• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Why isn't capitalism regarded as utopian?

ebola!:
>>The sharing of technology was bartered for with manpower, the alliance formed with the promise of greater survival for both.>>

Was it, or was it merely shared? You are projecting our current set of economic relations (based in exchange) onto paleolithic society, which was based in a sort of primitive communism. In short, we did not begin by bartering.
Click to expand...

Though knowledge was shared, the inventor would have received a few steps up on the hierarchy, even instant alpha-male status if the idea was good enough. This translates to more influence in decision making and rights to a better standard of living within the group.

Agree with the rest.


bleedingheartcommie:
No disagreement there. Reminds me of the band, Pop Will Eat Itself.
 
>>Though knowledge was shared, the inventor would have received a few steps up on the hierarchy, even instant alpha-male status if the idea was good enough. This translates to more influence in decision making and rights to a better standard of living within the group.>>

This isn't born out by paleolithic anthropology, though. Yes, in paleolithic society, the inventor could rise to alpha male status (whatever that is, exactly. We aren't chimps, y'know?), but so could the warrior, etc...and also, we would not necessarily expect the inventor to labor less and/or receive more goods.

ebola
 
Capitalism may be flawed, but it reflects human nature (Which is also flawed). Marxism, on the other hand, expects humans to work in a way which contradicts human nature (i.e. not caring about personal economic gain). Therefore, the idea that idealistic economical theories such as Marxism could ever work is B.S., as such a balance is impossible. Even though capitalism has it shortcomings, it's the only economical system where progress can be made, in my opinion.
 
>>Capitalism may be flawed, but it reflects human nature (Which is also flawed). >>

If capitalism is a reflection of human nature, then why has human society been capitalist only for a tiny minority of our history? What is human nature, and how did you discover it?

>>Marxism, on the other hand, expects humans to work in a way which contradicts human nature (i.e. not caring about personal economic gain).>>

This is the foundation of neither Marxism nor anarchism.

>>Even though capitalism has it shortcomings, it's the only economical system where progress can be made, in my opinion.>>

What is progress? Did it not exist prior to capitalism?

ebola
 
ebola? said:
If capitalism is a reflection of human nature, then why has human society been capitalist only for a tiny minority of our history? What is human nature, and how did you discover it?
Click to expand...

Humans have always been "capitalist" as has every living organism ever on Earth. That's how ecology works - survival of the fittest by the control and consumption of scarce resources. And working together as a group does not preclude self-promotion. Human nature is to survive. Survival is attained on an individual and individual level only. Each individual has its own best interests in mind, however it chooses to get there. I'd posit that that is truly what capitalism is about. Not the definition, but what it's about.
 
kittyinthedark said:
Humans have always been "capitalist" as has every living organism ever on Earth.

That's how ecology works - survival of the fittest by the control and consumption of scarce resources. And working together as a group does not preclude self-promotion. Human nature is to survive. Survival is attained on an individual and individual level only. Each individual has its own best interests in mind, however it chooses to get there. I'd posit that that is truly what capitalism is about. Not the definition, but what it's about.
Click to expand...


I'd say the concept you are going for is a lot closer to "materialism" than "capitalism":

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production.

The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.

--- Karl Marx
Click to expand...

This is opposed capitalism, which is a "system of private investment and industry with little governmental control" and is not in any way innovative in it's adversarial approach.

--- G.
 
I have never heard a really good argument for capitalism being good for human evolution. Are the rich more likely to procreate? Are the genetic characteristics of the wealthy really conducive to survival and advancement of the species? Is there a strong correlation between wealth and intelligence?

It seems to me that the perpetuation of genes that are successful in a capitalist system will only promote evolution within the framework of a capitalist system.
 
Well, the thing about that is that rich people tend to procreate less than poor people because the socio-economic structure of agricultural vs. industrialized societies makes children essential insurance for the survival of a subsistance farming family but beyond a certain number they become a diversion of resources (and affection) for a family living in an advanced capitalist society.

So in the end the capitalist system would ensure the survival of the "poor" genes, were there any such thing.

--- G.
 
The native americans had it right and then insecure europeans murdered them all. (of course this is a generalization! ultimately, I have no idea what I'm talking about)
 
ebola? said:
>>Capitalism may be flawed, but it reflects human nature (Which is also flawed). >>

If capitalism is a reflection of human nature, then why has human society been capitalist only for a tiny minority of our history? What is human nature, and how did you discover it?
Click to expand...

Capitalism has been used in some form or another since the dawn of civilization. The ancient Egyptian merchants bartering on the streets of Thebes are an example.

