The paradox of being “anti-capitalist” in a capitalist society
I want to talk about one of the reasons I’ve felt like I’ve been fighting an uphill battle at steemit. I’m a freshwater fish in salt water here. I feel a certain kind of culture shock everywhere I go. First, I don’t really identify as “anti-“ anything. I would rather focus on building then destroying. I’m also open to discussing things with anyone who is open to listening with an open mind. I will not tell you your ideas are wrong even if they are very different from mine, although I may see contradictions and try to point them out if you are keen on debate. I also respect a few kind-hearted and intelligent people who identify as capitalist.
That all being said, I do not identify in any way as being capitalist and many of my positions come in stark contrast with those of the majority as such, in steemit as in my daily life. I didn’t become this way through reading Karl Marx or anything. I just grew up feeling pretty uncomfortable about competition. It didn’t seem to make sense given the context. It’s not like we had to fight for food in my hometown. I’m not communist or socialist or fascist either. I’m not very interested in debating economic philosophy, I’d rather focus on immediate problems and work towards a solution. I do see a value in discussing philosophy sometimes but when our opinions vary too much, the gap is too wide and we don’t usually reach each other.
If you identify as capitalist (or libertarian), this is not an attempt at instigating a debate, I believe in your right to form your own values and beliefs the way you see fit and build your world in accordance. This is just about telling you where I am coming from and the difficulty associated with holding the beliefs and values that I hold. I want us to understand each other and be able to learn from each other.
Different framing, different starting points
Most people around me talk about “adding value”, about supply and demand, and about “taking advantage of opportunities. There’s game theory and the idea of 80/20 and whatever else. These concepts all stem from our understanding of economics. I don’t see economics as a place I want to draw my understanding of reality from and so I am much more hesitant to use these terms in communication, when I do, it’s merely to state things in a way that makes sense to people who talk this way. I have to do it a lot here, actually...people all talk about “adding value”. I see any attempt to put a numeric value on something as arbitrary, but if I say that every time my conversations with capitalists and libertarians don’t even get to the second or third sentence without a debate. And I don’t need or want to debate everyone.
Economic philosophy is built upon the idea that people always act in their own self interest. While I do recognize that there is some truth to this, I see it as extremely one sided and based on a past that was much more “difficult” in some ways then the present. We act in our own self interest, but when we know that our needs are met, don’t fear that they may not be, and have s little trust in others, we recognize our interconnectedness and act in the interest of everyone else as well.
Paying it forward comes more naturally than paying it back
The idea of paying it back comes from the idea that we OWE something to someone. This is not intrinsic to our experience as humans, it’s something we learn, part of our culture, something I can understand but feel a little far removed from at times and it can really cause misunderstanding. In society, we generally help only those who help us and when we help others first, it basically serves to makes us feel good or raise our social status. It comes from the idea of debt, a very capitalistic idea indeed. Firstly, you must carry an idea of “exchange”. For those of us who think outside of these terms paying it back feels more selfish than paying it forward, because there is always this expectation of reciprocity. When I help others, I TRY to do it without expectation of reciprocity. Of course I need to keep some level of scrutiny in order to avoid being taken advantage of, and because the opportunities to be paid forward are so few, sometimes you need to take what you can get. Still, I don’t like to keep tabs on who has helped me and who I’ve helped. I feel thankful, and if they need the help I’ll help them without question. But my attention doesn’t always go back towards them and when it does, it’s because I believe in them or I believe in their belief in me, or maybe out of respect for their culture of exchange, it isn’t out of a feeling of obligation.
This may have caused me much extra work at steemit as I have tried to give a much higher percentage of my voting power to users who need it more, rather than just whoever helps me, especially when I see they have much more. Perhaps if I were to pay back the larger accounts with a 50% or 100% upvote for their support, they might continue to return the favor and I would benefit greatly from it. I do not like to play this way. I believe in more distribution, providing more to those who are smaller than I.
I could have easily marketed and sold my fiction, packaged my music, offered perks to those who paid more, it may have done well, and if it didn’t, I could have changed much strategy and eventually profited from it, I instead chose to offer it all pay-what-you-want, which to most people means “free”. In some moments, I’m forced to ask myself “Am i being too idealistic?”
