you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]One_Jack_Move 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (36 children)

Economies of Scale are a hell of a thing.

Honestly it's a miracle [of capitalism] that by going to mass quantities they are able to provide quality food that is cheap, easy to eat, and non-perishable. While at the same time employing a huge number of people. Everyone from the farmers, packers, distributors, merchants, and advertisers - to scratch the surface.

Your friend with a tree can (seasonally) enjoy lots of peaches, but is that all she needs (or wants)?

*I upvoted this post because it is a perfect, if simpler, example of "I, Pencil" or the "Lesson of the Pencil".
It proves how efficient the process truly is, despite the distances involved.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (35 children)

I think this is silly. There is obviously a lot of waste occuring when one looks at land usage, material usage, and use of labor. There's a massive wealth inequality which only makes sense in a capital-focused society.

[–]One_Jack_Move 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (34 children)

On the contrary, when trying to accomplish a large-scale process like feeding a populous, there would be far more waste if a single head-of-state, or government department attempted to do it on their own.

Or do you think if everyone just grew a tree and some other crops they could feed a city?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (33 children)

I know if we weren't consumers and were producers like our ancestors, we'd be more stable and fulfilled as individuals. If you think my answer to capitalism is government-rule, you are mistaken. I believe scientific, naturalist clan-based democratic monarchies are the future, not industrial oligarchies like capitalism or communism.

[–]Nemesis 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

I know if we weren't consumers and were producers like our ancestors, we'd be more stable and fulfilled as individuals.

This is such bullshit. Historical reality is a far cry from "Dances with Wolves" or whatever movie you dredged this fiction from. Life was hard, brutal, and short. People carried the trauma of day-to-day encounters with death from the cradle to their grave. In northern countries, many suffered from scurvy due to being unable to find anything fresh during their brutal winters. Nobody forced market economics on the people of the West, people embraced it, willingly. There was no need for the violent revolutions that preceded so many socialist and communist experiments, as free markets made people's lives so much better almost immediately. It was a development that made life easier for a broad swath of the world. The ability to trade a temporary harvest for the treasures of the world cannot be overstated in its importance.

I agree with you, completely, that consumerism robs the modern man of meaning and sanity. I would point out , though, that this has existed to an extent for thousands of year (yes unfortunately even traditional societies were obsessed with flexing riches and tying self-worth to possessions), but I would think everyone would agree it' gotten much worse, especially post WW2. I don't think market economics are to blame so much as corporations and governments jointly realizing how profitable it is build populations defined by their consumption of goods. There's an economic incentive, certainly to pursue this strategy, but it feels equally political. I would blame the destruction of religion and traditional societal organization instead. Modern man is no longer a Christian/Muslim/whatever, a patriot (post WW2/911/Vietnam that's problematic), a soldier (used to be most men would serve in some form, now less than 2%), member of a trade or business (jobs are temporary, the company man is dead), fraternal order (shriners, masons, Boy Scouts, knights of Columbus all in decline), ideology (mostly blended together and neutered, only now are we seeing the rise of extreme movements that dominate personal identity). At last the modern man is only defined by whether he's red or blue, and his $80,000 funkopop collection. I wouldn't call this a necessary product of capitalism so much as a shrewd political strategy to cultivate a new peasant class, played to perfection and at last reaching fruition. (edit for grammar)

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I don't idealize the past, I simply realize modern societies have, by and large, thrown out the baby with the bathwater. There are so many malcontents in this world. You can try to say that every society of the past was horrible and blah blah blah, but its simply wrong. I don't denounce the advancements of science. Listen, please, because I say this every time someone like you acts like I have rose-tinted glasses. Industrialism, capitalism, socialism, all these fucking modern -isms are like nihilism, or existentialism. They are places we must come to as a society if we are to advance in our evolution. The thing is, this entire place (the modern age of materialist-reductionism, capitalism, industrialism, literally every -ism from the modern age that has popularity) is a hurdle we must make. Either we make it, or we fall apart and lose pieces of whats right and important, just like people who live in nihilism or existentialism. They are not bad in and of themselves, but for a society to stay with them is repugnant, it is not in unison with life. They are short-term solutions. Industrialism (and in a loose sense, western/eastern economic policy) is causing the sixth largest mass extinction event this planet has ever seen. The other five were caused by natural disasters. If man were ever a natural disaster, its because of our willingness (you say it yourself, society embraced this as a healthy reaction) to attempt to conquer nature, to attempt to throw out the lesson of the ages (spirit runs through all things). Market economies aren't bad in and of themselves. However, the societies which focus heavily on capital and not life only ever end up like Rome: wicked, twisted, and repugnant.

