It’s easier to remove a king because a king is a single person, easily identifiable, tangible and living.
An establishment is none of those things, it’s murky and unclear, it’s lots of different people and nobody all at once.
I think she was talking about removing the system of monarchy, not removing a king. The former is much harder.
Much harder. Which is why the Commonwealth of England only lasted 11 years…and we still have a freaking monarchy ruling by divine rights now…
we still have a freaking monarchy ruling by divine rights
Technically, sure. But, when was the last time the monarch flexed his/her muscles and used his/her power? There are rumours that in 2010 Elizabeth refused to allow another election. But, that barely counts. She didn’t pick a winner, she didn’t influence the election, she just said that she was just going to withhold her rubber stamp, to call another election. Then there’s Australia in 1975 when the governor general (acting on behalf of the queen) fixed a deadlocked parliament by removing the PM, appointing his opponent, and requiring that an election be called immediately. Before that, you have to go back to Churchill being appointed as PM despite not being the leader of his party. But, again, that wasn’t some task the monarch took on alone, he was advised by the whip, the PM, and various other people in top government spots.
IMO the current constitutional monarchies are basically republics with a safety valve. If the monarchs ever abuse their power, they know that the countries would happily switch over to a full republic. But, they can be tolerated, maybe even loved, if their only roles are ceremonial plus the occasional nudge to unstick the gears when they get jammed.
I just don’t agree that having a monarch that is the head of a church can ever be accepted. Plus, the royals do vet many, many bills from the government and change them.. The monarchy also receives the inheritance from anyone that dies on “their” land without a will. And to top it all off, the Queen gained many, many exemptions to racial equality laws.
They have a lot more power than is often let on. And even if they didn’t, what is the argument for having a useless bunch, including known paedos, get money from the tax payer just because they were born into a certain family? I can’t make it make any kind of moral sense.
For the vetting of laws: “They included draft laws that affected the Queen’s personal property such as her private estates in Balmoral and Sandringham, and potentially anything deemed to affect her personally.”
Besides, that’s just them running the bills by her. Ultimately, it’s parliament and the senate who decide on the laws. Once that’s done she rubber stamps them.
Sure, the royals get a big income, and there are some old-fashioned laws that benefit them, or they’re exempt from the rules others have to follow. But, these are small details that barely affect the lives of anybody living in the UK. I’m sure if you looked you’d find various carve-outs in US laws that benefit Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates, and they’re not even technically in the US aristocracy.
They have a lot more power than is often let on.
The power to do what, for example?
what is the argument for having a useless bunch
Why change a working system? The money they receive from the UK taxpayers is tiny. They get less than £100m out of a budget of £1.2t. That’s 0.008% of the budget, and you could argue that their presence probably roughly offsets that with the tourism money generated. Most of their income is the result of their massive wealth and land holdings. But, that makes them no different from the multi-billionaires in the US. It’s not some magical sovereign thing that extracts money from the UK, it’s inherited wealth, same thing that results in so many Waltons on the list of US billionaires.
I can’t make it make any kind of moral sense.
Do you think it’s massively different from the Walton family’s wealth and power, or the Koch family’s wealth and power, or Musk, Gates, Bezos, etc?
If you go back through the links I posted, it includes far more sweeping legislature vetting than what affected her personally. And also exempting people from non-dicrimination law because they have certain ancestory is weird, isn’t it?
The power to do what, for example?
To stop people advancing in their career because of the colour of their skin. The power to take dead people’s money if they don’t have a will. The power to direct the army (the armed forces oaths are to the monarch, not the country or government - this was almost tested in planned coups in 1968 and 1974; both actively planned by King Charles’ great-uncle and led to a “military exercise” that Downing Street weren’t informed of as a warning to toe the Firm line).
Or how about a ban on police searching their properties for stolen goods? Or exemptions to green bills.
The royal family are like lobbyists on steroids and the idea that has no power is not correct.
The money they receive from the UK taxpayers is tiny.
This is patently false. £100m a year for FIVE PEOPLE (active royals) is by no means a small amount. This is the same as 3096 incomes for the average household in the UK, or 4467.7 nurses with five years experience.
