Why isn't capitalism regarded as utopian?

[IAmJacksUserName]

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.

That's my point. Society needs a serious motivator in order to accomplish a goal. In most cases, money serves as that motivator. In the case of the race to the Moon, national pride, combined with fear of the Soveit Union, served as that motivator. In that same light, the Allies won World War II out of a necessity to defend their countries from National Socialism. I'm not saying money is the only thing that will make society move, but society always needs a motivator that will show a forseeable reward for the persons involved. Doing something for a broad "greater good" can ocassionally work with limited success for some individuals, but it will never move mountains.

 

[ebola?]

>>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.>>

Is this really the essence of cooperation? In biology, does it not make sense to jump up a level to the local population or down a level to the gene? (I'm really a bit ignorant, and you're the biologist...these questions are not rhetorical).

>>
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.>>

I define capitalism as, essentially, the relationship between wage-laborer and capitalist. Capitalism is essentially a system whereby one group owns the means of production and reaps profits while another labors using these means of production in return for wages. The forms of petty commodity trade in ancient society do not fit the bill.

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

How do you know this is human nature and not your culture?

>>"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.>>

A communist society would actually be necessarily without currency. Communism entails free access to the means of production; you would be able to produce opulence for yourself to the degree you'd like, but no one would live in deprivation. How production would be coordinated is not fully captured by the above Maxim, of course.

>>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.>>

This is not why I think invention occurs. I think people are simply inspired with ideas that they find interesting. Do people really sit down and say, "I gotta make some money. I should come up with an invention!!"? I mean, maybe I'm projecting too much of my own psychology onto others here.

>>When we were hunters and gatherers, our immediate survival is what ruled our lives>>

Actually, for the most part we worked roughly four hours a day and ate diets that were more than calorically sufficient.

>>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.>>

You would support continued expansion of this sort even at the cost of material deprivation for many?

ebola

 

[pennywise]

i can think of lots of other motivators besides money and war. how about survival of the species or enjoying the comforts that technology affords?

besides all that, i dont really think everyone needs a motivator other than whatever rewards they naturally get from doing some activity. for example: most teachers and academics do their work because thats what they like to do, certainly not because they get paid a whole lot.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

tiger-bunny, I'm with you. I think capitalism is very Darwinian. It lets its participants sink or swim. The great thing about it is, if you can resist the siren songs of advertising bombarding you every day, if you put in the effort to read alternative news sources (BL is a great example), and you're very savvy about hearing the message "I want to take your money" no matter how thickly sugar coated it is, you'll do fine. It's a system that can be beat by anyone with a bit of smarts, who is willing to keep their guard up constantly and NEVER leave the thinking to somebody else.

I think the key reason people from fiercely laissez-faire capitalist societies sometimes look upon less-than-full-on-capitalist nations with awe and curiousity and perhaps a touch of envy is because these are places where you can get away with letting down your guard to a certain extent. That is, citizens of more "planned" economies can get away with just coasting along with what the government and the larger society tells you to do, without being too too worried they're just walking into a trap.

Japan is a good example. People there have a level of faith in their government I have not seen the likes of anywhere else. If you're ethnically Japanese, you can live your life on autopilot, basically take all your cues from the Japanese government and media and never thinking twice about it, and still end up pretty well taken care of by "the man". Here in the US, we don't have that luxury. I see people here every day who take all their cues from TV and super-biased central news sources, and a lot of them live and feel like slaves and have no idea why the hell why.

I live on US$800 a month in the US. This would make me poor by many people's estimation, but I want for nothing. I just am careful to let NO ONE tell me what I "need" to be buying, and am always skeptical of taking the easy way out, like putting the first thing that slaps me in the face with a big glossy graphic into my shopping cart. If you stay sharp and watch your spending, and feel no need to keep up with the joneses, it's possible to live a perfectly liveable life in the US on a surprisingly low income.

