I think people are more than that. The point being that nothing is inherently wrong with making individualistic self serving choices except when there is disregard for others. But people can also be compassionate, alturistic, giving, and cooperative, so how about a system that rewards the better parts of human nature?
The point being that nothing is inherently wrong with making individualistic self serving choices except when there is disregard for others
Historically, individualism hasn’t been a good survival strategy. I agree that self-interest isn’t inherently wrong, although I believe much of the things we consider self-serving are ultimately only sane to do once our basic needs are met, and depending on where you are and who you are, those may be at risk soon. There’s a reason why people historically formed tribes and villages to survive, individualism is only possible when you have the privilege of an advanced enough society. The capitalist market system, in fact the market system altogether, couldn’t come into existence prior to civilization, where society was strong and safe enough that individual enrichment was a viable survival strategy.
This video makes the point I’m getting at more concretely. Can start at 15:55, when they begin talking about historical materialism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPVkpWMH9k
(tagging parent commenter @[email protected] because this also addresses their reply about people’s inherent self-serving)
The parts I talked about are more the groundwork of analyzing the here and now, rather than actually talking about it, yes. I was addressing the points about individualism and self-serving ‘nature’, to point out they were only capable of manifesting through feudalism, capitalism, etc., and aren’t some inherent immutable human nature. We know that egalitarian societies have been workable worldwide, it’s not some utopian idealist dream.
As for no-one coming up with workable alternatives, yes and no:
There are examples of societies today which are anarchist and/or socialist instead of capitalist such as the Zapatista territories in Mexico (pop. ~300,000). Most of them are smaller pre-industrial societies, so we can’t just transplant their society structure into modern cities and expect it to work, but they’re still useful examples.
The PRC presents one interesting example of dirigisme. Their state does not (nor claims to) depart from the capitalist mode of production, but it has departed enough from capitalism as-we-know-it due to the unusual power the government has over big business. So while the government has historically had troubles with corruption (which the CIA would exploit to accelerate assets into higher positions, pay-to-win IRL), on the other hand, we see institutional attacks against corrupt billionaires and selfish bosses which are unthinkable to most other capitalist states. Musk, Bezos or Zuckerburg would have to stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody before they maybe go to a special upscale jail or house arrest, while the PRC have given suspended death sentences for extreme financial crimes (like Liu Liange taking millions of dollars in bribes) and notoriously executed multiple billionaires (for murder convictions).
Now, whether that second example is a society that people want, that’s obviously a hotly debated topic, but I’d say objectively their system is working (in terms of stability and economic strength) and a modern alternative to our current system (their system is capable of rewarding societal values above self-service)
That’s just capitalism plus a strong regulatory government, which is how all Western governments are supposed to work too. It’s fairly easy to imagine a future PRC where greedy capitalist interests have infiltrated the government over the years and crippled it like many Western ones. It’s just instead of manipulating people via democracy, they work backroom deals within the CCP to get people amenable to their interests into positions of power.
Essentially, the only successful checks we’ve found to capitalism is either a strong State or a strong Church, or both. I think we can all agree that organized religious rule is even less preferable than a capitalist oligopoly, which leaves having a strong government to balance capitalist tendencies.
I think people are more than that. The point being that nothing is inherently wrong with making individualistic self serving choices except when there is disregard for others. But people can also be compassionate, alturistic, giving, and cooperative, so how about a system that rewards the better parts of human nature?
Because no one has really come up with such a system that’s workable, I guess.
Historically, individualism hasn’t been a good survival strategy. I agree that self-interest isn’t inherently wrong, although I believe much of the things we consider self-serving are ultimately only sane to do once our basic needs are met, and depending on where you are and who you are, those may be at risk soon. There’s a reason why people historically formed tribes and villages to survive, individualism is only possible when you have the privilege of an advanced enough society. The capitalist market system, in fact the market system altogether, couldn’t come into existence prior to civilization, where society was strong and safe enough that individual enrichment was a viable survival strategy.
This video makes the point I’m getting at more concretely. Can start at 15:55, when they begin talking about historical materialism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPVkpWMH9k
(tagging parent commenter @[email protected] because this also addresses their reply about people’s inherent self-serving)
Interesting theory but not particularly relevant to capitalism here and now?
The parts I talked about are more the groundwork of analyzing the here and now, rather than actually talking about it, yes. I was addressing the points about individualism and self-serving ‘nature’, to point out they were only capable of manifesting through feudalism, capitalism, etc., and aren’t some inherent immutable human nature. We know that egalitarian societies have been workable worldwide, it’s not some utopian idealist dream.
As for no-one coming up with workable alternatives, yes and no:
Now, whether that second example is a society that people want, that’s obviously a hotly debated topic, but I’d say objectively their system is working (in terms of stability and economic strength) and a modern alternative to our current system (their system is capable of rewarding societal values above self-service)
That’s just capitalism plus a strong regulatory government, which is how all Western governments are supposed to work too. It’s fairly easy to imagine a future PRC where greedy capitalist interests have infiltrated the government over the years and crippled it like many Western ones. It’s just instead of manipulating people via democracy, they work backroom deals within the CCP to get people amenable to their interests into positions of power.
Essentially, the only successful checks we’ve found to capitalism is either a strong State or a strong Church, or both. I think we can all agree that organized religious rule is even less preferable than a capitalist oligopoly, which leaves having a strong government to balance capitalist tendencies.