Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Delusional Assumptions of Capitalism
One of the more delusional aspects of capitalism is the idea that if one pursues the acquisition of private wealth with abandon, that this is somehow automatically “good” for human society.
The laissez-faire advocate and novelist Ayn Rand wrote that if one does not support this notion that greed is good and pursuing “enlightened self-interest,” (as Adam Smith characterized it), is the highest virtue, then one defaults to supporting a centralized oppressive regime that allows no personal freedom and no private wealth whatsoever. One supports living in darkness and despair or, in a word, Hell. This Manichean thinking is in keeping with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition dating back to the Indus Valley divide between the Vedic traditions and the Zoroastrian belief system of ancient Persia. The notion that the world is characterized by an ongoing “war” between the forces of light and the forces of darkness is at the base of much of so-called western thought.
In The Three Metamorphoses, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that humans are saddled with a heavy burden as children. Using the metaphor of a camel, he describes how we then venture into the wilderness with this burden, whereupon we are attacked by a great dragon. The dragon is covered with hundreds of scales, each scale bearing the words “Thou Shalt.” The human is then transformed into a lion in order to do battle with the dragon. If the lion is victorious in the battle – slaying the dragon “Thou Shalt” – the metaphor then turns to that of a child. The human then becomes what he or she was born to be – “a wheel rolling out of its own center.” One of the scales on the dragon for most of us growing up in the “developed world” is that “thou shalt believe in the war between light and darkness.” And, the societal assumption is that one aspect of this war is the capitalist notion of “enlightened self-interest” versus the evil “socialist” notions of public ownership and oppressive altruism that punishes the productive and rewards the unproductive. This has become conflated with the Judeo-Christian religious structure of “good versus evil” to the point where in some quarters there is no distinction between the secular and religious versions of the myth. To complete the Nietzschean metaphor in this context, most people do not slay the dragon. The result is a societal discourse that is largely delusional and controlled by mythic thinking, catch-phrases, and unquestioned assumptions.
While this is nothing new, the consequences are becoming too great to bear as humans acquire the unprecedented ability to wield cataclysmic power. What is needed is a strong commitment to reality; i.e., a commitment to jettison ideology and religion for fact-based analysis. The process begun by the Enlightenment was, by and large, a positive development at least for Europe. But this process has been interrupted not so much by religion – the antithesis of the Enlightenment – but by a faith-based secular ideology that says the pursuit by individuals of their own private material gain is good for all.
To dissent against this faith-based secular religion is to be consigned to Purgatory and Hell by the Upholders of the Faith. When the upholders of such a system see a dissenting opposition that is so threatening it must be condemned, it is probably worth asking, “So what’s the threat?” This is what makes a study of the writings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and other dissenters from the secular faith so fascinating. Before “Marxism” was codified into a tool of repression by state capitalists, (Soviet Union, China – regimes that used Marxist rhetoric to repress their own people), it was and still can be a useful critique of the secular religion of capitalism and very revealing in its analysis. Some have helped bring this nineteenth-century dissent up to date on the basis of a critical scientific analysis of the evolution of the capitalist system, (Paul Sweezy, Howard Parsons, David Harvey, John Bellamy Foster, et al.).
The most valuable critique is the questioning of the “enlightened self-interest as public good” assumption. This assumption is based on the false premise that humans are separate from their environment; that somehow, we are “above” the normal consequences of action in the field of the life-death continuum of Planet Earth. A brief perusal of the consequences of this false premise should be sobering to any thinking person. The pursuit of resources and markets to feed a system that MUST grow to survive has made the planet and all of its inhabitants commodities. In capitalist mythology, EVERYTHING has a monetary value, including and perhaps especially, people. The fact that humans are dependent on a healthy environment is not a central consideration – capitalists who acquire financial independence can BUY a healthy environment as one of their private acquisitions, it is assumed. Everyone else must either enter into the field of competition and buy their own “healthy environment,” or be consigned to a life that Thomas Hobbes called “nasty, brutish, and short” – a self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one.
Critics and dissenters such as those mentioned above interrupt this mythic narrative and point out that environmental health, sustainability, and diversity are essential for both human and non-human health. “Self-fulfillment,” and protection of a “commonwealth” are priorities for these dissenters, which is a thing different from the way Smith’s “enlightened self-interest” has become a societal myth. The original meaning of the Greek word “oeconomy” had more to do with a well-kept house – be it an individual household, a neighborhood, a city, or an entire region – than it does with private acquisition. Ultimately, our “house” is the planet – there is NO getting around this fact. For some time now we have had pictures of Planet Earth taken from space. The empirical evidence is clear: we are a very small household in a vast sea of time and space. We MUST cooperate or perish. As it now stands, our Head of the Household – Capitalism (some would prefer the word “fascism”) – is an alcoholic who runs rampant over all who have something he wants. The epitome of “self-will run riot,” he ravages entire countries in his search for another “drink” (resources and markets) and will stop at nothing, including self-destruction, to continue his blind, staggering rampage across the face of the earth.