Being the change
I am NOT being too idealistic, I’ve seen people act outside of selfish interest. I understand that selfishness and selflessness do not need to contradict and can, in fact, cancel each other out. I know that there are infinite ways to provide for yourself as you provide for others. I know that once you cultivate a habit of helping others whenever you can, and still manage to take care of yourself, it’s actually really easy. I’ve seen that when people who act like this come together, all our old ideas about human nature are easily no thrown out the window.
Still, these experiences can not be shared with words, they need to be experienced. most people don’t believe me. I can tell you my story but in the end, experiencing it yourself is the only thing that can make you believe, and so I’m here searching for people who would believe in and support this vision of humanity, and hoping that some who support it are already able to support themselves without much trouble. I want to bring together those who can give freely AND receive freely, the hard part is that most of these people are not in a position to give very much.
No matter what we do we are hypocrites
Even if we don’t need believe in capitalism, we still need to eat. We can go off into the wilderness and fend for ourselves, hoping no one will come and tell us we aren’t allowed to inhabit “public” or “private property. Still, as social creatures, many of us are unwilling to do that. Since we are not always respected for our ideas, sometimes even ridiculed for them, not everyone who shares them is vocal about them, it becomes harder to form a community.
So we conform and prove capitalists right, focusing on our own monetary situation because we know that under the current situation, money will allow us freedom to explore our beliefs. We sell our “goods” and provide our “services” in the hopes that one day we will be free to live the way we truly desire, freely and without keeping tabs.
We find ourselves charging more and catering our work towards those who have more already because they are the ones who can help us earn money, and earn our freedom. With every step, every success, we work against our original vision. We work for big companies in order to give more money to a cause we believe in, as our provider, the company, is likely adding fuel to the fire and working against new that very cause. The libertarian and free thinker can easily relate to this, as it’s a situation not entirely reserved for non-capitalists. But it hurts us more because we become the most hypocritical in the act, it breaks us down and destroys our credibility and our own self confidence to such an extreme degree that most of us are unable to continue. We sell out.
And for those of us who follow our ideals and don’t cave in, we are further ridiculed by those who have given up on their own. We are always left questioning if we are fools because so many are there to remind us of the current we are going against. I was blessed with a strategic mind. I can’t even count on my fingers and toes the opportunities I’ve had to become “rich and successful”, but none of those opportunities felt right, none was compatible with being the person that I want to be. Still as time goes by I’m swayed by a lack of results to make compromises and too late to reap the same rewards that I would have if I had given in so quickly.
This applies just as much to steemit as it does to anything else. I’m quite sure I’d have done much better in my first 6 months if I did everything strategically in order to benefit myself, if I had paid back instead of paying forward, perhaps giving the impression of paying forward, while focusing more on my own gains. I haven’t played up the role of “creator of the Be Awesome community”, nor have I been very opportunistic about its growth because I’ve wanted to keep it organic and pure and without hierarchy and regulations. I try to set boundaries and follow my ideals and sometimes I’ve severly handicapped myself by doing it.
The resources are all stuck inside of capitalistic systems. We don’t all have access to the means of production, so even if we don’t believe in capitalism we have to participate in it, making us hypocrites unless we want to fight against everyone, which is truly not my desire. Even crypto which is opening up resources to a new degree is really just capitalism 2.0. I suspect that once it has truly become mainstream and more and more popular than fiat, you will see the technology benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else and the newly rich become even richer as wealth attracts wealth and some of the wealthy attempt to consolidate their resources.
Still, I’ve come to the conclusion that the most realistic way that I can make great strides towards a future that I believe in is to play the game, even if it makes me a hypocrite, to make money and “earn” a whole lot of resources in order to free them up for others to share. I can only hope that the process won’t break me down.
Can you see why it’s a bit of a struggle to fit in here...or ANYWHERE? People like myself believe in a different kind of world and we have good ideas about how to reach it, but we are often met by pesimism, ridicule and nihilism. You don’t have to agree but I hope you can respect our desire to explore the possibilities, just as I respect the libertarian who wants to explore different possibilities. I hope we can mutually support each other and learn from each other rather than pressuring everyone to be the same or telling others that they are being too idealistic when you haven’t seen what they have.
I believe that one day myself and others like me will be able to build a strong and resourceful community here at steemit and convince enough of you pay-it-back people that we as individuals and our community are worth paying it forward to even if we don’t agree on everything, that we deserve respect and that we may know a thing or two and will help to benefit all of society and everyone in this ecosystem.