Why do they deserve to get this money if not because it’s their “divine right”? How is that not utterly fucked up?
And the “tourism” answer doesn’t hold water. Both the Louvre and the Palace of Versailles, both former palaces, receives 50% more visitors than Buckingham Palace.
Please bear in mind that this is all for one family that have done absolutely nothing to earn it. How can we justify £100m a year (much of which ended up in the Panama and Paradise papers) for a single family? And that doesn’t even take their net wealth into account.
Like the income of the people mentioned below is actually tiny, but their wealth is huge. About £20 BILLION huge. And all because of “divine rights”. But of course, that’s only an estimate because the royal family got the law changed so they never have to say how much they actually have (because they have the power to change laws, as mentioned above).
Do you think it’s massively different from the Walton family’s wealth and power, or the Koch family’s wealth and power, or Musk, Gates, Bezos, etc?
Absolutely agree. No one should be able to pass on this amount of wealth through a hereditary line. It just has no moral justification to give people money (and thus power) just for being born. That’s why capitalists were nicknamed robber barons.
king has never been a single person that was easily identifiable. it is was a huge extended family, distant relatives, lords with no blood relation, central army of the king and multiple armies of many lords, huge institutions that manage every aspect of life on behalf of the king. it was never about getting rid of a single, individual king. there were literally hundreds of people in line at any given time. it was just like today, and it seemed just as impossible.
This is more about removing the system than the individual. People believed that the right of kings was divine, and when you believe that, it’s hard to argue for anything else.
Let’s replace the king in this example with religion then. It’s pretty much removed or at least had lost the power it had just 100 years ago
And yet the Christian fascists run rampant
Not really. I believe it’s mainly only in the US this is the case
You can remove a king, but can you remove the concept of a single person ruling over a territory?
Kim Jong Un isn’t a king, but he is a single individual ruling over North Korea. Putin isn’t a king, but he has the powers of one. Then there are examples from history like the Roman Republic, and the Weimar Republic.
IMO governments are basically a hierarchy where if things become “stable” enough, you can replace one with another one higher up the hierarchy. But, without work, they’ll eventually collapse into something lower down the hierarchy.
At the bottom of the hierarchy you have violent anarchy, where nobody is in charge and various groups are all vying for power. If things become stable enough, one powerful person (or small group (often headed by one person)) can take charge, and you get an autocratic / dictatorship type system. If the dictator is removed, you will often descend back into violent anarchy. But, if things get stable enough, sometimes you can replace that dictator with a kind of republic, either something like a constitutional monarchy, or a democratic republic. The former dictator might become a figurehead while power is held by a medium sized group who is elected by the public. If you don’t take care, that kind of system can devolve into an autocratic one, where one person holds absolute power. You might still have elections, but they don’t really change anything.
So, even though the “divine right of kings” is mostly gone, that was just window dressing on an autocratic system. And, we can easily get back to that kind of a system now. In fact, many supposedly democratic places are backsliding towards that right now.
P.S. I think there’s probably other forms of government higher up the hierarchy than democratic republics / constitutional monarchies. We should be trying to get there, instead of assuming that a democratic republic is the best possible system in the world. But, at the same time, we need to guard against allowing a democratic system to backslide into becoming an autocracy.
Kim Jong Un is definitely a king, whatever he calls himself.
He’s the hereditary ruler of a state that maintains its grip with the personal loyalty of the military.
Capitalism, to some degree and in some form, is also a byproduct of scarcity. You can’t really “depose” it without eliminating scarcity. You can just seek to use government action to remediate the ill effects of the process.
Modern “capitalism” (not really what Smith would recognize, if we’re being honest) has found plenty of ways to manufacture scarcity. In fact, artificial scarcity and pipeline inefficiency is now the heart or where “wealth” is produced.
- Financial organizations who create wealth by moving 1s and 0s on paper
- Marketing and sales institutions who create wealth by fabricating demand
- Lobbyists who who buy scarcity through techniques like trademarks and anti-competitive regulations (some of which are GOOD regulations used for ill)
The agricultural industry is the perfect example of bullet point 3 gone so wildly out of control it’d make you scream. We produce so much food that the government subsidizes farms backing off on food production for valid conservation reasons. And yet 12.8% of Americans still fall under a category called “food insecurity”, where they can not consistently afford/access a healthy diet.
