Capitalism: Is It Utopian?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
So why do you have such a dim view of human nature and the world in general? [/quote]

Most teachers, professors and researchers do. They might not be so forthcoming about it, but they do.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Have you ever heard of a book entitled “The Tao of Pooh?” It’ll cheer you up a little, I’d think.[/quote]

Actually I read it many moons ago and although it is interesting, I feel the Taoism is just too blatantly anti-scientific to have any emotional effect on me… :slight_smile:

[NOTE: I really mean ANTI-scientific, not UN-scientific. The difference is that while many philosophies are UNscientific, Taoism is actually ANTI-science, i.e., Tao says that the pursuit of truth through science is a Bad Thing™]

42

[quote]Vegita wrote:
I once wanted to change the world also, However, based on my limited experience, very few people who you go to with ideas, will actually realize them and make a change based upon them. Humans are very defensive in nature, and they are very wary of being sold something they don’t want. If you try to sell an idea as better or the best, MOST people will dismiss it on that fact alone, and the idea itself will never even leave an imprint in thier minds. [/quote]

I agree. And when with my students, I simply cannot sell them any idea as better or best – that would be unethical. The language and style and tone I use in class is completely different from my postings here, of course – I MUST keep my opinions to myself, and “simply” expose the students to research results. And, trust me, there’s arrogance-a-plenty here at Stanford. So I can say I use your “T-Nation-style” of teaching.

Having said that, the way you’ve put things made me think that if I want to influence people on this forum maybe I should use the same approach I’ve used with my students. That’s definitely very interesting, and I’ll definitely give it some more thought…

43

Well thats at least how I try to influence people, I post a bunch of pictures of hot women that they can never have and it makes them want them even more. Whats my point you ask? I really had none.

Anyways, so your a prof at stanford? Any chance you can get me in for free there? :wink: Well only if you have a physical therapy program and of course your school would have to meet some of my other criteria. You may even be able to sell it as a golf scholarship too. I know your golf program is very good, so all in all it might just work out. I’m glad you mentioned it, Let me know how it goes with the dean. :wink:

V

44

[Begin Hijack]

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Anyways, so your a prof at stanford? Any chance you can get me in for free there? :wink: Well only if you have a physical therapy program and of course your school would have to meet some of my other criteria. You may even be able to sell it as a golf scholarship too. I know your golf program is very good, so all in all it might just work out. I’m glad you mentioned it, Let me know how it goes with the dean. ;)[/quote]

Well, no physical therapy program exists at Stanford, and in regards to the “other criteria”, well, Northern California girls are notoriously ugly. :slight_smile:

I remember visting NY when I was a teenager and being flabbergasted at how much hotter and smarter women are over there compared to NCal; my standards were immediately elevated. From then on, NCal women just all seemed so shallow and unattractive. Then I went to Brazil and now, well, somehow NY women just didn’t seem all that hot…

(so it’s no surprise I ended up marrying a Brazilian)

So, if you’re looking for an affordable college with lots of “other criteria”, both Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro have some pretty nice physical therapy programs. In more ways than one. :slight_smile: And the cost of living there has to be seen to be believed (you can easily go to college there and live a pretty comfortable life for less than $5,000 A YEAR).

[End Hijack]

45

[quote]nopal_juventus wrote:
I’m looking at it from a worldwide perspective, not just a national one. It’s not like I like a totalitarian regime, it’s that fact that I think there’s no other way.[/quote]

Read my earlier post, as boring as it may be. The ideal of totalitarian or autocratic rule only works when you have very wise rulers who are able to discern beyond the here and now and have knowledge of the whole. Plato does a very good job of showing why this is unlikely to occur; people will never select philosophers to rule.

46

Totalitarian state systems lack legitimacy, so they can’t work. Its probably not the system to favour, wherever you’re from.

47

[quote]nephorm wrote:
nopal_juventus wrote:
I’m looking at it from a worldwide perspective, not just a national one. It’s not like I like a totalitarian regime, it’s that fact that I think there’s no other way.

Read my earlier post, as boring as it may be. The ideal of totalitarian or autocratic rule only works when you have very wise rulers who are able to discern beyond the here and now and have knowledge of the whole. Plato does a very good job of showing why this is unlikely to occur; people will never select philosophers to rule.[/quote]

If people ‘selected’ philosphers to rule then it would be a democracy surely? And if the philosphers turned to tyranny they’d have shown themselves to be a poor choice. Equally the idea of ‘ruling’ implies social stratification and thus lack of equality, just as socialism elevates the intelligentsia (as I said in a previous post) it would be the same situation with the ‘autocratic philospher’!