Join the "Be Awesome" community
The Be Awesome discord chat, was created with the intention of making deeper connections with fellow steemians. Come talk about "deep shit" and make friends.
I’m also a language learning coach. Come find me if you need help learning a language.
Be Awesome discord channel
Confessions of the Damaged - a collection of short stories
—-
by @skyleap
In the past, I had that libertarian/Austrian economics mindset. I wouldn't necessarily have said that people always acted out of self-interest; I probably would have phrased it more in terms of "mutually beneficial exchanges". In the end I found that it wasn't always good for me to be thinking in that way, though it can be a useful form of analysis to help us understand the world. Every way of viewing the world can be a trap for us if we get too obsessed with it, believing it's the One True Way, instead of just a tool.
Your ideals are noble, and there are a lot of people who share them all around the world. There are intentional communities and Rainbow Gatherings, ashrams and temples, and all sorts places where people get together to be kind and contribute without thinking about what they'll get back.
Some people you meet probably like the phrase "adding value" a lot, but I can understand how it wouldn't be empowering for you, as it obviously has some economic assumptions in there. There are better ways to express the idea: "How can I show my gratitude?" "How can I allow people to feel good about what I'm doing?" - I think you probably get the idea.
Fitting in isn't always easy, but speaking from the heart as you've done here is always worthwhile. Good luck and have fun being the change you want to see in the world.
Take care.
Im glad you understand the framing difference in the term “adding value”. Calling people “consumers” in a casual way kind of weird me out too. Thanks for giving me a better way to frame what I call self-interest, I don’t want to imply that I think linertarians are necessarily selfish people and “mutually beneficial exchanges” is probably more fair to use and make sure it easier for everyone to relate than “selfish interests”.
I recognize a lot of my ideals as being a bit far removed from current society so I hope all of us can work together to flesh out a better future, one side focused on he highest ideals and the other focused on practical implementation and balance.
:-)
We ancaps don't have an issue with sharing.
We love to share.
We take issue with sharing at gunpoint.
I hope I didn’t paint ancaps as being selfish, that wasn’t my intention, but I do think the concept of “mine” runs thicker with such a focus on personal property. Though I certainly would have a mindset of “mine” if someone tried to force me to share at gunpoint when I was just doing my thing.
I think sharing should be encouraged by all means and never forced by the state, but where we may (or may not) differ is that i believe if there are 8 people and 1 guy takes 7 slices of pizza, even by “legitimate” means, he’s an asshole and I wouldn’t defend him or his right to private property if the other 7 tried to get their pizza back.
That'd depend on what they agreed on before they ordered the pizza.
You certainly shouldn't be compelled to defend him (unless you've previously agreed to).
We're just as much about consent as we are about private property (since you own yourself its kind of the same thing).
That respect for consent extends to people consenting to bad deals; like the guy who sells his grandmother's old wedding ring for a hit of heroin.
He's an arsehole I wouldn't want to associate with; but assuming the ring is his, the transaction is between him and his dealer.
Nobody else's business.
I’m ok with the idea of self ownership as a practical understanding and if you think it’s best to organize society according to this idea, I can really respect that. I can only see it as a practical understanding though, an attempt to create some kind of social order. I can’t see any fundamental truth in the idea of self ownership, as in my eyes ownership is a human concept that doesn’t exist in nature. I can certainly agree with it more than any idea that the state owns me or my work.
As to ancaps being selfish; I can certainly appreciate where that idea comes from.
We believe that debts can only be accrued deliberately.
If we agree that I take your car today and pay you $10,000 a week from now, that's a legitimate debt.
If you imagine that I owe a percentage of my income to support the poor, but I haven't agreed to that, I'm going to make a point of
avoiding paying; and you're going to consider me selfish.
If I claimed that others should be taxed, but not me; that would be selfish.
Ironically, many taxation cheerleaders get more in welfare than they pay in tax; making them selfish by that definition.
Truthfully, I think I probably fit closer to your philosophy than the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist views that run thick on Steemit. Whereas I honor and respect these philosophies, I see them more as ideologies than functionally implementable approaches to life... for ONE because they require a high level of self-responsibility and accountability to work... at a level 90% of the population neither has nor cares about.