 

[Morrison's Lament]

tiger-bunny, I'm with you. I think capitalism is very Darwinian. It lets its participants sink or swim.

That doesn't make it Darwinian at all. If it were Darwinian then those who did indeed "sink" rather than swim would not be vastly outbreeding those that "swim".

The reality of capitalism is that the more money you have the less kids you are likely to have on average, so basically if this continues for centuries you will end up with a population largely comprised of genes that failed to make it in a capitalist society. Doesn´t really sound like a Darwinian recipe for success, more of a slow implosion.

--- G.

 

[ebola?]

>>The reality of capitalism is that the more money you have the less kids you are likely to have on average, so basically if this continues for centuries you will end up with a population largely comprised of genes that failed to make it in a capitalist society. Doesn´t really sound like a Darwinian recipe for success, more of a slow implosion.>>

As you have argued, this rests on the presupposition that genes are relevant in determining class-status.

ebola

 

[protovack]

>>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.>>

Ebola:
Is this really the essence of cooperation? In biology, does it not make sense to jump up a level to the local population or down a level to the gene? (I'm really a bit ignorant, and you're the biologist...these questions are not rhetorical).

You've told me that you get jealous from time to time. There is your answer

This is not why I think invention occurs. I think people are simply inspired with ideas that they find interesting. Do people really sit down and say, "I gotta make some money. I should come up with an invention!!"? I mean, maybe I'm projecting too much of my own psychology onto others here.

Well, a lot of inventions are not immediately useful. Should the dude who invented the laser get all the profits from every device ever made from a laser?

What about the people who invented computers but thought that they'd never be used?

Actually, for the most part we worked roughly four hours a day and ate diets that were more than calorically sufficient.

There also wasn't any culture beyond simple mythology. And there was no institutionalized system for scientific discovery.

I'm a proponent of the 4 day workweek. Enough time to keep society steadily rumbling along, but enough rest/relaxation to keep people from going crazy.

>>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.>>

You would support continued expansion of this sort even at the cost of material deprivation for many?

It isn't a matter of whether I support it or not. It will happen just as man picked up the stick and the rock to make a hammer.

I only support it, however, if it actually is sustainable and will continue forever.

Of course, the sun will explode....so I'm not sure how that affects my argument

 

[ebola?]

>>You've told me that you get jealous from time to time. There is your answer
>>

Ummm...no. I don't see how this entails that the individual organism is the proper unit of analysis when assessing fitness to survive. Maybe I'm just jealous of the biologists' "sk1llZ" though.

>>There also wasn't any culture beyond simple mythology.>>

What do you mean "culture"? Surely, paleolithic humans also had language and tools...

>>And there was no institutionalized system for scientific discovery. >>

There still was the process of trial and error...which, I'm now thinking is really the essence of scientific epistemology...the crucial difference is the degree of systematization.

>>It isn't a matter of whether I support it or not. It will happen just as man picked up the stick and the rock to make a hammer.

I only support it, however, if it actually is sustainable and will continue forever. >>

I don't get what you're doing here. Your former statement renders the latter moot.

ebola

 

[protovack]

I don't see how this [jealousy] entails that the individual organism is the proper unit of analysis when assessing fitness to survive.

Since jealousy appears to be a case of irrational self-interest (or rational depending on how you look at it), I think it is a proper place to start when thinking about things like "selfish genes" and the like.

And besides, when you originally responded to the comment you asked if "self interest is really the biological essence of cooperation." (not whether the individual is the proper mode of analysis in assessing fitness to survive). These are two different lines of discussion.

What I'm asking is how you can even doubt the individual nature of competition when you yourself experience jealousy and cannot explain it. What is jealousy, if not a direct indicator of our selfish nature?

We all have it. Me, you, and even the Thai-man. We all have our little moments where we feel cheated even though we weren't.

It is precisely because of this ability, that we are able to quickly identify situations in which we actually were cheated.

What do you mean "culture"? Surely, paleolithic humans also had language and tools...