Right, don’t take my conjecture as a broad defense of the modern status quo. My point is that the forces which create capitalism, and then the injustice which arises from it are not as simple as many people on the internet seem to believe, nor are these things one in the same. Indeed, previous revolutionary attempts at “tearing down capitalism” all at once have done little to resolve the underlying injustices, and in many cases have simply created entirely new forms of injustice without actually improving, eg food scarcity, or improving egalitarian outcomes.
Capitalism itself is better viewed as one tool for mediating scarcity. It isn’t the only tool available, nor does it guarantee an optimal solution, and I would definitely argue that the contemporary dogma surrounding it is quite harmful I’m many ways. But so is anti-capitalist dogma. The former dogma holds that hammers are the only tools in the world, while the latter seeks to ban hammers entirely because they may be misused. Both are very clearly wrong. The correct middle ground is understating the inevitability of hammers will persist until the last nail has been driven, but that you should not use hammers to drive screws.
I personally think this is self evident and that most reasonable people will understand this. However the extremists in both camps are unfortunately quite vocal.
I think I agree with in many cases, except that I think some anti-capitalism dogma is helpful.
Why? Because while I don’t think the answer is simple, I think many of the pillars and assumptions of capitalism make it the worst way to distribute resources and solve resource issues. Capitalism presumes everyone is going to be selfish but that they will somehow be selfless or stupid enough not to game the system enough to break it. Smith believed in the importance of regulation, but seemed as blind as the rest on how a system that presumes everyone will focus on themselves first can maintain reasonable regulations in the first place. In that sense, it has failed fairly consistently for centuries, where other systems (even some that appear capitalist to the naked eye) have done better.
Ironically, capitalism worked better when there were nobles who were half-beholden to it and some were half-beholden to other more blurry requirements, like a sense of duty to their people. I think a system that demands a little selflessness, however, has just shown to work better. Nobody’s saying we go full socialist, but putting supply and demand on top of a foundation of social programs seems more effective than putting a few social programs on top of an anarcho-capitalist wetdream.
And the answer, I think, is that we need to be somewhere a bit more distant from the middle-ground, allowing free trade only after life and health are covered. Of course, like everyone else, I don’t know everything and not everyone would agree with me.
Guy Debord captures the problem best in his The Society of the Spectacle (1967).
In theory, you could probably go against it. Problem is that the Spectacle (capitalist ideology visually manifested) is tautological and self-reinforcing. Even to critique it you have to make the critique a spectacle, which immediately undermines that very same critique (think of any YouTube video critiquing YouTube).
So no, it’s no the same. The odds are insanely stacked up in favor of keeping the structure in place—unlike breaking away from said belief in the divinity of kings.
deleted by creator
I love how LeGuin can take concepts and make them as real as capitalism (The Dispossessed, The Word for World is Forest). Is there any modern speculative authors doing this?
China Miéville
I tried City and the City but struggled with it. Will try another one! Thank you.
Embassytown is my favorite but the whole Perdido Street Station trilogy (?) is much lighter/more plot oriented than city and the city.
Cory Doctorow. He covers some stuff like this in his books. I just read “Rapture of the nerds” and am currently reading “walkaway”, both are pretty good.
“Cory” 😉 His name is Cory Doctorow.
Thank you, fixed it.
Last thing i read from Cory was “little brother,” a YA book about democratically opposing totalitarian regimes. I was a bit out of the target market, but it read well and was actually a real guide about how to do the above. Basically a techno anarchist cookbook embedded in a novel.
LeGuin also wrote Earthsea, which was later labeled as YA, but IIRC she felt that was bizarre. It’s not like she wrote it for YA. And as far as high fantasy, it is some of the best out there, in my opinion.
I generally prefer the term “light novel” to “YA”. It seems to capture the target audiences more accurately.
It was also very much a specific moment in time, where it was possible to be optimistic that the Web 2.0 explosion of decentralized access to tools for users self-publishing and distributing content to millions of readers/consumers would democratize the exchange of ideas.