How did I "discover" human nature? Becaue it's what I observe in myself and in others.

ebola? said:
>>Marxism, on the other hand, expects humans to work in a way which contradicts human nature (i.e. not caring about personal economic gain).>>

This is the foundation of neither Marxism nor anarchism.
Click to expand...

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." No matter how hard you work in a Marxist society, you'll make the same amount of money.

ebola? said:
>>Even though capitalism has it shortcomings, it's the only economical system where progress can be made, in my opinion.>>

What is progress? Did it not exist prior to capitalism?

ebola
Click to expand...

The computer you're using, the car you drive (Or the bus/subway if you use public transportation), the CD player you listen to, etc., were all invented because someone thought they could make money from it. And as I stated before, capitalism has existed ever since we left the hunter/gatherer mode. (When we were hunters and gatherers, our immediate survival is what ruled our lives).
 
Morrison's Lament said:
Well, the thing about that is that rich people tend to procreate less than poor people because the socio-economic structure of agricultural vs. industrialized societies makes children essential insurance for the survival of a subsistance farming family but beyond a certain number they become a diversion of resources (and affection) for a family living in an advanced capitalist society.

So in the end the capitalist system would ensure the survival of the "poor" genes, were there any such thing.

--- G.
Click to expand...

That's why I don't understand how capitalism is supposedly good for evolution. I'd love for someone to explain to me why it is though.
 
From a eugenic standpoint, I don't think it is. But then again, to put value judgments like "good" and "bad" on a natural phenomenon like evolution is pretty arbitrary. I suppose it could be argued either way, depending on what is judged to be "good'".

--- G.
 
I would think that "good" in this sense means having a propensity towards utilizing the mechanism of evolution in order to reap the benefits that all species derive from evolution. As I understand it, that means the survival of a species through adaptation to environmental changes. If that helps at all.....
 
True, but doesn't that definition sort of depend on our environment as much as anything else? What could be a good adaptation today might doom us tomorrow, so it's hard to know what the humans of the future will need most. It seems to often come down to chance as to who has the genetic material to produce that lucky fur or down coating when the ice age hits, for example - I bet those short haired unicorns didn't laugh at the mammoths much after that =D

Seriously, I just think it's hard to predict what the human beings around 25 thousand years from now will ultimately need in terms of genetic material. If present trends continue (as they almost never do) then I suppose we might move beyond reproductive evolution altogether way before it becomes an issue. Evolution works really slow, we have thousands of years to come up with ways to tinker with the process before it's effects become very noticable :)

--- G.
 
but in that respect, wouldn't capitalism possibly inhibit scientific progress unless it was financially gainful?

Witness: NASA, and the current state of the space program in general.
 
pennywise said:
but in that respect, wouldn't capitalism possibly inhibit scientific progress unless it was financially gainful?

Witness: NASA, and the current state of the space program in general.
Click to expand...

True, but in the case of NASA, we were able to get to the moon because the U.S. was competing with an enemy (The Soviet Union). Had the Soviet Union never challanged us in the Space Program (Or the other way around, for that matter), than we still probably wouldn't have gotten to the moon. And if the Soviet Union had challanged us to get to Mars, than we probably would have gotten there already (NASA's guess at the time of the Apollo program was that we'd get to Mars sometime in the 1990s).
 
Capitalism, along with the technological explosion, might continue indefinately....for thousands of generations and beyond.

It could also come to a screeching halt....and all our progress would be destroyed.

The difference between the probability of either of those scenarios is for me the major factor in whether I support continued capitalist expansion or the opposite.

Of course, nobody can really answer that question so where does that leave me? ;)
 
yes but progress in the space program as a result of competition with the russians had nothing to do with capitalism. the russians were not capitalists and they gave us a serious run for our money, in fact they beat us into space, if not to the moon.
 
protovack said:
Capitalism, along with the technological explosion, might continue indefinately....for thousands of generations and beyond.

It could also come to a screeching halt....and all our progress would be destroyed.

The difference between the probability of either of those scenarios is for me the major factor in whether I support continued capitalist expansion or the opposite.

Of course, nobody can really answer that question so where does that leave me? ;)
Click to expand...


A gigantic W3rd to this man!!!

That really is an overarching concept of Marxism: if it does all go to shit were fucked, in the most basic of terms. Marx helps us formulate the questions of when? where? and how? Marx's work is great for improving yur evaluative thought processes IMO. This is the essential question for the modern political/economic/sociological thinker.... when will we say "enough is enough"? and when if ever will Marxism/communism/communalism/socialism become a practical and attractive application for the capitalist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top