Egoism is NOT a negative thing. It does not mean that humans are bad-natured or selfish in the conventional negatively connotated sense. Egoism simply means that our first priority is ourselves. Which is true. But just because man's first and foremost goal is to make himself happy does not necessarily mean that he will be, "boastful, selfish, or conceited." It just means that he wants to be happy. Given a situation in which he can be happy without having to endanger his fellow man, destroy his earth, or be generally unpleasant, he won't. We just assume that he will because we've been brought up in a society in which the only way we know how to function is through self-centered egoism. We've never lived in a society in which we can be completely secure and safe but not have to look at our fellow man as competition. Never. Your point about man throughout history is null because we've never had the opportunities that capitalism has presented us without the carnal and brutal social aspects that capitalism promotes. Basically we're living in the 21st century economy with a middle ages level human intelligence.
I'm not arguing with you that capitalism is a good thing. Neither was Marx, although that is a widely held misconception. Capitalism has presented us with the ability to create guaranteed living conditions for everyone, I said that earlier. I'm not suggesting that we give up on capitalism, I'm just suggesting that we stop developing it to the point where it's destroying our lives. Doing away with the negative social ramifications of capitalism is an intelligent goal. Doing away with capitalism as a whole is not. I know that.
The idea that people can work and live together in peace is hardly 'cultural brainwashing.' It's an idealistic approach that repels many people because they've been brought up in a society which throws the idea out of the door at face value. Why does civilization need a hierarchy to function exactly? Please explain. As for an example, just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean that it can't work. As Marx would say, it isn't even possible until we get to the point where we can stop worrying about survival. We've NEVER really been able to do that until now. It's a new venture, there are no previous examples to be made.
I'm not suggesting that there would be no government, especially not initially. You'd need a police force, a way to make sure people were showing up for work, etc. But a government is completely different from a typical hierarchal society in which the upper class controls all aspects of life.
Ha. Representative Democracy works perfectly in the U.S. That's a joke. Not to be offensive, but our nations is run for the most part by people who's primary concern is getting elected for another term so won't stand up for what they actually believe in! When people are in competition for power, nothing gets accomplished.
I'm not saying that this system wouldn't need a government. But things like deciding the amount of food to be grown could easily decided by the population working in a specific area. i.e. knowing that there are X number of people in the area should allow one to determine how much food should be grown. Sound complicated? Look at our government?!?!?!? Something as simple as this could be decided for the most part on a local basis. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be problems, and we would need a government. But so what?
I'm not arguing with you that capitalism is a good thing. Neither was Marx, although that is a widely held misconception. Capitalism has presented us with the ability to create guaranteed living conditions for everyone, I said that earlier. I'm not suggesting that we give up on capitalism, I'm just suggesting that we stop developing it to the point where it's destroying our lives. Doing away with the negative social ramifications of capitalism is an intelligent goal. Doing away with capitalism as a whole is not. I know that.
The idea that people can work and live together in peace is hardly 'cultural brainwashing.' It's an idealistic approach that repels many people because they've been brought up in a society which throws the idea out of the door at face value. Why does civilization need a hierarchy to function exactly? Please explain. As for an example, just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean that it can't work. As Marx would say, it isn't even possible until we get to the point where we can stop worrying about survival. We've NEVER really been able to do that until now. It's a new venture, there are no previous examples to be made.
I'm not suggesting that there would be no government, especially not initially. You'd need a police force, a way to make sure people were showing up for work, etc. But a government is completely different from a typical hierarchal society in which the upper class controls all aspects of life.
Ha. Representative Democracy works perfectly in the U.S. That's a joke. Not to be offensive, but our nations is run for the most part by people who's primary concern is getting elected for another term so won't stand up for what they actually believe in! When people are in competition for power, nothing gets accomplished.
I'm not saying that this system wouldn't need a government. But things like deciding the amount of food to be grown could easily decided by the population working in a specific area. i.e. knowing that there are X number of people in the area should allow one to determine how much food should be grown. Sound complicated? Look at our government?!?!?!? Something as simple as this could be decided for the most part on a local basis. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be problems, and we would need a government. But so what?
Reply
Leave a comment