One of the things that appealed to me about Steemit was that it ultimately came across as a "gift economy." The idea of paying it forward seemed heavy in the air here. If I like what you say or show me, I can throw something in your "tip jar" without any sort of attachment or expectation to an outcome for me.
One of the reasons I have never been really "good at life" is that I self-identify as mostly non-competitive. I tend to be a cooperator rather than a competitor, which doesn't seem to work so well, at least not in most western societies.
Resteeming this for additional visibility.
I was hoping you read this one as I sense we have similar politics, I remember you saying something about your aversion to competition and I relate relate there. I actually didn’t respect libertarian views (after playing around with them a bit in university) until I came here and realized how decent many of the people with such views are. I’m hoping that people like us can gain some more respect in this community and hopefully acmutual respect can lead to a healthier debate than what you have in the mainstream. It would be very beautiful to see cooperation beteeen ancaps and anticaps and I don’t think it’d be very difficult at this platform.
Thanks for the resteem! When I check in with you later, I hope your realize it’s not out of a desire to pay you back but because I find it easy to relate to you :-D
The nice thing about Steemit is that there seems to be a lot of very high-functioning individuals of many persuasions here.
The "self-interest" issue is often a sticking point for me due to the tight definitions many place on it. It is ALSO in my self-interest to be in support of UBI and making sure everyone in my neighborhood is clothed and fed... because (self-interest angle) if they ARE, they are less likely to break into my house and steal my stuff. The conventional Libertarian/Austrian philosophy doesn't recognize that as "self serving," but I disagree. A peaceful society serves me better.
Politically, I suppose that puts me in a slightly odd place: I am all in favor of community social empowerment but less in favor of community social handouts.
I tend to think that the more we internalize our interconnectiveness, the more selflish interests become a moot point, not even worth mentioning. I’m actually ok with handouts but only when the community can afford them.
I’m actually ok with handouts when the community or individual can afford them, but It’s certainly more meaningful to teach someone to fish than giving them a few fish. This is why I’m very hesitant to give my money to charities unless they are small scale and I know exactly what they aren’t doing.
Me too @denmarkguy
You don't understand capitalism.
In fact, almost no one does, especially an-caps.
And that is the problem here.
@papa-pepper is going to need a new septic system on his new property for his about to be built house.
That septic system is capital.
Capitalism was about how to gain the capital.
I will be writing here soon about capital, and about owning the means of production (more capital)
Have you familiarized yourself with Austrian Economics?
Makes much more sense that that Keynes stuff they shove down your throats .
Anyway, paying it forward makes much more sense, but only if you start from a place of enough.
But, that is exactly the point we have gotten to as a species. Even a 1st grader can distribute the food so that no one would go hungry in the world. There is more than enough. Any way they split it, would still be more than enough. The problem comes about in incentivizing the farmers to grow food next year. And that is really where the economics rubber meets the road.
I won’t argue with you, I don’t have a deep understanding of capitalism and it’s different forms. I doubt understanding will turn me into a capitalist as much as my love for sharing hasn’t turned me into a socialist, but it will certainly help me to understand you and @mattclarke and other steemit friends better so I’m down! I will have to read up on Austrian economics, do you have any websites I can read that wouldn’t be too time consuming, somewhere to start?
I actually really like your stance on UBI, although I don’t believe people would be lazy if we didn’t have a culture that inhibited personal development and cooperation. The problem I want to answer is how to do that without forcing people, finding ways to allow people to make good, mutually beneficial decisions of their own free will by showing them the practicality of it rather than coercing them to do so.
www.mises.org.
Is the home of all things Austrian Economics.
And they have lots of free books and stuff.
My brain is no longer functioning this evening, or I would get you a link to some of the good shit.
Socialism and Capitalism are today, just two different names for the same group of people in charge. And so, I agree with your views on them. But the names weren't always corrupted.
Even worse is things like the venus project. Which sounds all good, until you realize that its just the same as socialism and capitalism, but now the "computers" are in charge, with the same group of people controlling the computers.
I appreciate your candor, although we may see things differently, we share a lot of the same feelings from the people who differ in opinion from us...
I hope for a world where force and coercion aren't necessary to function.
This particular atmosphere may lean a little bit more in my direction, but in the real world these ideas are often met with, pessimism, ridicule, and even sometimes nihilism.