Sorry, when I said culture i was using a personal definition. I gotta stop that

Paleolithic man may have had language and tools, but these are not culture, because for them language was *only* a tool. Whereas with more advanced societies, the uses of language diversify.

For example, singing. How does a linguist explain singing? It is vocal, but is not a signal or informative utterance of any kind (unless intended to be). It doesn't help anyone to satisfy any primary needs.

Yet pretty much everyone tries to do it on a regular basis, even when we're by ourselves. Pretty interesting.

I don't get what you're doing here. Your former statement renders the latter moot.

Capitalist development will continue...
I support it if it's sustainable forever (or at least a very long time).
So my support rides not on any specific intellectual argument....but simply on how many people it will enrich and for how long it will do so.

I don't want to get into discussions about how many people it keeps in poverty because we haven't observed the system for long enough. If in 1000 years the same people in the same areas of the world are still poor, I'd probably start looking for a reason. As for right now, I'd say it is explainable by historical contingency (not GOOD contingency, but contingent nonetheless).

 

[m4dd0g]

I think the big mistake here is the view that somehow material wealth and utopia are synonymous. As I see it, the desire for material wealth is the one thing standing between humanity and the utopian ideal.

Thankyou.
I wasnt going to post on here because I was afraid it would look like I was trolling.
Maybe Ive really extreme views or more ignorant than i thought but there seems to be some huge assumptions here:

1. wealth = eutopia
2. eutopia is even possible

1. Its true, even tho its so cliche. Maybe the money = self worth meme is so ingrained people cant even conceptualise different ways to judge?
2. Maybe this is more a belief. I actually do think that people could be happier in general..... but maybe not?

 

[ebola?]

>>What I'm asking is how you can even doubt the individual nature of competition when you yourself experience jealousy and cannot explain it. What is jealousy, if not a direct indicator of our selfish nature?>>

Hmmm...well, I guess the root of my question is, how should we view cooperative strategies? Are they agreements drawn up by atomized rational actors, or is there something more in which these actors are situated? A guess you know where my commitments lie, as a sociologist.

>>Sorry, when I said culture i was using a personal definition. I gotta stop that >>

What's that definition?

>>Paleolithic man may have had language and tools, but these are not culture, because for them language was *only* a tool. Whereas with more advanced societies, the uses of language diversify.

For example, singing. How does a linguist explain singing? It is vocal, but is not a signal or informative utterance of any kind (unless intended to be). It doesn't help anyone to satisfy any primary needs.

Yet pretty much everyone tries to do it on a regular basis, even when we're by ourselves. Pretty interesting.>>

Paleolithic people don't sing, don't tell jokes? Why do you think they use language on a purely instrumental basis?

>>As for right now, I'd say it is explainable by historical contingency (not GOOD contingency, but contingent nonetheless).>>

What in history is not?

ebola

 

[protovack]

>>What I'm asking is how you can even doubt the individual nature of competition when you yourself experience jealousy and cannot explain it. What is jealousy, if not a direct indicator of our selfish nature?>>

Hmmm...well, I guess the root of my question is, how should we view cooperative strategies? Are they agreements drawn up by atomized rational actors, or is there something more in which these actors are situated? A guess you know where my commitments lie, as a sociologist.

"Cooperative strategies" only exist in the minds of humans. Any example of symbiosis in nature is characterized by two or more actors which by necessity interact with each other to satisfy primary needs. For example, leaf cutter ants and the fungi which breaks the cellulose apart so the ants can get their carbs.

Humans are more complex. We have a reward pathway in the brain which allows us to pursue virtually any survival strategy we can dream up. For example, TRULY cooperating with others, i.e. voluntarily. When we work in teams with other people to accomplish tasks...success leads to an overwhelming sense of accomplishment. It is a "group high" which derives its great power from the fact that the rewarding sensation depends on the group.