Once “Thou Shalt” – the dragon telling us that this kind of behavior is on the side of the angels – is slain, our focus can then move to a more properly “sober” analysis of our situation, allowing long-term, solution-oriented thinking to become part of our daily existence. Pursuit of personal fulfillment for each individual in a healthy environment – as opposed to strictly material acquisition – can become a central goal of our household economy on Planet Earth. Happy, fulfilled people do not plunder, rape, maim, and kill others for resources and markets. The earth is a place of abundance, not scarcity. People CAN cooperate and live in peace. But we need to share a commitment to “reality” – the real-life playing out of our interaction with the resources of our household – things that we all need like clean air and water, a healthy diet, expressing our creative powers, loving and being loved, being “part of” something greater than ourselves (Planet Earth comes to mind). Becoming what we were born to be, a "wheel rolling out of its own center," as the eyes and ears of Planet Earth, is our proper objective. If the pursuit of individual wealth impoverishes others and the planet as a whole – which empirical evidence indicates -- consigning innocent bystanders to a life “nasty, brutish, and short,” it represents unwarranted and misplaced power. It is destructive. It is like living with a drunk who is drowning in delusion. It is time to intervene.
99 Comments so far
Show All"It is time to intervene." (Doug Harvey)
Agreed. Many of us are looking for the means.
Manysummits
=====
Coops. Look into it. They're the way of the future. Just, equitable, restrained, responsible and the only way to go. Let's just hope that someone doesn't decide to call the system "Cooperativism" or you will it'll end up: along with all the other "isms"
Whenever one hears someone sing the praises of Marxism it's time to reach for one's sidearm.
An excellent article.
Essay ON! This sort of conceptual deconstruction and identification of the bricks and mortar needs to occur on a constant basis, from perspectives of the historical, philosophical, scientific (physics), and even mythological. The latter is particularly important because the hegemonic bulldozer quashed gender threads and causal relationships long long ago. The feminist battle to shine a bright light on the resulting twists in historical nexus that continually arises regarding gender realities of the historical narrative is one that has been spot on! (Chalice and Blade for instance)
This is being done all over the world, aroiund kitchen tables, in seminars, in media and is a process no less than blood pumping through arerties and veins. Synapses finally begin to sparkle. Hang in for the long haul!
Wish I had the satirical skills to write set pieces about the mirror-world rhetoric of this delusional construct called free-trade capitalism - true trogloditic (such a word?) tripe - to put its genocidal tendencies nicely on the first day of 2012.
Awaiting the next installment Doug Harvey! Happy New Year.
Capitalism in other nations is regulated and it is no coincidence that in those nations, feminism is alive and strong unlike this nation dominated by a yoyo ideology that punishes kindness while rewarding brutality. In addition to "Chalice and the Blade", I would recommend her other book "Real Wealth Nations" which further details this article. Her other two books "Sacred Pleasure" and "The Power of Partnership" are my favorites as they give solutions to stand up to this brash and rude society deeply entrenched in rugged individualism and macho egotism.
Good points in article.
When one reads the oft-referenced "Wealth of Nations..." (Adam Smith 1776) few cite Smith's warnings about immoral anti-social behavior brought about by unchecked greed. In those days "economics" was often called "moral philosophy". Smith is twisted to suit the neo-lib, neo-classical economic ideology.
Also, the system we have now, can loosely be called capitalism, but it is even much worse than classical industrial capitalism. This is corrupt monopoly/cartel finance capitalism that is in many ways, state-directed (through powerful private interests). It can be characterized as a form of sohpisticated neo-Fascism.
We have seen the largest financial crimes in history go by with no one prosecuted. We have seen War Crimes and Treason by high officials go un-punished, un-indicted and swept under rug.
"We have seen the largest financial crimes in history go by with no one prosecuted. "
"We have seen War Crimes and Treason by high officials go un-punished, un-indicted and swept under rug."
Until these two matters are taken care of I will know without any doubt that things remain the same.
IMO, people must go to prison for a long time and in some cases persons should pay the ulitmate price, their life. Yes, their life.
For example, GWBush, Cheney and Rumsfeld deserve the death penalty. They murdered millions in Iraq and Afghanistan and no monetary penalty or prison sentence pays the the penalty for these crimes.
Mr. Obama better start thinking also. His little crime of war against Libya is a crime.
