|
Capitalism (pg. 22)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Well we're back to designing our hypothetical Communist paradise. As I've said in this thread, I can't see much inherent in Communism that sets a lifestyle limit on its population, beyond a vague notion of "need". Without the shift in attitude I mentioned earlier towards lifestyle and luxury, I can only see a Communist model being accepted if it guarantees a significantly more lavish lifestyle than the austere misery that previous regimes have provided. And that doesn't solve the problem.
|
That's the human nature argument again. You're arguing that humans are inherently selfish and spoiled. Since capitalism uses these traits to grow the economy and accustoms people to or makes people yearn for wealth and luxury, they will not accept not getting their shot at achieving it. Well, I don't see any philosophical backing for this. Why can they not be taught the opposite in an economic system predicated on something more than solely profit? What do you think will happen to people's world views if they are born and raised in a society where you are NOT told from day one that you have to go out and make as much money as possible in order to be successful?
| quote: |
And here we're being purely hypothetical. Realistically, wealth distribution isn't going to manifest as a sudden global shift to universal Communism. |
Maybe not, but it sure as hell beats the system we're having now, where we simply accept that large swathes of the earth's population are too dumb/weak to have a decent life, and therefore deserve to be poor.
| quote: |
Anyway, my main point is that both Capitalism and Communism are equally ed if humans don't collectively decide to surrender over-consumptive lifestyles. That attitude shift is the core challenge, and the economic system in which it occurs is a side-show. That's all I've been trying to get across in this thread. |
In which one of these systems do you think this attitude shift is more likely to happen? I may not be a communist, but as long as we have a capitalist, hierarchically structured way of living, you will never get rid of all the influences and special interests that make sure said over-consumptive lifestyles persist in society. Then we're ed no matter what technological advances crop up or armed conflict we suffer through. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
As I've said previously in this thread, all my in-laws were born and raised in a Communist system, and believe me it didn't radically alter their world view. The stories of relatives visiting from the West and bringing wonderful gifts, artefacts of a more luxurious existence, are almost universal. People brought up in Communism aren't reprogrammed to become humble monks.
And as for which system do I think it's more likely to occur: Capitalism, overwhelmingly, because it's already in place as an interlocked global system. Effecting change in values in the current system is far more practically achievable than going through the enormous messy work of reconfiguring our global economic system. I've given examples previously in this thread of how public awareness of an environmental issue can trigger a rapid response in the market, such as the current backlash against disposable plastics. Make people aware of the impact of their actions and hit it home and you can change their attitude, which reflects in their consumer behaviour, which reflects in the market. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| Also, none of this means I'm a card carrying cheerleader for the current system. I certainly think we need to row back considerably on the neoliberalism that has permeated capitalism since the Reagan and Thatcher era. Centralised legislation on environmental policy is also essential, which means bigger government. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
The human nature argument, eh? Why are you so convinced that humans HAVE TO be greedy and self-serving? |
i don't really call it human nature necessarily, but it's simple biological fact that organisms are self-interested. not necessarily 100% of the time or in every situation, but certainly for the vast majority of their lives. an argument could certainly be made that capitalism helps foster the selfishness, and i don't necessarily disagree with that. but as i think system-j already noted, capitalism is an outcome of our self-interest rather than its root cause. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
capitalism is an outcome of our self-interest rather than its root cause. |
I was about to write a long post, but this about sums it up.
Capitalism did not create humans, humans created capitalism.
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
Maybe not, but it sure as hell beats the system we're having now, where we simply accept that large swathes of the earth's population are too dumb/weak to have a decent life, and therefore deserve to be poor. |
Again, Capitalism has many flaws, but it has absolutely raised more people out of extreme poverty than ever before. The fact that people are still poor today is not a good argument against it. In recent decades, a shocking amount of people have gotten out of extreme poverty, infant mortality numbers are down, literacy rates are up, etc etc. Many indicators of global living standards have been improving rapidly. Now, I would argue that perhaps the environmental toll that has accompanied this great rising has not been worth it, but that's a different argument altogether. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| Don't waste your time Sand Leaper. They're cynical bastards. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
Bulbs is here to help
 |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
Hoo boy. Lot of stuff to get to here.