This makes perfect sense. The brain truly shines when it is cooperating. In light of this, your view that voluntary cooperation is the basis of human interaction is largely correct.

However, such a perspective selectively ignores other things. Things like jealousy. Jealousy is just as real as voluntary cooperation, yet they are totally opposed to each other. For example, there is always that guy in a team who is scared that other people will steal all the credit for HIS ideas (whether or not he was really the source of them). Or the person that won't let their wife out of the house for fear that a rival male will steal her. Just look at a 4 year old child and how jealous they can be when a sibling or friend has something they don't.

We are all expert team-players....with our gigantic cooperation machines (brains).

But at the same time every human is anchored in the *old* nature....simply because we are so new on this planet.

We ARE atomized actors in some situations. These are everyday situations like:
- having a girlfriend or boyfriend
- having low-self esteem and thinking other people are making fun of you
- constantly checking your appearance in reflective surfaces

Think of the vast amount of time humans spend surveying themselves.

What in history is not [contingent]?

Well, that's very true Does that mean you don't subscribe to dependancy theory anymore?

 

[ebola?]

>>"Cooperative strategies" only exist in the minds of humans. Any example of symbiosis in nature is characterized by two or more actors which by necessity interact with each other to satisfy primary needs. For example, leaf cutter ants and the fungi which breaks the cellulose apart so the ants can get their carbs.>>

humans exist in such a symbiosis. Do you grow all your own food?

>>Humans are more complex. We have a reward pathway in the brain which allows us to pursue virtually any survival strategy we can dream up. For example, TRULY cooperating with others, i.e. voluntarily. When we work in teams with other people to accomplish tasks...success leads to an overwhelming sense of accomplishment. It is a "group high" which derives its great power from the fact that the rewarding sensation depends on the group.

This makes perfect sense. The brain truly shines when it is cooperating. In light of this, your view that voluntary cooperation is the basis of human interaction is largely correct.>>

I think other social mamals (e.g., dogs in packs) likely recieve a similar dopaminergic reward in cooperation. The difference in humans, I believe, and you have noticed this, is opportunities for creativity in cooperation.

>>However, such a perspective selectively ignores other things. Things like jealousy. Jealousy is just as real as voluntary cooperation, yet they are totally opposed to each other. For example, there is always that guy in a team who is scared that other people will steal all the credit for HIS ideas (whether or not he was really the source of them). Or the person that won't let their wife out of the house for fear that a rival male will steal her. Just look at a 4 year old child and how jealous they can be when a sibling or friend has something they don't.>>

>>We ARE atomized actors in some situations. These are everyday situations like:
- having a girlfriend or boyfriend
- having low-self esteem and thinking other people are making fun of you
- constantly checking your appearance in reflective surfaces

Think of the vast amount of time humans spend surveying themselves.>>

I would argue that humans can be self-interested, and opposed to the dominant order of the group, but they are never atomized, per se. This sort of self-supervision occurs in reaction to social context, and also plays out in terms of how it changes that context. The fact that we use language as a vehicle for conflict is a testament to this.

>>Well, that's very true Does that mean you don't subscribe to dependancy theory anymore?
>>

No. It probably means we're using the term "historically contingent" in different ways. We need to talk some time....

ebola

 

[lostpunk5545]

Capitalism could be utopian.

In the sense that Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984 are stories about utopian societies.

 

[5-HT2]

yeah, capitalism can definitely be utopian. If you've read any hard-core libertarians, they envision a society where unfettered capitalism generates so much wealth that society's unfortunates are completely covered by private charity. They aren't Social Darwinists in the "let those who don't produce, die" sense; they really believe that people would be rational enough to see that the benefit of charity–i.e. enhanced societal cohesion, stability, and upward mobility–outweighs the cost in money for the people capable of doing the giving.

Capitalist utopianism generally depends on the assumption that man–or at least the successful man–is a rational actor. This, however, as shown by both neuroscience and history, is not true.

