I thought I’d tangent from the capitalism debate to discuss the Human Factor. I would think that it is so obvious as to not even deserve addressing, except that theoretical arguments here have implicitly ignored it.
The Human Factor: Given a perfect model, humans will fuck up said model out of a natural destructive tendency.
The Garden of Eden story (most of the Bible for that matter). Crime and Punishment. The Matrix. The Human Factor has been illustrated always.
Capitalism. Communism. Fascism. The Human Factor has been proven always, particularly in WASP society.
From what I’ve seen in the Capitalism thread, the capitalism defenders fail to recognize the communist attempt to treat all humans equally as a valid notion. Likewise, the communism defenders fail to recognize the capitalist attempt to allow certain humans a better quality of life as a valid notion. To me, this seems more at the center of the “uncommon terms” issue than an argument over what determines value.
In an indigenous society, even the poorest members have a place to live that is equal or comparable to the richest. Communists desire this; capitalists detest it. This is the Human Factor at work. Communism didn’t work in the Soviet Union because it was not sustained by leaders who believed in the humane side of it (and there were plenty of armed capitalists in the world to not allow anything else to work). Furthermore, communism could never work because the Human Factor (even if it is a small group of individuals) will corrupt the perfect model. One bad apple, etc.
Capitalism has worked in large part because it panders to the Human Factor. It feeds that WASP urge to live more comfortably than someone else even at the detriment of others.
If you give a child the choice between eating spinach or ice cream, the decision that results most likely will come from what is personally appealing, and not from what is good for healthy survival.
Yes. Actors in a capitalist society must essentially be motivated by greed, even if it is once removed (i.e. I work for my company, which makes a product, that is then sold although it could be given away instead, and it must generally be sold for a profit.)
The danger is that, because it has a cyclical nature, the greed which is encouraged can actually lead to people willing to sacrifice more and more of their own freedom in order to satisfy their greed and their system at some fuzzy point becomes a fascist society. If you say greed is OK under certain means, eventually it is a slippery slope as to what those means may be.
I disagree that Humanity is driven by a destructive tendency. Humans can be destructive, but it is not a defining characteristic.
that said…
True capitalism also treats everyone equally. Everyone has an equal chance and expectation to take care of themselves as best they can. It is not a goal of capitalism to create rich and poor classes.
that said…
There is no true capitalism in a large society to serve as proof.
The individuals in a large society have different goals, so no one vision can be realized without oppression (as employed in some communist examples)
But it is the human factor that gives rise to all these wonderful (and not so wonderful) systems of economics, religion and government. It is because of the human factor that we have success and failure, hope and dispair, freedom and slavery.
We are all inextricably tied to each other and no matter what label we choose for ourselves or what group we choose to associate with, we are all dependent upon one another in some way.
To remove the human factor would be to deny our humanity.
If it’s ‘greedy’ to want more for your children, to want to make a better life for your wife, to keep what you earn, and to give willingly to the charities you believe in rather than have your money taken from you by force to be given to people you may not agree with, then sue me - I’m greedy.
But then, greed as defined would not be a failure - it’s the motivator behind all the great advances of civilization. If we were all happy little communistic proles we’d still be living in the dark ages. Give me greed any time.
I find the whole notion that humans are these evil flawed creatures to be offensive. I pity people who cannot see beauty around them in the things mankind has built. If you look at a towering skyscraper and can think only of the swamp that was there before it, you are missing out on much of the beauty in the world.
If you look at a man who has built a giant corporation out of nothing and see only an evil capitalist, then you’re missing out on a great adventure and a great life lesson.
If you’ve got so much hatred in your soul that all you can see are mankind’s failures, then I simply feel sorry for you.
okaylaydokaylay But even if all your motives are pure, your are still working in a system that is based on greed. Like I said, it can be one step removed. You are an enabler.
I thought laziness was the mother of invention. Go figure. So, you a product of American public schools, huh? Never would have guessed.
But, if you can’t think of all the things that could be done better if man were motivated by love and not greed, I’m sorry too. Hope works too.
Quit staring at the trees, there’s a forest here. In a better society, you would not have to worry about “saving” your family from despair, there would be no need for charities, and your labor would be compensated at its value.
I didn’t say that all humans were flawed, only a few. (one bad apple, etc.) I pity the people who can only see beauty in profit and a larger SUV. Perhaps I feel that the skyscraper is why I’m missing out on much of the beauty in the world.