"Whoa there Stepping Razor", you say. No whoa there reader. No matter what you thought of Ghadaffi he had every right to suppress a rebellion that was instigated, financed and supported with military means(an act of war). The UN Charter allows this and therefore he committed no war crimes. His real crime was to start pegging oil prices to other currencies. He also was using Libya's oil money to develop Africa not exploit it. That's a No, No.
"IMO, people must go to prison for a long time and in some cases persons should pay the ulitmate price, their life. Yes, their life."
I think the only people who should not be exempt from the death penalty are elected representatives and politicians: they are the only people who consciously accept a formal social contract and gain power from it. Considering how incredibly large that power is now even for the smallest countries, I just don't think people who do not dare to stake their own life on their own decisions should get any of it. In any just system that I am capable of imagining, responsibility is proportional to power (maybe there are other ways though, I just don't see any). I would also suggest that no elected representatives should be able to take a job for money or earn money for a very long period of time even after their mandate ends; but that they get a constant pay of 2x-3x the minimum wage for the rest of their lives.
The argument that "talent" won't come with these restrictions is exactly the reason that I suggest them btw: it is this kind of "talent" that people in general are better off without.
"Smith is twisted to suit the neo-lib, neo-classical economic ideology."
Yeah, I agree. At the time of writing, his ideas were actually progressive and even though he believed in his principle of free trade, the constant warnings and not exactly flattering description of the "masters of mankind" show that he understood the dangers pretty well - he mentioned the problem of the few colluding against the many at least a dozen times or probably more. But of course he was living in the 18th century and not now, so he could not understand everything about capitalism; nevertheless, a lot of his analyses and points are spot on even now. I'm pretty sure that someone of his calibre wouldn't be a "free market fundamentalist" (or any kind of fundamentalist) if he lived today, there's just way too much interesting complexity now. But it is the fate of all great social thinkers for time to pass them by :-)
Somehow the "enlightened" part got left out of corporate America's notion of self-interest.
Yes, enlightened self-interest is in society's interest; enlightened individuals perceive that promoting the welfare of society as a whole is in their best interest. Capitalism's drive to acquire as much as you possibly can, and hang the consequences, is the opposite of enlightened self-interest - just mindless greed.
"a healthy envioronment". Fracking looks like it is very nasty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEB_Wwe-uBM . I put this here because it the pursuit of profits above the health of people and the environment. Now it looks like it's causing earthquakes as well (no pun intended). Natural gas is not oil and won't do much to make us more energy independent. Check it out.
Assuming "a healthy environment" is assuming an objective reality, mutually perceivable by all. Any perceivable object being infinitely reducible, and infinitely combinable, the very act of perception is an interpretive event. As so, different people can and do perceive different objects. Being so, human well being is not a matter of "science," where each "science" contains its own assumptions of what exists, but of human agreement as to what to understand as existing. Economics is not objective for this reason. Perceiving different objects, there is no necessity is humans producing anything which can be identified as an "optimal distribution." Rather, humans must engage in a democratic process whereby they mutually accept what they shall consider as existing.
"Perceiving different objects, there is no necessity is humans producing anything which can be identified as an "optimal distribution." Rather, humans must engage in a democratic process whereby they mutually accept what they shall consider as existing."
Huh?
This sentence was written rapidly when family had gathered to travel, and told me to "get a move on." Meant is since individuals perceive different objects, desires and the means to their satisfaction are relative to the objects perceived. Thus, the economic error is to assume an objective reality universal to everyone. No such "reality" existing, when no mutually agreeable satisfaction of desires is possible without a common set of objects and relations, mutually accepted objects and relations must be artificially constituted. Without artificial constitution, any distribution necessarily will be an imposition on at least some, creating the constant potential for violent reaction. No such mutually accepted set of objects and relations existing, it need be artificially established by mutual acceptance. This is the purpose of the democratic process. It being possible to go back on this agreement for self-interest, however, Rousseau asserts the apparent contradiction whereby one can be "forced to be free," forced to conform to what one agreed. Thus it is, by abandoning the classical disciplinary identity of "political economy," economics is fundamentally flawed. Leading economists away from the centrality of the democratic process is Adam Smith's presupposition of Arthur Lovejoy's Great Chain of Being. Assumed is a naturally orderly universal functional reality, whereby every entity has a unique function to which it is intrinsically disposed. Consumed by each entity are resources produced by other entities at its exact spatial and temporal location to implement its function. Produced by each entity are resources required by other entities at its exact spatial and temporal location to implement their function. Now, relative to humans, government is unnecessary, the universe being a naturally self-sustaining circle. Indeed, even to assume a need for enforcement is inconsistent with the system, bringing into question the entire metaphysic. Rejecting this ideal system, any order must be artificially implemented. If such an artificial implementation is to be stable to any degree--remember Rousseau--it must function by mutual compromise as to the context within which all participants function. This is the purpose of the democratic process, as "optimal" a means as can be to formulate such a mutual compromise. "Optimal," yes, but not in the calculable sense so beloved by economists, common objects essential to economic calculation existing only after DEMOCRATIC consensus as to what compose these objects and their relationships is arrived at.