And then, over the decade and a half since, the old gatekeepers were replaced with new gatekeepers, where the wild west of the unrestricted web turned into a cesspool of spam/scams and clickbait, and people organized into walled gardens controlled by corporate interests. The internet as a whole is still somewhat decentralized, but it’s getting harder and harder to meaningfully participate in public dialogue without first pledging fealty (that is, signing away rights in some Terms of Service) to some digital lord in this new feudal landscape.
That’s also to say nothing of the power of corporate or governmental forces to influence the discussion on those platforms, through old and new propaganda techniques that leverage existing social and technical feedback loops.
Gary Doctorow
Cory, right? I was an avid Boing Boing reader back in the day, but I thought Little Brother was YA and that ain’t my genre so hadn’t been paying attention! Will go pick up some of his work.
Coming back to this two months later. Really disagree with the comparison after reading Walkaway. It was more Ayn Rand in style than Le Guin. The characters were mouth pieces for ideologies, the story was half baked at best, and a lot of the nuance is entirely lost to “but look, they’re the bad guys and it went wrong for them!”
Not sure I’ll try again. Thanks for the recommendation, but my search continues!
OK, how?
Refuse to buy things? Live in a cardboard box?
Supply and demand. Either reduce the demand or increase the supply and costs go down. Now target the things people need to survive and the cost to exist goes down.
Then they downsize workers and further erode merchantability while jacking up prices. Capitalism is a race to the bottom, and those at the top have made sure they will literally be the last to fall. You want to get a billionaire to sell their 4th yacht, it’ll only cost us a million people going hungry.
There are ways out of capitalism, but the only fast ones are violent and worse than capitalism themselves. We should be working on moving towards incorruptable governance and social expansion. It happens in slow steps. The millionaire tax in MA managed one of those steps recently, despite some pretty dramatic opposition by the ultrawealthy.
That’s just capitalism though???
Yes, but then keep going. More supply! MORE! There is no demand, demand is gone! We literally cannot give it all away, no one wants it, there is no market!
Imagine if we produced so much food that everything was free. Imagine if all the water you ever wanted was clean and free! Imagine if housing was so abundant people could move around freely.
What would keep you in one place? Why not travel the world knowing that anywhere with people has the basics to live. Travel, see the sights, meet the people, never stress about needing to work just to keep existing.
Now you’re free to work on what you want. Create things. Create art, tell stories, cook interesting new dishes. Visit friends, be there for your family, raise your kids. Do all the things that you don’t because you need to work just to live.
I mean that’s fairytale land but yea that would be good.
Unfortunately in the real world there is limited resources and labour. So there is a real cost to things and things can’t be produced for free in unlimited supply.
Realistically? Only successful and subsequent revolutions will resolve anything.
Absolute monarchy and feudalism ended after the bourgeoisie revolutions of the 17th and 18th century. Only after then.
Organizing politically.
While private ownership of production is in place, there’s no amount of boycott we could reasonably do too make changes. As you’ve noted, it would end up starving people and making them homeless.
On the lowest effort end. Using the power we currently have; we should vote for the least fascist of the two party members. This will not save us, but it will slow the decay and give time to others who are more actively working to solve the problem.
People with more time and effort, should organize. Push for getting rid of the first past the post voting systems and replacing them with less broken voting systems. Try to create leftist candidates and get them elected locally. Spread leftist ideology to public.
Any politician that thinks we shouldn’t be allowed tools of our own ought to be ridiculed until they go away for good.
Start with unions. That’s the only way workers get power.
I’m aware my point of view is not very popular, but in my country unions have been well-established since I don’t know how long ago, and they’ve become as corrupt (if not more) than political parties… full-time union representatives here are nothing other than people who pretend to be leftist but actually have a very capitalistic way of life behind close doors… at least here, that ain’t gonna fix the capitalism problem
Probably because you’re in a union in a capitalist society. Unions are lacking when missing a leftist ideology. Unions are a hold over for the working class and should be used as a stepping stone in society until an economy of worker co-ops are created.
That’s a really good point, thanks
Seize the means of production!
