I can't believe I didn't see the analogy when I wrote my first comment -- the story of the tribe mentions that they could not stomach the thought of working for an entire day; this partly has to do with allocation of time, but also speaks to their lack of desire to store food. They didn't see the value of doing that, because food was not hard for them to find. Would such a society be less greedy because greed doesn't help them survive?
I agree that Christianity doesn't really align with capitalism in a strict sense. Christianity tells us to give unto others without concern for repayment, and that in fact we should even do it secretly so that we cannot benefit in any earthly way. Yet capitalism would call such donation a waste of capital, unless it can be publicly known and thus possibly come back around in the form of public goodwill and customer loyalty. That is not to say that people in a capitalistic society will never give anonymously, just that capitalism tells us we shouldn't.
I think the village you describe actually is anti-capitalistic. Yes it encourages production, but I see no reason to think that encouraging production is only a capitalist idea. With the sidebar you give, what if they lady got even older and acquired arthritis in her hands? What if there was really nothing she could make anymore, and refused to do other things like watching over young children (perhaps she hates children, or maybe they just remind her of her children who all died at young ages... who knows why she refuses). What if she were nothing but a drain on resources, providing nothing in return? And maybe she likes to be alone, so she doesn't even provide pleasant company. Then it would be much harder to provide her with eggs whenever she wanted them. To still provide for her would require a very un-capitalistic community indeed; it would require a community of giving, caring, selfless people, the kind that capitalism does not foster, but which Christianity does.
Yes, I think that greed would have little meaning for a tribe that depended on cooperation and sharing for survival. I agree that the community I described might not properly be called capitalistic, but I am not sure. The scenario you created is difficult to respond to. My initial assumption, which I still generally embrace, is that members of a community will want to contribute what they can to the community, if they in fact, benefit in some way from being members of that community. But what if they choose not to, or cannot for whatever reason? I don't know. At that point, perhaps more altruistic/religious forces will need to take over. I think, at least in my vision, a strong, close-knit community will want to take care of its members, regardless. Although there may be no IMMEDIATE payback, in capitalistic terms, there still may be the general feeling that if I take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, maybe someday others will take care of me if I am in similar circumstances. Or maybe the payback will be in the afterlife, (for those who have a strong belief in Heaven). Still a capitalistic bent, but not in a strict sense. I think you are proposing that the ideal would not depend on any type of payback, now or later. I think in general, most humans think in terms of reciprocity, even if the only thing gained is a sense of warmth inside from doing the right thing and helping those less fortunate. Just a thought.
I see what you are saying. I guess what I'm getting at (I didn't know this at the time, I'm deciding it right now, if one can do that) is that perhaps it would be better sometimes to think of things in terms of the community, not the members. For instance, in the community in my head, if you produce lots of eggs, then you give eggs to the community... that would mean whoever needed/wanted eggs, regardless of whether they are directly reciprocating. As long as you are giving to the community and somehow the community is reciprocating (more-or-less), then it's counted as being equal, even if it isn't quite. Perhaps you give eggs to someone who gives tomatoes to the person who gives you blankets. But sometimes things may not work out that fairly; certain people will receive more than they give, maybe even on a consistent basis. That is ok, as long as the community is close-knit, like you said. Because then you are giving to the community. You may consistently give more than you receive, but there may come a time when you break your leg and the community will take care of you. On the other hand, there may never be a time like that. If it does though, the community would not take care of you because they "owe" it to you, or because you "earned" it -- it would be because that's the way the community does things.
I guess I'm just thinking of a scenario where it is a bunch of giving, rather than trading. Is that what true "communism" is? Where you think in terms of the community rather than personal gain or the individual members? I don't know, but it sounds plausible. Now, a situation like I describe would probably never work on a very large scale, because it requires a very strong bond of trust between members. A community like this might help out a stranger who needed temporary assistance, but I doubt they would embrace as a member anyone who wanted to join. It might take some time living with the community before truly being accepted into the community. Maybe until they prove themselves (or when the community begins to feel a certain member is unfairly failing to contribute), then people would trade with them rather than just give on good faith.
At times, I have had similar arrangements with friends. For instance, my senior year at UK Jesse and I just kinda paid for things for each other all the time based on convenience, without a lot of concern for keeping track exactly. We tried to pay general attention to make sure things never got too far out of balance, but other than that we thought the convenience was worth the potential inequity.