This is a wonderful synopsis of the way forward. It demands that we see through the barage of PAC funding lies and advertisement. We saw in the last election people swallowing all the big advertisement of lies, resulting in a Congress dominated by right wing candidates sweeping the elections. Rejection of outspoken progressive such as Al Grayson and Feingold. Today they are aiming at Warren, Kuchinich and our truest progressive Bernie Sanders.
Hopefully the 99 percent are wakening the populas to what is truly happening.
We can't rely on the best of the worst, Obama, but we could see through the lies of Rove, the Koch brothers, Fox news and the governors and Congress following this Alec agenda. We must fill the Congress with good progressives and they are out there. It'd would be wonderful if before this next election we could impeach Roberts and Thomas and then vote in a progressive congress that could nullify Obamas agenda of continueing the spiral to the bottom to keep the 1% in controll. I hope more people will do there part to support the Occupy Movement and stop being influenced by this big pouring of money into the media blitz of lies.
We can do this, if we make more and more people see through the lies supporting the 99 percent movement. It is possible for us to big to fail if we all do our part.
'The notion that the world is characterized by an ongoing “war” between the forces of light and the forces of darkness is at the base of much of so-called western thought.'
This is not a helpful point for the author to make. The great tyranny/destruction wrought under Das Kapitalists comes under the camouflage of some token goodness. The task at hand is to re-institute the Hippocratic Oath, i.e. zero tolerance. That is if you want any improvement. So it ends up as the most relevant of all ideas to define the far left as the political pole of all that is good, in the better interests of the people, and the far right as the political pole of all that's bad, against the better interests of the people. You measure your progress by the amount you move to the left. How could we possibly define the task at hand more simply, concisely, effectively? Sorry this most clear/comprehensive/effective agenda doesn't resonate with liberalism. After all, liberalism has been the great enabler for this monstrous man-made disaster we call "laissez-faire" and "supply-side" kapitalism.
I found this article to be sophomoric and filled with the same sort of Manichean thinking the author references. First, as a history teacher at the University of Kansas, Mr. Harvey should know that the capitalism of Adam Smith does not resemble the "capitalism" of modern America which has a mixed economy that mostly resembles fascism. Despite there being literally thousands of pages of laws and regulations which intervene into the economy, resulting in regulatory capture as well as promoting cartels and mega-businesses, he calls for more intervention.
I'm not sure that I prefer politicians pursuing their own "enlightened self-interests" (re-election and campaign funds) intervening into the lives of individuals pursuing enlightened self-interests (earning a living). This hasn't been working so well, so far.
I can't help but wonder if Mr. Harvey has asked the university to lower his salary in order to help lower tuition costs. If not, would that not make him a tool for the educational-financial complex that leaves graduating students mired in debt in this regulated economy?
The front line of regulating corporations in America is voting with your dollars. Boycott corporations you don't like. Don't borrow to buy things you don't need. Don't vote for politicians that vote for corporate welfare and bailouts (virtually all Republicans and Democrats). And, if Mr. Harvey truly believes some sort of laissez-faire economy exists in America, reduce your student loan debts by boycotting his classes - he apparently has no grasp of history or the meaning of words.
It seems to me that it is delusional to think that government will protect you against greedy corporations when we have a very long history of government acting to empower greedy corporations, especially large corporations which could not exist in the absence of government as they are all creatures of statute.
Perhaps Mr. Harvey should consider becoming involved with the OWS movement - he might learn something useful other than 19th century economic mythology. Decentralized horizontally integrated human-scale economics, with bottom-up self-regulation would do wonders to prevent greedy actors.
Tom Blanton: New poster? It seems to me you get the award for trying to trash this writer. There's seldom a thread where someone isn't pivoted to hurl that poison arrow directly from the forum. And your protest is all over the board. I sense a leaning-libertarian note in your comment that government has a long history of empowering greedy corporations; but just to make sure that no one notices that inverted attack on government acting AS regulatory agency to counter the power of big business, you throw in a "nod" in favor of OWS.
This was a good article. It had a lot more to offer than your allegation that it reflects mere 19th century economic mythology. In my view, the following was the most compelling message offered by the article. (And "Old Goat," you're right, it harmonizes with the material drawn forth by Riane Eisler.)