Exactly, none of us like force and coercion so while we may have some disagreements on theoretical problems, we really want the same thing. If we these two sides of the “underground” listen to each other, I beleive we can improve the situation for everyone to some degree. I’ve learned to respect libertarians after seeing more where they are coming from thanks to this platform, I hope more libertarians can do the same for those like myself.
Really great to read your reply.
I read an interesting book a while ago called Sacred Economic by Charles Eisenstein. Its available in a free download if you are interested on his website. It put into question many of the ways I think about money, cultural values and solidified what I had been thinking about for some time in the form of the human narrative we are sold. I have always struggled with capitalism and often get disheartened here as it seems the content is mostly produced and driven towards that purpose. Thanks for writing this. :)
I haven’t heard of that before. I will have to check it out.
I have also been frustrated with it, although being on steemit has allowed me to meet people like @builerofcastles (who also commented) and @kafkanarchy84 who have I can easily recognize as good and intelligent people, which makes the struggle a lot easier. This has helped me to rid myself of my own bias that “capitalists are bad or confused people” although we certainly do differ in our understanding of the world. It is frustrating to be raised inside of that narrative though, I was put on medicine when I was a kid because I didn’t like being forced to compete and kind of rebelled against it. We still aren’t always free to be ourselves.
@whatamidoing You might also enjoy this RSA. It's based on a much larger book called Empathetic Civilization by Jeremy Rifkin. Certainly humans are wired for competition but we are also just as wired for cooperation and empathy. However much of what we are sold glorifies the competition and bastardizes the cooperation. I think there is a new human narrative brewing as more and more people realize that infinite growth on a finite planet is just not sustainable. :)
Watch "RSA ANIMATE: The Empathic Civilisation" on YouTube
I checked the vids - for which thanks. I found the comments (I only checked the last 4 years, which I copied (58 pages). Now I'm going to have to read through it all.
As I suggested in my comment here, even empathy is not the answer - it is just an answer.
I posed this scenario in my story: Robert senses children being abused in a brothel, and he interferes. However, there is one customer who tortures little boys and Robert forces empathy on him. The same man returns and tortures another child. Robert invades his mind and discovers that empathy is making the pain of the child even more of a pleasure for the man. It turns out he too was treated this way as a child and saw what he is doing as being good (natural) for the child.
Empathy is not an 'island' that floats on its own, it is affected by our personalities, our experiences and belief systems.
Nice post. I am no economist and not really sure whether or not I share your views (although as you said it does not really matter), however I work in the non-profit world and feel that many people in the for-profit corporate word can sometimes over-value themselves and undervalue people like myself. I would like to not care what others think but there is a self-serving cancer in our capitalistic system (I think capitalism could work if regulated – and it needs to be regulated due to the human tendency for greed) and these people are creating policies that are directly harming people like me. I am tired of being called “lazy”(ha) because my line of work contracts with the government. What I do is tough and takes a lot of work, and adds more value to the community than those who make money by shifting money around or creating and selling things that ultimately people do not need. I am also sick of people with political and economic philosophies that are viewed through the lens of male privilege…. It certainly does not sound like you are one of those people, I am just venting.
I have more than one stance and don’t fit very well into the political spectrum. A lot of my ideas about how society “should” function are quite far off, many things will have to change before that kind of a world can be conceived by enough people to make it a reality. I think revolutions are generally foolish and easily manipulated if they don’t fall apart themselves so regulated capitalism may be a more pragmatic way to move forward right now. We may disagree less than you think.
I know exactly what you mean about your line of work which is why I say the concept of “adding value” is completely relative. It’s pretty absurd that there are people who think that trading stock and playing with money is more valuable to society than helping others directly.
As for male privledge I don’t really like this word to describe it, but I empathize, there is still real problem of sexism that needs to be addressed. I’m not sure if it’s being addressed in the best way right now,but at least it’s being talked about. Know that you have more allies than you probably even realize.
Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful response. I suppose even trump supports would be surprised how much they have in common with many if not most liberals (and vice versa) but they are being misinformed and told something different. Although sexism is indeed an ongoing issue, when I say the word “male privilege” I am referring to something less accusatory/controversial. What I mean by this is that by being a male there are simply some things that men do not have to worry about that are quite frequently on a woman’s mind – things such as safety and the right to reproductive freedom (not being forced into motherhood).