Paraphrasing and bastardizing Gödel, all sufficiently complex systems are either inconsistent or incomplete. Gödel used recursion to reveal an inconsistency within typographical number theory. Programmatic restrictions on what one can do within a system (jails and sandboxes) can generally be escaped by finding and using a reference to the parent system.
Capitalism is a system. All systems can be broken if one chooses to do so. There’s even a generic formula for doing so.
Ok, what mechanism within capitalism traps us within it? None, the mechanism isn’t defined within capitalism. But we know that there is something trapping us. What about the parent system? The parent system in most capitalist countries is liberalism (enforced by state violence). It is the police of the liberal state who harass or kill you if you refuse to engage, or who otherwise enforce your starvation. It’s actually the state that forces you to use money by collecting taxes.
So there’s the issue. If you can figure out how to make something that fulfills the functions that you need from those within capitalism and the state, but do so without paying taxes then you can functionally escape capitalism. Ok, within liberalism there is an institution that operates similarly to the state (it collects taxes and provides services with those taxes), but does so without itself paying taxes: the church.
If you want to escape capitalism, start a religion.
New copy pasta
Step 1: Think of a viable alternative.
No-one has yet achieved step 1, which makes subsequent steps harder. It’s easy to get your hands on people who will answer with magical thinking, but a system that will actually work and isn’t capitalism has yet to be invented.
Democratic socialism is definitely a viable alternative. Even capitalism with a strong safety net vis a vis Nordic countries is better.
I live in Sweden. Sweden is not a socialist country. It’s a hard regulated capitalist country with social safety net paid for by taxes.
I don’t understand why people keep saying that the nordic countries are socialist countries just because of the tax funded welfare. The taxes comes from hard working people, be it owners of businesses or employees.
I literally said capitalist with a strong safety net.
You are right, I misread. My point is still valid, though. Many refer to the nordic countries as socialist but they are not.
And yet, still better than what USA has.
Much better, I’d say.
Capitalism with a strong safety net sounds like you’re avoiding the question. The question is how to replace capitalism, not how to improve it.
How are you defining democratic socialism? Usually when I ask people to define socialism they answer with capitalism with extra undefined steps whereby the set of employees of a business is legally forced to be equal to that business’s set of owners. I’m not familiar with “democratic” as a modifier to the term, though.
The right answer is most likely a mixed system, so will most likely include some form of capitalism.
Wikipedia describes what I mean pretty well.
The article you linked has at least 3 different kinds of socialism that satisfy “democratic” socialism:
Democratic socialists have promoted various different models of socialism and economics, ranging from market socialism, where socially owned enterprises operate in competitive markets and are self-managed by their workforce, to non-market participatory socialism based on decentralised economic planning.[127] Democratic socialism can also be committed to a decentralised form of economic planning where productive units are integrated into a single organisation and organised based on self-management.[22]
What definition do you mean by it?
RIP. She wrote the best dragons
This is a nice idea. But, it’s an oversimplification. To replace capitalism, we’d need to replace it with something more powerful.
Kings were overpowered by the merchant. If we want to overcome capitalism, something new must overpower the merchant.
The people.
The working class should control the economy democratically. It’s called socialism.
What does removing the king look like in our deeply ingrained, hyper capitalist society?
Get rid of billionaires first as they are the #1 problem. Then go step by step.
The French did it before, so we can do the same
I feel like we have a lot more obstacles in our way than the French did during their revolution. Most notably heavily armed militaries, inscrutable governmental ties with wealthy elites, and a large fraction of the population conditioned into thinking that our current system is infallible.
We all going to die eventually. Give my life meaning, I dare you.
It was the same when most of Europe’s monarchies were dethroned. Heavily armed militaries were there, it was the time of the Great War after all. Inscrutable government ties? Half the monarchs were cousins, the ruling class was essentially one family. A large fraction of our population thinking that the system is infallible? Divine right of kings, everyone was religious as hell, and you literally had your church in your ID cards.
The system still rolled over when millions of armed men came home from the war, their friends brutally killed for four years, their country which they were taught to sacrifice for debased, themselves having lived in a trench for four years.
The thing is, systems where the few accumulate ever more resources by taking it from the many is not sustainable. Of course, it seems we’ll give up democracy before giving up capitalism. The thing is, democratic traditions are the difference between what happened to the Windsors and the Romanovs when the inevitable change comes. It also is the difference between the experience of the common man living in England vs Russia.