"Pursuit of personal fulfillment for each individual in a healthy environment – as opposed to strictly material acquisition – can become a central goal of our household economy on Planet Earth. Happy, fulfilled people do not plunder, rape, maim, and kill others for resources and markets. The earth is a place of abundance, not scarcity. People CAN cooperate and live in peace. "
"Happy, fulfilled people do not plunder, rape, maim, and kill others for resources and markets."
Siouxrose, How true. Corporations don't do these things either, regulated or not. However, they do lobby politicians to do these things and pay for it with your money - and the politicians rarely let them down. Even Nobel Peace Prize winning Presidents.
Thanks for highlighting another reason large centralized government should not exist - senseless wars. Yet, it would be this same government that you expect to protect you from greedy corporations by some sort of intervention. Bombs, perhaps?
Surely you don't suggest that we ignore the blood of children on the hands of our benevolent rulers merely because they promise to throw us a few crumbs or protect us from giving our money to greedy corporations?
I give a "nod" to OWS because within that movement are a number of anarchists that have figured out government isn't the solution to our problems, we are. We are not the government, the ruling elite establishment is the government - always has been and always will be. Even after a revolution, the new rulers become the new elite.
Good luck on electing just the right people who will protect you from that which you fear.
Gotta take issue with your post Tom, and reply to:
"Happy, fulfilled people do not plunder, rape, maim, and kill others for resources and markets."
You replied: Siouxrose, How true. Corporations don't do these things either,....
Surely you gest Tom, never heard of Xe/Blackwater, Haliburton, BP , dozens more?
Agreed the Constitutiion is hopelessy outdated, but poor timing for rewrite. Only a Parlaimentary System is flexible enough for multi-party Democracy unless we dump the Republic and go digital: one man-one vote, with runoff voting too.
Centrilized Gov is OK, especially if no large standing army is extant. Anarchy sounds nice but trains never run on time.
"Siouxrose, How true. Corporations don't do these things either, regulated or not. However, they do lobby politicians to do these things and pay for it with your money - and the politicians rarely let them down. Even Nobel Peace Prize winning Presidents.
Thanks for highlighting another reason large centralized government should not exist - senseless wars. Yet, it would be this same government that you expect to protect you from greedy corporations by some sort of intervention. Bombs, perhaps?
Surely you don't suggest that we ignore the blood of children on the hands of our benevolent rulers merely because they promise to throw us a few crumbs or protect us from giving our money to greedy corporations?
I give a "nod" to OWS because within that movement are a number of anarchists that have figured out government isn't the solution to our problems, we are. We are not the government, the ruling elite establishment is the government - always has been and always will be. Even after a revolution, the new rulers become the new elite.
Good luck on electing just the right people who will protect you from that which you fear."
**********
You make no positive contribution to this thread, Tom. Quite the contrary, you merely pour the deadening acid of your cynicism over all---to no one's benefit.
I should add that I believe you completely miss the point of this essay too.
Let us know how your philosophy will lead us all inevitably to wonderful new tomorrows. Be specific.
Now we're listening.
Sorry, but it seems to me that the premise that the 'earth is a place of abundance, not scarcity' is the reverse of reality in some respects. Our carbon based economy demonstrates the scarcity of one of earth's resources; when you burn a gallon of gas, it is gone forever. So, when considering resources to make an argument, one must differintiate between renewable and non-renewable.
No, not really. The earth IS a place of abundance, it is just that most of that abundance is monopolised by a few.
Sorry, but it seems to me that the premise that the 'earth is a place of abundance, not scarcity' is the reverse of reality in some respects. Our carbon based economy demonstrates the scarcity of one of earth's resources; when you burn a gallon of gas, it is gone forever. So, when considering resources to make an argument, one must differintiate between renewable and non-renewable.
Ah yes, the modern capitalism is not really capitalism, as practiced all over the world, as practiced by people who call themselves capitalists, as practiced by societies that call themselves capitalists, it no really capitalism, "real" capitalism is good, argument, an extremely sophomoric argument
". Despite there being literally thousands of pages of laws and regulations which intervene into the economy, resulting in regulatory capture as well as promoting cartels and mega-businesses, he calls for more intervention."
Sure. Lets have no regulation, no intervention at all. IOW, if you cannot protect your house from being burned down around your ears your own self, too bad.
"I'm not sure that I prefer politicians pursuing their own "enlightened self-interests" (re-election and campaign funds) intervening into the lives of individuals pursuing enlightened self-interests (earning a living). This hasn't been working so well, so far."
I agree. Which is why you should agree with the idea that you should trust other individuals pursuing their own enlightened self-interests not to burn your house down.
"I can't help but wonder if Mr. Harvey has asked the university to lower his salary in order to help lower tuition costs. If not, would that not make him a tool for the educational-financial complex that leaves graduating students mired in debt in this regulated economy?"