[–]Nemesis 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Can you define what you mean by capital? It's a store of value. Please name a society that focuses on life (whatever that means) over value. There isn't a single one. I suspect you have some sort of vague fantasy about wise ancients living in harmony with nature, but I would love a concrete example to brighten my view of human nature. Not even the most communist of historical settings were able to do without any stores of value. Even in prison settings informal economies develop to manage resource/service allocation. I'm not really getting any arguments here, just semi-religious claims, that we must advance past -isms to evolve. Why do you think this? Has another society advanced past -isms, or is this your personal belief? What do you mean by being in "unison with life"? Do you know what humanity needs to advance to? Or do you just not like the idea of isms, so the alternative is this mystical word-salad of "life", spirit, and rejecting profit and the "natural world"?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm not saying we get rid of capital. I'm not saying that the ancients lived in harmony with nature, lol. I'm just saying they had a teaching that is no longer here. It was an important teaching which created really good democratic societies, such as the Iroquois Confederation (please look into it from all perspectives, they were really impressive compared to most tribes). They focused on life over value up until they started trading with the white man and got destroyed, massacred by a society which was built upon the foundation of capital>human. Another good example of this would be pre-christian Ireland and Scotland, however that history has been heavily fucked with, so I doubt you'll know what I'm talking about. These aren't societies I get down on my knees for and suck off, unlike what you seem to do with the modern ones. Look, take the best from every human civilization, and you get a scientific, naturalist clan-based democratic monarchy which has capital and a free-market, yes, but doesn't make these things the damn PILLAR society is built upon. You think the world is safely anchored to reality because of our science and our money? You are as fooled as the old "wise-men" who thought they were safely anchored in religion and philosophy.

You won't get many arguments from me. Most of my statements are for lurkers and whatnot. I don't care about changing your mind, son

No, another society has not advanced beyond -isms. If they had, I would be using them as a prime example. Probably I wouldn't even have to, their society would speak for itself.

[–]Nemesis 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Funny, I've argued this out for the same reason. I know a written argument with a stranger online will do little to change your mind, but I know there are others out there who are still learning and building an opinion. I remember a time when I wasn't as firm in my thinking as I am now, and I had a lot of doubts and fears about the future and the nature of the world. I fell prey to arguments like yours on 4chan and reddit, magical thinking about druids and Iroquois and the feel-good cult of nature/science worship.

You won't get many arguments from me.

I doubt many lurkers will read this deep into the thread, but if they do I wanted to argue until an observant reader could clearly see that there's no actual reasoning or concrete thinking behind your posts. I consider myself completely satisfied on this point.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I used to lurk and would read deep into threads. Doubt all you want. Please, be satisfied making your points. Its a game to you, isn't it?

[–]Intuit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Capitalism is just being able to own things and thus voluntarily trade them. If this is used for soul-less material acquisition, it's a reflection of an underlying condition. People get hammered by parents, the state, indoctrination, throughout life. Material accumulation is just an attempt to cope.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Capitalism is more than that, and you know it. Thats like saying a monarchy is just having a king and queen. Way too simplified, and it allows you to place the blame on what...the capitalist state? Consumerist, therefore capitalist, consumption born out of indoctrination? Especially the indoctrination part. They galvanize students into the left/right paradigm, they want you to choose capitalism or communism or socialism or whatever, because these systems all allow for them to be corrupt. The systems are corruptible. I would say that the indoctrination worked on you to some degree.

[–]Intuit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Sure, capitalism is all the things that naturally flow from voluntary exchange. What would you want instead of voluntary exchange? There's not much you can change without enabling the bad elements to be even worse. Physical things will continue to exist, and it's a question of how it's decided what they are used for. Do you want that based on merit and contribution of value, or by committee, or by who can be the most unruly and threatening to others?