The French did it before, so we can do the same
And pray tell what happened consequently, good sir?
They had their cake, and ate it too!
Diminishing the central state to its most minimal form: judicial system, police and military. Everything else should be based on freedom.
Guillotine the state! I wouldn’t say absolute no to some semi-accidental deaths of business leaders who grossly abused the state via lobbying etc while doing this transition, frankly. But not primarily because they’re billionaires or capitalist, rather because they’re scumbags.
(It’s possible that all current billionaires became billionaires because of abusing government lobbying, but I don’t know)
Nothing makes me feel better about the hopelessness in America more than platitudes. (/s)
The fact here is that most people are paying triple for groceries, 30-50% more for their rent, and have to work multiple jobs to survive. They’re not going to care that Trump or DeSantis are fascists. They’re going to care that Trump or DeSantis aren’t Biden.
Good may come of it, but not without a ton of carnage in the interim.
This isn’t a platitude.
This is the eternal cicle of social democracy. Not good enough, riches getting richer and poor pooring, inevitable the fascism should arrive to give an answer that is not related with the ruling class, but an external agent.
I track my groceries very closely and I am paying about 9% more than last year.
deleted by creator
“We think that markets are by far the best way of organising most human affairs that involve scarce resources, because they align people’s incentives in ways that communicate where resources can be be used most efficiently, and give people reasons to come up with new ways of using existing resources.”
If there exists another system that can do this more efficiently, it hasn’t been discovered yet.
This is such a bullshit take. Look at the current system where we use precious resources to build dumb IoT devices. This is not efficient at all.
Tell me how shipping fruits from China to North America is more efficient than growing food locally and buying locally.
The only thing capitalism is efficient at is making more capital when you already have capital.
Nothing more. This is a scam that people gobble up.
“Tell me how shipping fruits from China to North America is more efficient than growing food locally and buying locally.”
I like how this sentence shows you fundamentally don’t understand how efficient shipping is. I’m not sure where you live, but where I live is some of the most economically productive land in the entire world. Wasting it to build a few pounds of a single fruit which can be grown somewhere else would be wildly inefficient.
“Look at the current system where we use precious resources to build dumb IoT devices”
Ah yes, a seller providing something people want. Classic case of inefficiency /eyeroll
Tell me how taking a fleet of truck, a shipping container, then another fleet of trucks is more efficient than a farmer’s market or a vertical farm right next to the market resources wise?
A seller providing an electronic device that cannot be repaired, rendering it an e-waste is an efficient use of resources?
Stop licking the capitalism boot, it is far from an efficient way to use the resources, unless that resource is capital.
deleted by creator
Tell me how taking a fleet of truck, a shipping container, then another fleet of trucks is more efficient than a farmer’s market or a vertical farm right next to the market resources wise?
That’s the cool thing, we live in a system where if vertical farming is more efficient, then it wins. We want a system like that.
That’s the cool thing, we don’t. As I said many times, the only efficiency in capitalism is to make more capital. Resources are only being used to generate more capital, they aren’t used efficiently.
So again, tell me how shipping food across oceans is more efficient than growing food locally.
My guess is that you will offer another platitude to bootlick capitalism as this beacon of efficiency. It is not.
If vertical farming was more efficient then it would be cheaper.
Heres to hoping it is cheaper. Cheaper food is always a good thing.
I’d doubt it is cheaper where I live. Land, labor, electricity and water are all expensive, and we have high taxes for the services provided to us. Where I live is extremely economically productive. I’d doubt growing a few pounds of fruits could compete with producing high value services.
Other places are so efficient at growing fruit, free sunlight, free rainfall, land is plentiful and cheap, labor is cheap, and shipping is so efficient that it’s better to just ship to us.
This is just saying that capitalism is the best because it behaves like capitalism.
Not really. Markets are great at rewarding clever improvements. Other systems are not great at that.
Can you quantify that statement in any way?
“they align people’s incentives in ways that communicate where resources can be be used most efficiently, and give people reasons to come up with new ways of using existing resources.”