I love traveling alone but there are some places I should not go – something my beloved male counterparts are able to experience. It is terrifying when I hear political leanings that feel that every man (I am sure they are not excluding women) should be the king (Queen) of their own castle. Some people with these leanings tend to not like laws/policies that are meant to keep people safe – or think that if these laws are removed things will “work out because most people are good”. Well, I disagree. As you say, we are not evolved enough and I have had many psychopathic clients. There are at least two communities in traumatized societies (One in Bulgaria and one in Kenya I believe - but don’t quote me) where the women, in order to live in peace and safety, had to ban men. That is not ideal (I like men) but that’s how they make it work.
I can appreciate the distinction between sexism and what you are referring to, the reason I don’t like the word “priveledge” is because the wording itself infers that someone has more than they deserve. I don’t believe most people who use the word believe that to be the case but they certainly cause misunderstandings with overly protective males (or whites) who could have been much more empathetic to their cause if it was expressed better.
If you disagree, that’s fine, I’m just putting it out there as someone who does understand that we still have a ways to go before it’s all good.
I also think it’s terrible that woman can’t travel as freely as men. I do know some pretty amazing women who hitchhike and camp on their own though. I know they have some added dangers and inconveniences though so I have crazy respect for them.
I may have unintentionally sounded a feminist dog whistle that makes people uncomfortable. I for one, however, greatly appreciated my white privilege last week when I was pulled over by the police in the southside of Chicago. This is especially true since I may or may not have had something that is still illegal in the state of Illinois in my trunk - Something that could’ve landed a brother in jail or dead. True story, but I’m trying to use humor here.
I need to be aware of the privilege that i have (but have not earned) based on the color of my skin because in my line of work I sometimes have the power to make decisions that can greatly impact others - whether it be good or bad. I think the world would be closer to our vision of what it should be if we dispel the myth of meritocracy. Embrace the fact that you can travel more freely, my friend, simply because you were born with a Y chromosome. It’s OK for males to appreciate such things without needing to feel guilty about it.
We ALL deserve better, starting with those who have it rough do to their gender, race or orientation. But none of us should need to earn that kind of respect and decency, the right to not fear for their lives. Be careful with what’s in your trunk :-P
😬👍
I enjoy writing because it offers me the opportunity to create new worlds - but once I am actually trying to create a new but alien world, I find myself challenged and forced to re-examine ideas I'd taken for granted.
I have tried, a small number of times, to create an ideal society - not some form of Utopia, which is only possible for a population of one.
I keep coming up against the same problem, whatever the specie. For sapients to be healthy mentally, they must have freewill (as commonly meant, not as argued by scientists and philosophers). The moment freewill is tossed into the ring, out goes the possibility of achieving an ideal society.
The reason - well, the one I wish to use, is: It only needs one person to see the goodness of others as a weakness for them to exploit. That person will soon manage to corrupt a few more, for it is so tempting to choose to be an Elite... and the whole dream collapses.
I think that what mankind had been doing, before the Rothschilds, Masons, eugeniscists etc., interfered in the direction we are now set to taking, was the healthiest and sanest alternative.
Over thousands of years we have been evolving from brutish creatures to sensitive people. Thirty years ago people, by the millions would send money to charities for helping the starving. If we had used commerce and education to improve the lives of the poorer nations, I think we could have moved closer to becoming an ideal society.
A good example is Sweden. Because they have spent one or two generations in having certain beliefs, thanks to their attempts to establish an ideal society, they have been softened and blinkered in their ways of viewing the world and its harsh practicalities, (plus the important fact that people from other societies neither believe in the same kind of ideal society they are trying to create, nor want their children to be a part of it) and now, even when their existence, the existence and future of their children is threatened, they cannot respond in ways that could help ensure their survival. They cannot even see that sacrificing themselves so as to help those they are trying to help will not work, for the second their society collapses, those who have destroyed them will revert to living in conditions far worse than those they were "saved" from.
Unfortunately, because of our natures, we must never seek to achieve the ideal or an utopian ideal; we must strive to approach the best potential and then waver, fluctuating in tiny tremors as we continue to seek new ways of improving, or reject ideas we no longer believe in - but, we must never try to take the final step into creating an ideal society, for then, we will be compelled to enforce the rules that make us an ideal society, which in turn, denies us the right to consider ourselves an ideal society.