I would say that the indoctrination worked on you to some degree.

If you can specifically point out something that would help me, do so. If you're going to cast vague doubts on my ability to offer arguments, then you've already checked out of the discussion.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I don't take part in arguments.

[–]One_Jack_Move 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I feel you, you are right that consumerism has left folks feeling empty inside (as it should). There must be balance. But we can't fight human nature (greed). Of course, you can bend human nature with incentives. There is certainly room for more production and less consumerism inside Capitalism. People should be shown that buying shit won't fill their hearts, and that having responsibilities is a better way to finding meaning. But I digress...

Capitalism isn't perfect, it's just the best we've got. The harder part is keeping Free Markets - and reminding people it's not all about the Benjamins.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Human nature isn't inherently sinful. I don't accept that judeo-christian viewpoint.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You mean purely Judaic. Christians are the offspring of their father, the loving God who created them in His image. How could they be inherently bad? They are not, obviously. They are... INFLUENCED.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I see what you are saying, but it still stands that every Christian I have ever met believes, foolishly I might add, that humans are inherently sinful (except maybe you, I don't know if you would call yourself a Christian)

Influenced, yes, that's what I'm currently reading about.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I would like to bring this to your attention then: https://saidit.net/s/Psychology/comments/58du/demons_are_real_psychiatric_experience_of_demons/

This isn't about whether or not somebody is "Christian" either. ;-)

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you for more information to read!

[–]One_Jack_Move 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

sinful

I don't see Greed as a sin, in fact it can be a virtue via capitalism - that's the point! Humanity runs on individuals perusing their separate goals, one can call that Greed for brevity.

This whole interview is gold, but here is a 2 minute, relevant clip if you are interested in my perspective: https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'll check it out because I am interested in your position. It does seem like moral relativity, which I'm not that into on a cosmic or objective scale.

[–]One_Jack_Move 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Fair enough. Thanks for watching! I (believe I) understand your perspective and I do see it as a valid viewpoint which keeps my blind spots checked, gives me perspective, and clarifies my position. If you have a link or vid I would also be happy to see it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm sorry, but when it comes to morality and human experience, I tend to focus on my own reality and experience. If I told you to check out different philosophers or whatnot, I would have to carefully explain what I see as truth in their works, since I see so much BS even in the stuff I like. The only thing that I can point out is this "one can call that Greed for brevity"

You are using brevity in the sense that you are short of time, right? Not that this definition of greed is concise? That's the other meaning for that word, so I would like to know which one you meant. If it's the first one, then it works in a way. If it's the second one, then I disagree with the definition. Here is the definition: intense, selfish desire for something.

Its not actual greed to pursue individualized goals, so long as that goal coincides with the life-affirming nature of reality. It is greedy, but only from a relative standpoint. It's worthwhile to understand, which is why I am interested in talking to you. Moral relativity is great for empathizing or understanding other people and their actions, but I don't think its factual truth on a cosmic scale. At a certain point, everything becomes relative to reality and how the individual deals with it. So, greed isn't greed when it is life-affirming, it basically is just the sentiment of "I won't get in the way of my self." Which people nowadays seem to think is negative, when in reality, it can be incredibly positive for both the individual and all involved with the individual. That's not greed, that's self-improvement, therefore, societal improvement.

I just want to say that Milton Friedman is wrong. He asks "Has there ever been a society that didn't run on greed?" Yes, they existed, but why do you think you'll be able to read about them in this day and age where we have had an Information War (War on Consciousness) for generations? Do you really believe that all humans from all of time have been inherently self-serving? If you think so, then I would say stop watching youtube videos, stop reading books, stop intaking academic information and spend time with people of all classes, and you will find that there are folks who throw their lives into uplifting others for no other reason that because their self-development, and the self-development of the person they're helping, requires it. You may call it greed, but I call that good-will.

[–]Druullus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What is capitalism?

[–]Druullus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What is capitalism?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Oo, you almost got me ;)

[–]Druullus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You wish!