) and didn't commit to it for more than a couple of years. The irony (maybe even hypocrisy) of someone in my position writing that is not lost on me.

If watching Alone has taught me anything, it's that even most of the people who do live that lifestyle as much as they can still hold down jobs to bring in money. As it is, we've all got to eat to stay alive (and food we don't grow, hunt or gather ourselves costs money), bills to pay and expenses to cover. That money has to come from somewhere (definitely not growing on trees) and thus be earned every month (unless one is fortunate enough to be a trust fund kid or royalty born with a golden spoon up one's arse). I have been told that in the UAE and Qatar, almost all of the citizens are descended from royalty and the government pays them for doing little more than existing. If they want anything done, they import labourers (skilled or otherwise) from poor African countries for a few years and pay them royally (at least in comparison to what they'd earn in their home countries, even if they're not earning interest on what goes into their Islamic bank accounts). If that's not wealth distribution, then I don't know what is. Of course, if the heat and humidity don't kill you while you're busting your hump, you're all set. (My brother-in-law, whom is used to Durban weather, finds it oppressive. He reports that it's like being licked by a massive, invisible wet dog every day.)

It is what it is, as repugnant and sickening as it is. Pretending that the over-all heavily industrialised corporate Capitalistic consumerist system isn't damaging (to both us and the environment), immoral or oppressive in the long term, that it's actually beneficial or positive to anyone but the top 1%, however, is an exercise in delusion and denial, if nothing else ...

Even cryptocurrency, for all that it provides us a way out of the dept bondage of fiat, hasn't really taken off as a means of payment in any but a very limited sense. (I'll expand on that somewhat in my next post.) Besides, it mostly offers us a new model/paradigm for operating under old ideas. (It's less a case of earning or generating worth than taking value from others, IMO. The concept of "earning money" is a myth fabricated to justify/support the Protestant Work Ethic, in which the main purpose of work is to humble/humiliate the worker for his master's pleasure, not to actually get anything worthwhile done. It is meant to be a punishment for some sin or other, possibly so that one may obtain salvation. "Work is freedom/salvation", or some equally Orwellian maxim from Miniprod. Money is the carrot meant to motivate us to subject ourselves to such treatment. If you doubt this, go work for a corporation, a private dictatorship.) In the end, someone always gets harmed/shafted, even if it's far down the chain/line of causality. At least, that's how I see it. Others clearly don't, which is probably why Capitalism and fiat are still things, why people actually aspire to have high-paying, high-stress "jobs they hate in order to buy shit they don't need, to impress people they don't like" and get treated like replaceable fuel cells to be discarded without a backward glance when they burn out.

Is Capitalism, by it's very nature, a form of fascism or does it simply lend itself to being hijacked by it? I don't know, so can't answer that one, merely wonder about it. Maybe, by the time I've finished reading Friendly Fascism, that will change.

I'm not even going into the topic of automation and AI in the workplace, the ramifications of asking, "why send a human to do a job a machine, which doesn't have to be paid, can do more effectively/efficiently and for longer?" Just imagine an industry that runs 24/7, 365 without an HR department or wages to pay. That is the future AI hype promises. Hell, my own government allegedly has the technological capability to automate and streamline a lot of its processes, but refuses to do so because it'll result in massive loss of jobs and they'll no longer be able to use the "creating jobs" lie with straight faces (or so I've been told, anyway). They'd rather keep old Mr. and Mrs. Types-one-Character-a-Minute sitting at their desks and picking their noses from 09:00 to 15:30, frustrating the hell out of anyone trying to get anything done at/by a government department (or walking down streets yelling at people to give their meter readings, when it would just be so much easier to take a photo and send an email) ... They're shitty jobs, but someone's got to be seen to be doing them, because heaven forbid the higher-ups actually have to do any work in order to get their salaries paid!

Hope for the Future, if there is One?

Still, blockchain and crypto tech is still in its infancy. There is still plenty of time to find a way to abandon old models and ways of doing things, to find a way to liberate ourselves and live in a world post fear and greed, post fiat, but also post currency (without necessarily resorting to anarcho-primitivism). I certainly hope so, anyway, even if I don't live to see it. It's probably got to be either that or a global catastrophe/genocide that wipes the entire human species off the planet. Try as we might in all our man-years (from clubs and spears to gattling guns to nuclear weapons), we haven't quite achieved the latter option, either. If we were actually serious about conservation, environmentalism and global warming, perhaps we would try harder instead of just discussing it, IMO.

Thumbnail image: Photo by Kam Pratt on Pexels