|
U-Know! Forum » What is better than Capitalism? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Sep 10, 2003, 20:31
|
||
|
Hey I never said people were ALL bad. ;-) There is also an argument to be made that collective work benefits the individual. "Individuals" do want to have friends and loved ones and a sense of community after all. Again, I think it boils down to pessimism vs. optimism -- I'm optimistic that our better impulses will trump our worse impulses in the long run. Not always in every case, but enough to keep us from extinction. If I'm wrong Mama will take care of it, she always does. What I disagree with is trying to force a new "system" on people. It is better to let things evolve driven by individual and collective choices. I am skeptical of "social engineering" because there are always unintended consequences. "Collectivization" in communist countries is a good example -- the goal was to make everything equitable and provide for everyone. The result was usually massive starvation. More than 20 million died in China when Mao "collectivized" and called for "cultural revolution" -- China only began to be able to feed itself after Deng's market reforms.
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Sep 10, 2003, 20:34
|
||
|
So how are you going to enforce equality-of-means? Who ever said everything in life had to be "fair"? Who guarantees that? Again the issue is what's RELATIVELY better . . . some are rich, some are poor, most are in the middle . . . . or that everyone's equally poor?
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 10, 2003, 20:37
|
||
I argue that taht many people wopuldn't be eating that many hamburgers if it wasn't marketed as aggressivelyas Hitler's fucking Third Reich was. They even take opened a Mc Donald's school, the cynical SHITS! I get carried away with this whole "spend gazillions to create a lazy culture consumer" and then blame the culture not the advertising. I don't believe this 'people get what the people want'. Psychological norms dictate that people respond readily to what they are accustomed to. Big business knows full well that the only thing left to do is make it all so commonplace we cannot imagine life before the Big Gold M. Well I was around in the UK in 1972 and it was no big deal. those weren't the good old days, they were just a few years ago, and consumerism was gathering pace. It's the highly Romanized if you can't beat em join em. Thrw in a bit of "why would I want to beat it, i get Pizza and a movie for working 45 hours a week. I also get shoes thatmak me look socialy acceptable. Freedom of choice is taken away when we are trained from birth by advertising's social role modelling. it takes huge anmounts of mental energy and conflict to think outsode of the box, especially when so many dollars are invested to make the box appear to stretch forever (if you can afford it)
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 10, 2003, 20:45
|
||
I didn't say 'fair', I was merely pointing out the huge lie at the root of capitalism. It's a lie we are forced to live, I believe. My dumb celtic spirit cries out at this, but I know really it's just a matter of put up or shut up, join the game or take the blame. I do have hopes that we are aspiring, in general to higher ideals than our forefathers, and a system of fairness is evident in Human Rights movements and Fair Trade lobbies. But it's so painfully slow I believe that the drive for Capitalism will 'stay ahead of the game' and at the same time dictate the game. Like you said, it's a big fast bus, to get off it is painful, so you either become the driver or a well behaved passenger.
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 10, 2003, 20:49
|
||
|
"What I disagree with is trying to force a new "system" on people. It is better to let things evolve driven by individual and collective choices. I am skeptical of "social engineering" because there are always unintended consequences." Snap. But you support the Legal system? Also, I believe we are 'socially engineered' from birth, by the Market.
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 10, 2003, 21:33
|
||
|
is started by either greed or need. I believe we have a big enough world and the intelligence to conquer at least one of those. unfortunately the one creates the other. And if it hasn't created it, it will certainly profit from it. I don't believe that human nature is flawed, i think we are 'taught'. So many different systems (as you say) over history have created war, but they all have one thing in common and that's control. Capitalism may be less controlling in many ways than state communism, and I'm not an advocate for either. I don't see why it has to be X or Y. Neither have done much to elevate the human spirit above the trough. The trough is easy ti fill, it's restrictions that are set in place by those that control that make the trough more easily filled by the controllers. Whether they are investors or dictators. Althogh I'm not a signed up Anarchist, i read all arguments, and this article struck home (how capitalism sets us against each other and then says competition is human nature) http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws91/nature33.html Any comments appreciated, this is V Good discussion!
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Sep 10, 2003, 22:01
|
||
|
(Haven't read that article yet but I'll respond first anyway.) "Capitalism may be less controlling in many ways than state communism, and I'm not an advocate for either. I don't see why it has to be X or Y." I don't see as X vs. Y either. More like a continuum from theoretical-but-not-reachable "total economic freedom" at one pole and equally-theoretical-but-not-reachable "total state control of the economy" at the other. So all societies contain some "X" and some "Y" and it boils down to a question of what the proper balance should be. Different societies will come up with different answers. As near as I can tell anarchism is "all X" but with some romantic notions about human nature attached. If you go back to "caveman days" before anything was "taught" I'm sure they were beating each other over the head on need & greed issues then too. Let's look at nature for some indication of the role of instincts: some animals are solitary and will kill members of their own species on sight, especially in contests over mating and food. Others have more herd-like instincts, and work as a group against other species and other herds. But of course within the herd there are still battles for status between members. Does the alpha male lion really need 5 females when the herd runt has none, or is he just being "greedy"? (Draw your own conclusions on "evolution" as it relates to economic disparities.) I would assume Humans are more herd-like than solitary, since that's the way monkeys and apes are in the wild. And of course I believe we're nothing more than clever apes. The point is I think a lot of "human nature" is fundamentally instinctive, though the instincts are reshaped by the social environment (who has the baddest auto, the biggest house, the most toys, etc.) |
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 10, 2003, 22:11
|
||
|
If you go back to "caveman days" before anything was "taught" I'm sure they were beating each other over the head on need & greed issues then too. Maybe Native American written lore has some clues about life before "modern life". And I'm sure you'll find that all cultures are different, largely because of their environment. We have the wealth and the knowledge to physically change our environment now, so we aren't so 'dependent' on it (at face value),but we've tried the 'machines for living in approach' and reaped the consequential disasters. I believe things are changing for the better, slowly. I think we can use knowledge from past cultures and apply it to our own. But we can't do that if we're constantly being taught ONLY competition. The american system of 'contest mobility' is something I take great issue with, notably in the schools, it's a very cynical and disabling process for the 'underachievers' and not everyone ca be StephenHawkings, although we are told it daily by the champions of the 'Free World. ' I'm challenging my own snobbery when I ask why MTV personalities are 'worth' more, and have more wealth than the dustman who cleans their shit up. This is because I don't understand the complexities of capitalism. I'm trying to learn, you're a great debater Mr Dog. :-) |
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 10, 2003, 22:16
|
||
|
"The point is I think a lot of "human nature" is fundamentally instinctive, though the instincts are reshaped by the social environment (who has the baddest auto, the biggest house, the most toys, etc.)" Yeah I got into a huge strop when i couldn't accept the denial of 'altruism' in my psychology classes. I left the class, fearing my spirit/brain to be tarnished by the underachieving concept of human relationships being nothing more than cost/profit mechanisms born from biological selfishness. I'll be rich if you keep talking me round... hurry up! |
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 10, 2003, 22:18
|
||
It's at this point I feel as if I should be paying you ;-)
|
| Pages: 18 – [ Previous | 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 18 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