I think the key to the issue of sharing/contributing is to keep the community small, and strive to attract members who share some common values. Certainly, such a system involves trust among the members, and cooperation. If relatives are involved, it is easier in some respects. I think some of the American Indian tribes may be a good example. Those who were best at hunting hunted. Those who were best at medicine practiced medicine. Those who were best at making blankets made blankets, and so on. While there was private ownership of items, there was a very strong sense of sharing at all times, because survival of the individual depended on survival of the tribe. Although trading occurred frequently, there was also giving without getting anything in return when the person was unable to contribute or share, such as the sick or elderly. There was a great deal of competition, because the mightiest hunter may be most attractive to the eligible females in the tribe. But the least attractive person ate just as well as the most attractive, (although the least attractive may have slept alone at night). I guess what I am saying is that the Indian Tribes, based on what little I know about them, seemed to be a combination of capitalism and communism/socialism. Obviously capitalism was secondary to communism, but I see some elements of each. Let's go back for a minute to the example of the person who raises chickens and has lots of eggs. Let's say they share with others who need or ask for eggs in the village first, then they sell whatever is left over. The money that comes from selling the eggs to outside customers should, in my opinion, remain with the chicken owner. I know that in many communes of the 60's, 1/2 of all earnings went to the commune, 1/2 was kept by the person earning the money. Which is better? I don't know. I guess I kind of like the idea that the needs of the other village inhabitants are met first, then the needs of the individual. Otherwise, greed can take over, where the individual is more concerned with selling to outside customers for a profit than they are to taking care of the fellow village people. But when it comes right down to it, the accounting aspects should probably fade in comparison to the social aspects of a true community. If there was love between the members, a universal love that simply required giving and sharing without concern abuot getting things in return, everythign works pretty well. But, if there needed to be an accounting of dollars or exchanges, well, the system would seem to become too capitalistic. But what happens if everyone shares the fruits of their labors with Larry, and Larry just drives a taxi 50 hours a week and keeps all the money for himself? Is he kicked out, asked to share his earnings with others, made to feel guilty for taking without giving back? I would never do that, of course, but the point is, who decides who can join or who must leave the community?
> I think the key to the issue of sharing/contributing is to keep the community small, and strive to attract members who share some common values.
Hmm, just to be sure I finish off the conversation, I want to say that I agree. In fact, this is sorta what I had in mind as I was talking. It almost winds up being elitist sounds, but I would really prefer that you have to be (in essence, at least) approved by the community before you can join. That's the only feasible way to keep the trust high.
I agree that Christianity doesn't really align with capitalism in a strict sense. Christianity tells us to give unto others without concern for repayment, and that in fact we should even do it secretly so that we cannot benefit in any earthly way. Yet capitalism would call such donation a waste of capital, unless it can be publicly known and thus possibly come back around in the form of public goodwill and customer loyalty. That is not to say that people in a capitalistic society will never give anonymously, just that capitalism tells us we shouldn't.
I think the village you describe actually is anti-capitalistic. Yes it encourages production, but I see no reason to think that encouraging production is only a capitalist idea. With the sidebar you give, what if they lady got even older and acquired arthritis in her hands? What if there was really nothing she could make anymore, and refused to do other things like watching over young children (perhaps she hates children, or maybe they just remind her of her children who all died at young ages... who knows why she refuses). What if she were nothing but a drain on resources, providing nothing in return? And maybe she likes to be alone, so she doesn't even provide pleasant company. Then it would be much harder to provide her with eggs whenever she wanted them. To still provide for her would require a very un-capitalistic community indeed; it would require a community of giving, caring, selfless people, the kind that capitalism does not foster, but which Christianity does.
Reply
I agree that the community I described might not properly be called capitalistic, but I am not sure. The scenario you created is difficult to respond to. My initial assumption, which I still generally embrace, is that members of a community will want to contribute what they can to the community, if they in fact, benefit in some way from being members of that community. But what if they choose not to, or cannot for whatever reason? I don't know. At that point, perhaps more altruistic/religious forces will need to take over. I think, at least in my vision, a strong, close-knit community will want to take care of its members, regardless. Although there may be no IMMEDIATE payback, in capitalistic terms, there still may be the general feeling that if I take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, maybe someday others will take care of me if I am in similar circumstances. Or maybe the payback will be in the afterlife, (for those who have a strong belief in Heaven). Still a capitalistic bent, but not in a strict sense. I think you are proposing that the ideal would not depend on any type of payback, now or later. I think in general, most humans think in terms of reciprocity, even if the only thing gained is a sense of warmth inside from doing the right thing and helping those less fortunate. Just a thought.
Reply
I guess I'm just thinking of a scenario where it is a bunch of giving, rather than trading. Is that what true "communism" is? Where you think in terms of the community rather than personal gain or the individual members? I don't know, but it sounds plausible. Now, a situation like I describe would probably never work on a very large scale, because it requires a very strong bond of trust between members. A community like this might help out a stranger who needed temporary assistance, but I doubt they would embrace as a member anyone who wanted to join. It might take some time living with the community before truly being accepted into the community. Maybe until they prove themselves (or when the community begins to feel a certain member is unfairly failing to contribute), then people would trade with them rather than just give on good faith.
At times, I have had similar arrangements with friends. For instance, my senior year at UK Jesse and I just kinda paid for things for each other all the time based on convenience, without a lot of concern for keeping track exactly. We tried to pay general attention to make sure things never got too far out of balance, but other than that we thought the convenience was worth the potential inequity.
Reply
Reply
Hmm, just to be sure I finish off the conversation, I want to say that I agree. In fact, this is sorta what I had in mind as I was talking. It almost winds up being elitist sounds, but I would really prefer that you have to be (in essence, at least) approved by the community before you can join. That's the only feasible way to keep the trust high.
Reply
Leave a comment