Spoiler: he can’t
Well it took America proving democracy works and WW1 to topple a couple of monarchies.
Ah yes, America, the first successful democratic nation Give me a break
It’s not even a democracy, much less the first successful one
We need WW3 and the Bell Riots to topple capitalism.
Democratic republics existed before America mate
Also, the glaring racial inequities of America were ridiculed by contemporaries, even anti-monarchists across the world.
Capitalism is imo so hard to remove because it’s a system that evolved out of our base biological nature. It’s a system very close to what’s “natural” if we didn’t have much education or philosophy.
We have the possibility to think about better systems and ways to inhibit our base nature, but that requires effort and a willingness to do that. I think capitalism is what comes out if you don’t do this.
I notice in myself all the time the impulses that fuel capitalism. To acquire more resources. To better my status. To be selfish at the expense of others. I have to work actively against them to live my life in a way that I think is right, and I still fuck up often. Unless everyone understands this and does the same, this system will stay.
Umm, no it’s not “natural”. I mean sure hoarding is natural, but so is taking care of each other. Disciplining or expelling greedy fucks is also natural.
The stock market is completely un-natural in almost every thinkable way.
You might’ve noticed I put natural in quotes, meaning I don’t actually think it’s a natural system in itself. The only thing I said is that it evolved out of our nature. I explained what I meant here.
I didn’t notice, should read better.
It’s fine, I could have been clearer, and probably shouldn’t even have engaged in writing a comment here.
I don’t understand anything you said, sorry.
Well, it has a lot to do with “conservative” (fascist) dogwhistles and the culture of faux-rationalism they’ve built around people like Jordan Peterson as he preaches a sociopathic doctrine of bootlicking and heirarchy worship but there’s a whole ecosystem to unpack there so I’ll just leave this short video by Cody Johnston instead, because I think he does the best job of laying out the case in an easy to digest way overall:
Yea, i don’t care about that.
Bro what the fuck are you talking about
The OP parroted Peterson’s manifesto that “capitalism is the natural heirarchy.”
You really should be more aware of these things if you’re going to join the commie instance, it’s actually embarrassing for you to not recognize it immediately.
I’ve literally never read/seen anything by Jordan Peterson.
Maybe we need to start with the definition. What do you think of capitalism is? Do you understand that it’s completely different from commerce?
I don’t think it’s natural to believe that someone should sit around at home while other people make a lot of money for them. If you ask me, if you asked small children even, we would all say it’s just ridiculously unfair. If you want your money, go out and work for it.
If you’d ask small children, they’d say that mum and dad should make a lot of money for them :D
Jokes aside, what I meant was that it’s in our nature to be selfish at the expense of others. Of course it’s also in our nature to be cooperative, but this also only because it was actually personally beneficial to us.
Obviously, capitalism is not natural in the sense that that’s what would happen if you’d start over now. Of course it’s in total a completely arbitrary system with very weird and specific rules and mechanics that’re only there by chance and would never exist again if you’d start humanity over in a slightly different situation.
I only said that it’s what evolved out of our nature - i.e. the complete selfishness we inherently have.
Even our altruism is selfish, because cooperation is often better at acquiring resources than acting alone. (And for propagating genetic material, it makes sense to view your children as 50% of “you”, and so on with other relatives.)
And if capitalism isn’t completely selfish, idk what else is.
Capitalism is imo so hard to remove because it’s a system that evolved out of our base biological nature. It’s a system very close to what’s “natural” if we didn’t have much education or philosophy.
“Natural” would be that the alpha male gets what you have or if you disagree he kills you. Capitalism is a system of financing prospects by selling future profits. It requires a society to uphold private property rights. These systems are about as far from each other than can be.
Also if we look at the time periods before free markets arrived properly, the world was littered with centralized states, in which markets were dictated by kings, emperors and other royalties instead of letting them be – in pretty much the same way as that main competitor to capitalism tried to do in the 1900s. That’s also pretty far from a free market capitalist system, and you could say that those systems arose “naturally” from the base biological alpha male concept.
I explained here what I meant.
As a separate point though, private property is imo also very natural, very many animals have a sense of what is “theirs” and defend it as such.
deleted by creator