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
Don't waste your time Sand Leaper. They're cynical bastards.
|
I don't mind doing this. :) This Socratic method thing is good mental exercise, and I really need to get out of my shell and talk to people more about politics.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
As I've said previously in this thread, all my in-laws were born and raised in a Communist system, and believe me it didn't radically alter their world view. The stories of relatives visiting from the West and bringing wonderful gifts, artefacts of a more luxurious existence, are almost universal. People brought up in Communism aren't reprogrammed to become humble monks.
|
Yes, capitalism is an easier sell than communism, since it injects rocket fuel into our base desires in order to sustain itself. Does that mean we're all animals too dumb to see this for what it is and what it will do to us in the long run? I see no reason why humans cannot work together to temper their vices and create a more sustainable future, especially when we all seem to agree that it is crucial for our species' survival. Lots of people on this planet think in those terms already (which is why fringe ideologies like anarcho-primitivism exist).
This is the third or fourth time the "humans are too selfish by nature" argument has cropped up in this thread. I'm still not buying it.
| quote: |
And as for which system do I think it's more likely to occur: Capitalism, overwhelmingly, because it's already in place as an interlocked global system. Effecting change in values in the current system is far more practically achievable than going through the enormous messy work of reconfiguring our global economic system. I've given examples previously in this thread of how public awareness of an environmental issue can trigger a rapid response in the market, such as the current backlash against disposable plastics. |
The change in the view of the use of plastics has happened as a counter reaction to capitalist interests, not as a product of them. Do you think any major fast food chain would give two s about introducing sustainable plastics if environmental activists and charitable organizations hadn't been applying political pressure for years? Why would the CEO of McDonald's decide to spend thousands of dollars on recyclable plastics, when he or she can use disposables and save money for the shareholders instead? Do you honestly think environmental concerns or regulation of consumption factors into capitalism at any time if it isn't with the intent of generating more profit down the line?
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i don't really call it human nature necessarily, but it's simple biological fact that organisms are self-interested. not necessarily 100% of the time or in every situation, but certainly for the vast majority of their lives. an argument could certainly be made that capitalism helps foster the selfishness, and i don't necessarily disagree with that. but as i think system-j already noted, capitalism is an outcome of our self-interest rather than its root cause.
|
Is it the only outcome? If we really are that concerned with self-interest, why would we continue to go for capitalism when we know that it could be the trigger for a series of fatal events that can wipe us all out? I really am puzzled as to why people in this thread are so hellbent on reducing humans to little more than the simplest of instincts. We're better than our desire to have more stuff!
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
The fact that people are still poor today is not a good argument against it. In recent decades, a shocking amount of people have gotten out of extreme poverty, infant mortality numbers are down, literacy rates are up, etc etc. Many indicators of global living standards have been improving rapidly. Now, I would argue that perhaps the environmental toll that has accompanied this great rising has not been worth it, but that's a different argument altogether.
|
I don't think you can simply gloss over the point that the planet cannot handle a western capitalist mindset on a complete global scale. Yes, capitalism certainly has lead to the largest degree of progress and prosperity in the world thus far (for now). The question is for who and at what cost? |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
In absolutely no way did I suggest that the plastics backlash was a "product" of capitalist interests. I quite clearly used it as an example of how consumer mentality can bring about a positive change within the current system. Your scornful rhetorical question actually illustrates my point neatly. Corporations don't give a about anything* until their customers do. And then they react accordingly.
*Except profit, etc. |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
Taking Kenny out of the equation, I’m not really sure what we’re debating. Seems more like a naive gripe session against them “capitalist” ( who ever they are). No matter what form of political system, every country has adopted capitalism as their economic foundation. All countries also employ some limitations or regulations to capitalism. I guess we could argue about the type limitations to be imposed.
As regards to the environment it’s obvious that climate change posses the greatest threat that humankind has ever faced and yet very little is being done about it. While governments could do better they can’t do anything without the support of the public and their willingness to change their life style.
The root cause is people’s desire to change our environment and the industry means and scale that has grown to a point it’s putting our existence at risk. Since neither capitalism nor industrialization is going away some solution to our environment problems will need to be found within that frame work.
Unfortunately, we have formed such a strong reliance on fossil fuels, I don’t see any significant action being taken until a crisis of epic proportions happens.
There is no political system that would stop people from wanting the modern conveniences they have grown accustomed to that contribute our environment demise. |
|
|
|
|