Again, you’ve missed the point, which was a clearly theoretical explanation for why perfect economic models fail (taken from the capitalism discussion from another thread). Thank you for your concern, but it is quite unnecessary. You assume that all I should want is to be just like you (and buy your products maybe?) and place value on the same things that you do. But hey, that’s fine. Capitalists are in power so they get to decide everyone’s morals and values.
Interesting jumblemind. In the future, I would suggest posting a link to a spin off debate in the original. I missed this thread until just now. First, off. Not all capitlaists must be greedy, (it helps), but the process of constant accumulation under capitalism is a task driven by nessecity not greed. If a capitalist refuses to accumulate and reinvest in production, they will fail. That is what makes capitalism so different from previous historical time periods. There, people would take surplus-value and use it to live a life of leisure, there wasn’t the need to reinvest a larger and larger sum in the means of production. That’s not to say that many capitalists aren’t greedy selfish bastards, only the best ones
So you subscribe to the theory that there are indeed a few bad apples in society. Why? and from whence do they come? Is it genetic, do the bad apples breed further bad apples? Is there a little bit of it in all of us? Or are they created by society? (my view)
[aside]
“we used to have swamps, but the EPA made us take to callin’ them wetlands”
- line from the x-files
overall, I agree with Sam, but, personally, I think a swamp can be more beautiful than a building. I can also appreciate the beauty of human’s creations…such as a building.
[/aside]
No, a capitalist society (in theory) compensates you for your labor. A socialist society compensates you based on your need (or what the government decides is your need).
[QUOTE]
by jumblemind*
Phobos:
The capitalist invests to seek profit, and will continue to reinvest and seek additional profit unto death. By most definitions I’ve read.
If the goal of constantly accumulating increasing profit isn’t greed, then you might consider sending Webster’s a note to edit one its entries.
Not all of humanity is driven by destructive tendencies, but it only takes a few to work the Human Factor into the equation. (one bad apple, etc.)
I tend to lump WASPs together with capitalists because they did most of the colonizing in the world.
[QUOTE]
I think Sam addressed the greed point. But I’ll add that a capitalist ideal is a free-market economy. The profit motive is there to better yourself.
I certainly don’t think it’s utopia…I agree the bad apples can ruin it for the rest. Or for that matter, the valid different desires of different people can lead a society in a different direction than one individual may care for.
WASPs did do a lot of colonizing…but they certainly weren’t the only ones and I’m guessing that it wasn’t “most” of it. (e.g., Romans, Spanish, etc.)
Why does everyone think capitalists are happy when people are poor and starving? Why does everyone think that all a capitalist cares about is money?
There may be many capitalists who DON’T CARE whether people are poor and starving, but do they really high-five each other at their country clubs because of starvation in africa? No, instead they say, “Tut, tut, look at all those starving Africans…if only people like us were in charge over there…now pass the caviar.”
And how many capitalists care only about money? Does Bill Gates sit up nights masturbating to his bank statements? No, he sits up nights thinking about the power and influence of Microsoft, how his technology dominates industry, how his decisions will influence the future, or how people will think he’s important, or how he’s finally proved that his dad was wrong about him. Yes, most highly motivated capitalists aren’t what you’d call normal or average or psychologically healthy, but the specific neuroses that make them obsessed with success are different than Jumble imagines.
I really fail to see any connection between WASP society (whatever that is) and greed. At least any more than any other society. I also fail to see what colonialism has to do with capitalism.
As far as I can tell, the main differences between capitalists and communists are that communists think of items and labor as having intrinsic value, and people of different economic classes fundamentally thinking differently. In Human Action, Von Mises presents a much more reasonable alternative, based on the study of how individuals act. If you accept this view, then society as a whole is best served by each individual being free to spend his or her money as he or she sees fit.
It is a pretty basic economic principle that each person should devote all his or her efforts toward the one thing that benefits society the most. Thus, society should not encourage me to spend all my time writing posts to a message board about this stuff, which I’d rather do than a few other things I could think of. In a capitalist system, I’m encouraged to figure out what I can get payed the most for and do that, using the extra income to offset the displeasure of not doing what I’d rather do. Is this really greed?
In a communist system, it makes no difference what job I do. I suppose I couldn’t actually get a job convincing people of the merits of capitalism, but it shouldn’t be too hard to find what I’d most like to do. Or I suppose someone could tell me what job I’m most needed in, but I doubt that approach could lead to happiness.
I have yet to see any reasonable demonstration that there are any more inherent flaws in capitalism than in any other system ever imagpined. In a debate, you generally have to be able to back up such claims, rather than just repeat yourself.
But even if all your motives are pure, your are still working in a system that is based on greed. Like I said, it can be one step removed. You are an enabler.