you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 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 -  (5 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 -  (4 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?