 

[neonads]

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.

I helps to look at it this way. Two species, capitalist and wage-labourer (to coin ebola). In ecology there are the terms commensal relationship, and carrying capacity. The first being a relationship where one species benefits while the other receives none, the second being the stable population capacity of a habitat.

Each capitalist requires a larger number of wage-labourers in order to 'survive' within this commensal relationship, so they will always outnumber the capitalists. This is unique in ecology as the capitalists have much control over increasing their own carrying capacity.

The effect of this on evolution is that capitalists are becoming extreme "r-specialists", in that they procreate less and spend time & energy ensuring the survival of their young more. Wage-labourers are tending towards "k-specialism", the inverse. This will eventually lead to pseudo-speciation if the corporate oligarchy continues to divide the middle class and increase the wealth gap. Though they keep the ability to physically breed, the social differences will keep them apart.

For a capitalist, the utopian dream is realised once this speciation is complete and their lives are no longer hampered by guilt towards humanity's woes because automation has made them obsolete. The small population of elite will occupy the Earth in technological paradise.

 

[protovack]

^^^
Well said, but it's a loose analogy.

Don't forget that many "capitalists" were self-made. It just so happens that very few people are adept enough to successfully rise to the top.

Some will recoil at the previous statement and claim instead that most wealth remains concentrated and guarded against interference from below.

There is some truth to that, but remember that industrial capitalism is very recent. We are only just now exiting the first industrial phase of society...and there will be others in the future.

The people who own large corporations, or have lots of land.....are in that position, not because of a rational system of wealth-concentration extending back before them...

They exist because of pure chance. They happened to have the right ideas....enslave the right people.....twist the right arms.....invent the right technologies.....know the right people......have the right amount of passion and drive to succeed.....all at THE RIGHT TIME.

And now they are rich and wish to stay that way. Nothing surprising there.

There isn't some capitalism security force stopping people from starting new businesses. It happens all the time. Usually people fail but sometimes they get really rich.

When an economy reaches maturity, all the available market niches become filled and market-entry becomes difficult if not impossible. It is at this point that monopolization begins.

Eventually the monopoly will reach its own peak and will begin to either break down or morph into something else.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^^^ And isn't wealth distribution supposed to even out naturally in this process? That's essentially what's happening in the wealthy east Asian and Muslim countries, some of which put the most liberal Western countries to shame in approaching the socialist ideal on a nationwide scale.

 

[ebola?]

>>And isn't wealth distribution supposed to even out naturally in this process?>>

Why would it? Wealth is very polarized in the US, where monopoly capitalism is most developed...furthermore, looking at the wider system, on an international scale, there are EXTREME disparities of wealth between the global north and south.

ebola

 

[pennywise]

I helps to look at it this way. Two species, capitalist and wage-labourer (to coin ebola). In ecology there are the terms commensal relationship, and carrying capacity. The first being a relationship where one species benefits while the other receives none, the second being the stable population capacity of a habitat.

Each capitalist requires a larger number of wage-labourers in order to 'survive' within this commensal relationship, so they will always outnumber the capitalists. This is unique in ecology as the capitalists have much control over increasing their own carrying capacity.

The effect of this on evolution is that capitalists are becoming extreme "r-specialists", in that they procreate less and spend time & energy ensuring the survival of their young more. Wage-labourers are tending towards "k-specialism", the inverse. This will eventually lead to pseudo-speciation if the corporate oligarchy continues to divide the middle class and increase the wealth gap. Though they keep the ability to physically breed, the social differences will keep them apart.

For a capitalist, the utopian dream is realised once this speciation is complete and their lives are no longer hampered by guilt towards humanity's woes because automation has made them obsolete. The small population of elite will occupy the Earth in technological paradise.

How is a small population of elite people relying on robots supposed to be "good for evolution"? How does this "class difference" increase our capacity to reproduce and evolve, or even improve our quality of life? I really dont see an argument there.