No, not really. Students are mired in debt, due to administrators, the management class, receiving salaries disproportionate to their contributions.
"And, if Mr. Harvey truly believes some sort of laissez-faire economy exists in America, reduce your student loan debts by boycotting his classes - he apparently has no grasp of history or the meaning of words."
Neither do you.
"It seems to me that it is delusional to think that government will protect you against greedy corporations when we have a very long history of government acting to empower greedy corporations, especially large corporations which could not exist in the absence of government as they are all creatures of statute."
So let's get rid of government then. All of it. You agree?
Thank you, Rfloh, for countering this counterfeit's points.
Most who read this forum know that I am VERY up-front about what I believe in. And one thing I have no tolerance for is deception. I think it's a gross breach of honesty for someone to hide their loyalty to the "free enterprise" corporate logos by aiming all their poison darts at the slings and arrows of outrageous government.
It is precisely WHEN government is purchased that it lacks the muscle to stand as the counter-balance to business interests. The government OF, FOR and BY the people is intended to protect The People's interests. The libertarian who pretends to be the sheep (in wolve's clothing) wants us to hate the government, so that the corporations can continue their plunder without any impediment.
NO ONE in their right mind could still advocate for such a position given the numbers published about our economy. 50% near the poverty line? CEO salaries 400X that of workers, a Gini Co-efficient that would do a 3rd world dictator proud. Please, no more libertarian "cures." The disease is almost fatal...as is.
Siouxrose, in the absence of government, how would corporations even exist since they are created by statute, merely a legal fiction?
Why do CEOs make so much? I'll answer that one. Hint: it's not because we live in a free market economy and they earn every penny of it. It's because the Securities and Exchange Commission (the government) prevents shareholders (by regulations) from overruling the corporation's board setting executive pay - even when dividends and stock values tumble. It is also because it is very difficult for small businesses to compete because of various regulations, particularly regarding raising capital, that "protect" the public. Only in America.
Did you know that the CEOs of Japanese car manufacturers earn a fraction of what their American counterparts earn and generally out preform them also.
(Disclosure: I'm not the Randian corporate apologist you're looking for. I'm an anarchist.)
>>(Disclosure: I'm not the Randian corporate apologist you're looking for. I'm an anarchist
So just how IS Somalia getting along. No government to speak of there, Just groups with guns setting their own laws.
"So let's get rid of government then. All of it. You agree?"
Well, sure. Let's give it a shot. When the greedy capitalists set fire to my house, I'll call a volunteer fire department.
(Disclosure: I'm not the Randian corporate apologist you're looking for. I'm an anarchist.)
"Well, sure. Let's give it a shot. When the greedy capitalists set fire to my house, I'll call a volunteer fire department."
Sure. And what if there are no volunteers? And if the volunteers choose not to come? Or if the volunteers are poorly trained? While stopping the fire, they end up trashing the houses of your neighbours too? What if the arsonists ties you up, and then sets fire to your house?
rfloh, you sound like a very paranoid person. You forgot to mention what if the firemen are actually pyromaniacs and pour gas on the fire. Here's a reality check:
"1,103,300 firefighters protected the United States in 2010. 335,150 (30%) were career firefighters and 768,150 (70%) were volunteer firefighters."
http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=955&URL=Research/Fire%20statistics/The%20U.S.%20fire%20service&cookie_test=1
Tom,
Under you hypothetical unfettered "anarchist" capitalism, I think that the presence of a volunteer firehouse will not be very important when you are, along with the great majority of those who must sell their labor to a rich man to survive, will be barely surviving in a drafty shack earning the "free-market" determined level of wage - which for the laboring majority, is a misery wage just enough so you can continue to be of utility to your boss until you die an early death and get replaced by a young person to follow the same fate. "Free markets" guarantee such an outcome - as history has shown again and again.
And I dearly hope you are not one of those 'anarcho-capitalists. Capitalism and accumulation of property is utterly incompatible with anarchism.
Go here:
http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionF
Good point pj. "Voluntary F.D." reminds me of that scene in Gangs of New York, where these self-organized FD's (of course, as always, with the "blessing" of the local "Don", ALWAYS a fact over-looked by these anarchist types) that were little more than FRONTS for opportunistic looting operations (steal the booty before it burns up). This mindset only prevails in a situation of dire poverty COMBINED with a "y.o.y.o." attitude predominating in the upper/ruling class, ALL OF WHICH is in wicked contradiction to the divine edict to "love one another"(aka "promote the general welfare" a very non-anarchist attitude). The Watchers are watching & deciding the course of remedial action as we speak. AND what if the universe is an absolute monarchy, with an oligarchical heirarchy already in-place, LONG before humanity even came into existence?? Reports of such a reality has been given by many mystics. Our "politics" may simply consist of finding a workable way to organize for taking care of our mutual needs (aka known as "love one another").