I don’t think we’ll ever have to intentionally waver from utopia, I’m sure there will be some who waver unintentionally, but I do something’s think There is an eternal kind of dance between the forces of “good and evil”, which are not actually good and evil but harmony and disharmony....perhaps it is like dividing a number infinitely...it keeps getting smaller but never reaches zero.
In any case, I don’t presume that any of us is fully capable of imagining the best or worst of what humans are capable of. We can only try our best based on our experiences and desire to explore different possibilities.
no offense buy you're living in an alternate reality.
compete or die.
OR..have someone do it for you.
until we reach an economy of abundance that's the way it is.
note: an economy of abundance is on the horizon..but it's not here yet. Capitalism will bring it. Socialism won't
Hahaha I do agree we are living in alternate realities, though mine is just a s real as yours ;-)
I know a lot of people who work for the benefit of others without competing, hey do have it rough sometimes, but as more people understand them, more support them. I have friends who recieve welfare and then go out to help the homeless and disenfranchised. I realize the majority of people would not act like that at first if given the chance, but I know many, if not most, would if exposed to a different kind of culture.
And for the record, I’m probably a less socialist than most communal indigenous tribes. ;-)
I’m willing to watch things play out in a capitalist system as long a small there is some recognition that a capitalist mindset may, at times, be counter productive to building the kind of culture that I mentioned.
Thanks for reading despite your disagreements.
I've written MANY post that would apply to what you are saying.
I think that the problem is that we are not using compatable terms.
To properly explain would take WAY too long in a comment.
Let me leave you a few terms.
monkeysphere is the basis.
Us and Them as indicated by Dunbar's Number and then there is the Bell Curve
my number is very low..way way to the left. I have very few friends...very few people in my monkeysphere... you, apparently are to the far, far, right.
You've never met a stranger..
My kind survive catastrophe, apocalyse famine and wars MUCH better than your kind does.
but we don't do too well in crowded conditions with very many people
Your kind is almost the polar opposite. You do well in croweds but die out when the going gets tough.
Not a criticism..just the way it is.
Lucky for the both of us technological advancement will make it easier for the both of us.
Like I said, the an economy of abundance is on the horizon.
Really interesting connection. I think I know the monkey sphere but I’ll check it out just to make sure.
I’d like to learn those skills just to have them, just so my kind doesn’t die out like they may have a few times in the past. Actually I believe we are all capable of being both kinds of people and might benefit from exploring that. At least we agree that we are moving beyond the idea of lack.
there's a difference between a good man and a nice man
some people , the ones who have a VERY large Dunbar's number can be both.
My late father in law for example. He knew everyone for four counties around...everyone liked him (he died at the age of 105)...he was the closest thing I'd ever seen to a saint.
I like to think that I'm a good man..
for US (those within my monkeysphere)
but i'm not nice.
I have a tiny dunbar's number.
If it comes to US vs THEM...I choose US everytime..
if I have to shoot THEM...then so be it.
All I'd feel is recoil.
What I find compelling about reading you is that whether I like what you say or not, at least I start from the base that you try to be honest - with yourself and where permitted, with others. I find that sometimes difficult.
thank you.
to your ownself be true
If you lie to YOURSELF...
you'll be very confused.
I appreciated your post and your attempt to articulate very difficult thoughts and feelings. Thank you!
There are far too many camps, labels, opinions and positions to even begin understanding much less addressing. All of them simply reflect what's inside the individual, for better or worse.
There's good evidence that humans spend a lifetime programming their neural networks to become whatever it is they become. As we know, the output of a neural network is dictated by the input or learning data set. Some of us are programmed to be capitalist, some anarchists, others socialists. None of these programmatic outcomes really matter. For folks to debate these outcomes is even less meaningful. (Should the verb be plural in that sentence? I confuse myself!) For example, to debate fiat vs crypto currencies is meaningless. The answer is that NEITHER should exist.
The first critical point to the discussion is the learning data set since that is what dictates our beliefs and behaviors. The second critical point is a question, can we significantly influence/determine our learning data set?
Just look at one near universal characteristic that humans share regardless of culture or time. Humans lie to each other. Why?
Just imagine a world where everyone simply told the truth? Such a disruption in our learning data set would completely and irreversibly alter our global notion of "economy" and "politics." In fact we probably would decide there's no need for such things.