Hehe, "reports"? :-) The most probable reason for those is of course that those people simply couldn't imagine anything else but a top-down hierarchy of power. They didn't (because they couldn't) have the conceptual background for that. But we are a little bit (not much, but certainly a little) past that point now - one of the most important contributions of the Internet, as OWS showed, was imo the great increase in awareness that distributed, peer-to-peer networks (of people, just like of technology), without any kind of centralisation of power, can be very efficient and of course democratic tools of organisation and sharing. Just like "emergent behaviour", these are concepts that are obvious to a lot of young people today - not just abstract terms, but coupled with real (well, in a sense) stuff, real technologies, real possibilities of access and communication. I think that because of this conceptual background, many of these kids will find it as easy to imagine an anarcho-syndicalist system as a monarchy, or even easier - and they will be better aware of the moral background and implications also, which is imo something that a larger scale view of the world will give you.
But of course some degree of power concentration is probably necessary, if only to keep overly large concentrations in check. That's probably unavoidable. And of course economies of scale can often increase efficiency also - the question is whether the concentration of power that goes with them is worth the increase in efficiency, and I think in a few cases the answer will have to be positive (especially if we get close to the "carrying capacity"of the Earth). Whether the traditional state is the best organisation to achieve this, or something else can be thought up is a good question for the long run; sadly right now, we have more than enough problems with actual concentrations of power that simply have to be dismantled if we want to survive :-/
My real point was that monarchy & oligarchy are already covered, no need for human pretenders in these positions (who may well be rejected out of these positions). If anarcho-syndicalism accomplishes "love one another/promote the general welfare" then all is well & good. I have no attachment to really swell labels for "love one another/ promote the general welfare". As for your disbelief, well...so what? What is that to me? It's not my job to "police the ranks". I don't have to worry about such things, really. I will speak my mind, however, as do all the others.
And mine was about OWS and the internet and the change in world view that comes with using distributed systems, not anarcho-syndicalism or my disbelief.
If said change in worldview leads to "love one another/promote the general welfare", then well & good, imo.
I don't know about that, and honestly, I don't think that it counts for that much. I think most people do already think that way - but it's enough for a few people in the proper position with a different goal to make all that irrelevant. I don't think the problem is in people being bad; it's in the particular social organisations that amplify certain tendencies and traits. Using power for one's own goals is simply way too easy (also psychologically but more importantly in a pure technical fashion) compared to using it constructively for general welfare. Even disregarding the moral issues, I think it's an extremely difficult question in its own right. It's more like is it possible to create a system that promotes general welfare, not whether most people want it or not. I'm pretty sure most people do want that; and even most of the people who do not are very much influenced by propaganda (aka education in some places) to accept the absolutely counter-intuitive bullshit of, say, free market fundamentalism - and of course their belief needs constant reinforcement also (so a constant ongoing campaign is needed to maintain this state).
We disagree on the importance of "love one another/promote the general welfare" , and we agree that most people think this way. WE also mostly think we should eat right, exercise, get plenty of rest, and avoid bad habits; there's a thinking/doing gap. Ahh yes, those "bad apples" that ruin it for everyone. I think the bad apples rearrange the instruments of social organization to make it "play their tune". It starts with the intention, with the mindset of the individual bad apples, not the instruments of social organization, which they will change, in every case, to "play their tune". Hence the need for that change of worldview, change of mind really, or of "heart" as is sometimes said. Human politics has so far been a spectacular failure in changing hearts & minds, ESPECIALLY of those bad apples. This is why I've turned to that objectionable stuff I talk about, and I only talk about IT out of enthusiasm and thrill about IT. IT will proceed with or without any cheer-leading on anybody's part. Seems to me a higher authority (hehe...) will have to intervene to effect the necessary change, ESPECIALLY in those highly-placed bad apples.
I see it differently. I think there simply exist people who have a predisposition towards this kind of behaviour (ie. abusing and bending rules and manipulating human systems towards their ownends), and that this can not be changed easily, at least without total psychological or genetic profiling of everyone and complete "scientific" control over culture in order to either eliminate or modify every single human being who has these traits. What is possible to do imo is to create systems and structures (laws, institutions, educational systems etc) that have safeguards against this kind of behaviour, that make it conscious that this behaviour is antisocial and to try to understand and analyse its traits and limit its effects. It is also very important to understand when a particular social system actually actively selects for this kind of behaviour: and imo this is what the systems of modern capitalism do best (especially in the purely financial area). It is both impossible and imo very much undesirable to eliminate this behaviour at the root, ie. in individuals - the best we can do is to create a society that does not favour it. Maybe in time that society will be able to change people too, but at this moment, the only "solutions" I can see are technological and totalitarian, and I think that it would make the problem worse, not better.
No, not paranoid. Just realistic.
""1,103,300 firefighters protected the United States in 2010. 335,150 (30%) were career firefighters and 768,150 (70%) were volunteer firefighters.""
Well yes. These firefighters live in a country with a government. With a BIG goverment.
“Those who make vast profits at the expense of workers and the common good are not moral. They are not worthy of adulation. They build fortunes and little monuments to themselves off the pain and suffering of people like Henderson. Jesus called them ‘vipers.’” Chris Hedges on “Boycott FedEx”
Pop Stars 2012 Prophecy ePie January 1st, 2012
Prophetic politicos, charlatans, preachers, and pop stars
pop pills, meditate, read charts and decipher texts to ascertain
the cause
perchance to know the cause
or to wink at a future Rapture
A Rapture put on hold
what with more countries to capture
where: “we shall overcome”
are words to welcome ankle chains and orange suits
do de pop the fruit
silencing seed and wombs
while funding underwater catacombs for upper class tombs
Yet the chains of links are many more than one thinks
though think tanks provide a ready solution
programing bug bots with mob precision
to be the next wave of indecision
a faceless hoard spreading dread
and toxic dreck
while calling for change
as molecules rearrange
in flemish throats
to proclaim: Moral Certitudes
The rivalries from these certitudes
have the bomb, free, and rebuild CEO’s lookin
to fund a greater guild
as the bankers wettest dreams
are in the can
what with POTUS also contained there
putting to bed the slogan of: “Yes we can”
So banksters juggle newer bigger bubbles
while the froth
settles in the trough
a trough brimming with the newly minted;
the newly minted Poor
Nice -- reminds me of a line in a poem that came out of me years ago: "Mama, listen to your crack babies, mama.
The most preposterous capitalist argument, not covered in this, this not-so-straightforward or convincing piece of writing (give me science, not confusing allegory) has always been the "self interest (specifically the desire to get rich) is the driver of human creativity." This statement is always presented as an axiom that no sane person would argue against. Yet, there is a big problem here. When one looks at the great sweep of creative people through history, no one of them ever expressed that this was their motivation for creativity - indeed for most of them, they forgo remunerative pursuits to pursue creativeness, and end up being poor of just barely secure in the process.
Most truly creative people strive to avoid "prostituting their art". The creative process tends to lose something when money is its sole aim. It tends to lose it's individuality and seeks to only meet the market demand.
How many Kincaid pictures and prints and Precious Moments figurines does it take until the market is saturated and the "bliss" has worn off the creative process for the artists. Artists like Warhol and Dali sought celebrity and fame over the creative process. Rand was not truly creative. She was playing to her audience (other "poor" little rich snobs). Nothing she ever wrote or said was truly original.
Some artists do end up rich as a result of their work. More of them should. If you produce something of beauty that others wish to read, view or listen to you're entitled to some renumeration for that product in a world that places a value on everything and in which everything is for sale and nothing is free. Work created solely to meet a market demand is not art, it may be a craft but it's not art.
Quoting TomBlanton who quotes Siouxrose:
""Happy, fulfilled people do not plunder, rape, maim, and kill others for resources and markets."
Siouxrose, How true. Corporations don't do these things either, regulated or not. However, they do lobby politicians to do these things and pay for it with your money - and the politicians rarely let them down. Even Nobel Peace Prize winning Presidents."
Actually, corporations often do these things. All over Latin America they hire armies of "security guards" to repress people who oppose their mining operations, their oil drilling, their palm oil plantations, and lots of other "business ventures." But of course they also do bribe politicians and military officers to do it for them.
And don't forget that Blackwater, or Ze, or whatever it's called now, is a corporation.
Anyway, what difference does it make whether a corporation hires its own mercenaries or gets some government to do its dirty work? The real issue is that corporations exist to benefit their shareholders, not humanity at large. If a government is truly democratic, and that is a big if, it has some chance of being responsive to the people. Obviously our government is just a tool of corporations and those who own and run them, but that does not mean that all government has to be--the problem is the capitalist system that enables concentrations of wealth that can take over governments.
Corporations are nothing more than the feudal/royal houses of the Middle Ages.
"The King is Dead, Long Live the King".
The kingdom lives on as it takes on a new ruler/CEO.
Corporations should be BANNED as antithetical to self government/democracy.
Companies are fine but this corporation crap is killing this nation as surely as strychnine. Strychnine given a little bit at a time and over time as sure as the Sun rises in the East the body politic eventually dies. It is wise to remember that most men do not like democracy and self government. These men want to rule and to be ruled and to suppress the people and the people's will.
You have a democracy, IF you can keep it.
A warning to not forget