How do we reprogram lying out of our nature? After lying we can tackle greed. It seems to me that until we can do that everything else is just an intellectual exercise in futility.
(Full disclosure, I do believe we can make such changes! I do think we should discuss it. Can we reach a critical mass? I don't know.)
Nice! I don’t know if I fully agree that it’s meningless, but it certainly is missing a more central point that you hit on, we are forming all of these stances through the lens of our culture, a culture that has many problems. Before we solve problems that we face, we need to solve the problems that we cause. You bring up lying, I think we are looking in the same direction. Rather than framing things as far as how much “value” they add, I believe it’s more crucial to look at how much trust they build. Most activity that we deem “wrong” comes from a place of mistrust. Mistrust for the government, mistrust for the people, mistrust between races, for the rich, for the poor. I believe this is where the conversation should begin.
My purpose for writing this wasn’t to convince ancaps that their opinions are wrong and mine are right. It was to say “let’s talk about it and try to hear each other out and learn from each other”. An attempt at building trust, as most of my work is.
Sometimes we employ hyperbole for emphasis. Language is so much fun.
Absolutely we must start with "honest" conversation between humans (dogs pee on poles and sniff butts but we seem to have lost that ability. How I envy the simplicity of a dog's life.)
The tricky part is the "honest." As you observe virtually everything, family, culture, education, etc. has programmed us to be who we are. Who we are dictates our behavior, including conversation. Our notion of right and wrong is absolutely the result of our programming. (I literally believe we are programmed by our unique data set which we call our "past experiences") Even our notion of honesty is determined by our past experiences.
If that is true, then future experiences can similarly re-shape our thinking/behavior. We can re-program ourselves. The challenge here is that while we can gradually re-program ourselves we have no perspective from which to optimally decide our new direction other than our past experiences which is what got us in this mess in the first place. It is a conundrum so say the least. That brings us to two possibilities,
To come full circle and to the point, an "honest" discussion is one in which we discuss all possible alternatives pertaining to our re-programming, without insisting on our point or resisting other's points. For such a conversation to progress all the parties to it should be "equally experienced" otherwise the words quickly stop flowing. What do I mean by "equally experienced"? If a person has been programmed to believe that the moon is made of cheese and lacks the "experience" to consider other possibilities it's really hard for any discussion of advance beyond the constraint of that individual.
So where to have this conversation?
I think the act of recognizing that you are programmed and can reprogram is more significant than you make it out to be. A new kind of openmindedness can open up from here and then experiences will still be seen through the lens of past experiences but we are able to begin to see the lens, characters in a story who know they are characters in a story. This is quite profound and if it was truly widespread, I beleive the Culture would be much more proactive and accepting of as many kinds of people as possible.
So...who’s going to start the buttsniffing club on steemit? ;-)
Another way to look at it is not as "programmed vs re-programmed", but that in fact we are in a constant state of BEING programmed. From that perspective the challenge is easier to see. Namely, how do we choose our preferred programming? What is the NEXT BEST STEP for us to take?
All that we have learned from the past has brought us to our present, less than desirable, current state. That implies that we are not capable of knowing/discerning the next best step and therefore impotent to choose the next best step . Historically humans have never learned from their past. If we had we wouldn't be in our current state. Why should we suddenly expect it to be any different? Libraries are filled with pithy tomes of how we OUGHT to be. They describe in great detail the desired state for humanity.
We know WHAT we ought to become; we just don't know HOW to become. If we did we would have already arrived. A second possibility is that we are simply POWERLESS to affect what we know to be true.
For me the relevant question to ask is HOW does the individual achieve that next state. Philosophy hasn't helped any more than religion has. What has science added to the progression of mankind other than bit and bobs of knowledge? (and they can't even agree on those) Which revolution, social or intellectual, has not reverted back to the state they fought to escape?
Going back to the example of truthfulness, why do we still lie if we know better?
Of course if we could influence our future programming it would solve the cultural bias blight from which we suffer. For now living in a foreign country and learning a foreign language might be the next best thing. But for Americans even that is no guarantee with our myopic view of most things.
Our sense of smell, or rather the profound lack of it, is another discussion. For many animals smell defines a significant percentage of their world view. Just imagine if we could still smell the receptiveness of a prospective mate how much simpler life would be. No, I'm afraid our butt-sniffing days are lost forever. Pity! ;-)