48

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
nopal_juventus wrote:
Maybe I favor a more totalitarian socialist system because I’m the only one so far (I think) that didn’t grow up (or isn’t growing up, I’m only 16) in a first world nation. It’s incredibly common for communist leaders ?la Che Guevara to pop up in third-world nations, especially in Latin America. …

Never be tempted to give up your freedoms. People like Che Guevara may have started with good intentions to take care of the people, but that is impossible. They just end up taking care of themselves. They just try to hang onto power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

All government will have corruption. A totalitarian regime will be totally corrupt.

Capitalism allows people to take care of themselves. When big business is exploiting the workers the workers must be free to unionize, but they must not get too greedy as many American unions have done.

Communism has been popular in the third world because people see it as a change and they think any change must be good. It is not.

I have friends that escaped from Poland and East Germany before the wall fell. They are some of the brightest people I know and they hate commiunism with a passion.

You are young. Study and learn. Coming from a poor system like you have in Mexico you must not let envy for the freedoms and riches in America cloud your thinking. America does not cause Mexico’s problems. Mexico does. [/quote]

Che didn’t really get corrupted though, he got killed by the CIA. Maybe Fidel Castro might be a better example, although he wasn’t so much corrupted as confronted with the harsh reality that Communism can not provide the consumer society a capitalist system can.

49

[quote]hspder wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Have you ever heard of a book entitled “The Tao of Pooh?” It’ll cheer you up a little, I’d think.

Actually I read it many moons ago and although it is interesting, I feel the Taoism is just too blatantly anti-scientific to have any emotional effect on me… :slight_smile:

[NOTE: I really mean ANTI-scientific, not UN-scientific. The difference is that while many philosophies are UNscientific, Taoism is actually ANTI-science, i.e., Tao says that the pursuit of truth through science is a Bad Thing™][/quote]

HAHA! The pursuit of truth as a MEANING to things is unexplainable by science. Science just describes stuff. It can’t give any meaning to anything. There’s nothing wrong with that. You are left to divine whatever meaning to things that you want. Taoism isn’t so bad.

I basically mentioned that book because it goes into why you shouldn’t taste the porridge of life and have it be bitter or sour. A Taoist will taste that same porridge and smile.

Smiling is my favorite. See? :slight_smile:

50

“You are young. Study and learn. Coming from a poor system like you have in Mexico you must not let envy for the freedoms and riches in America cloud your thinking. America does not cause Mexico’s problems. Mexico does.”

Granted, we haven’t helped ourselves very well (see Santa Ana and Diaz), but to say that the U.S. (and some western european nations) hasn’t had a tremendous impact on our development is ignorant. Your point is valid though. I doubt anyone would believe me if I said that Mexicans didn’t feel resentment towards the U.S.

Hspder, I’ve seen both, and I actually felt moved by the Matrix Trilogy. It’s probably my second favorite trilogy of all time, after the LOTR (even though it sounds geeky, “you shall not pass” is immortal), and one of the main reasons why I still hope there’s a better way. I’ve also seen equilibrium (though the movie’s bile), read 1984, and come in contact with countless other anti-totalitarian books and movies (One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest). I also agree that choice is probably one of (if not the) most human things about us. That’s why it saddens me to believe that it’s necesarry to remove that to eliminate suffering. I dunno, I keep changing sides on the matter, and I’m only 16. Maybe in a couple of years I’ll have another revelation and know better.

51

[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
If people ‘selected’ philosphers to rule then it would be a democracy surely? And if the philosphers turned to tyranny they’d have shown themselves to be a poor choice. Equally the idea of ‘ruling’ implies social stratification and thus lack of equality, just as socialism elevates the intelligentsia (as I said in a previous post) it would be the same situation with the ‘autocratic philospher’![/quote]

No. A people can choose a king, a despot, an aristocracy, etc. That does not mean democracy. Democracy is rule by the people. What you’re referring to is the formation of a social contract, which may be made for any form of government.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘tyranny.’ Do you mean usurping power? Or are you referring to despotism? I never indicated the philosophers would resort to either, so I’m unsure of your objection.

As far as equality goes, you must first demonstrate that equality truly is preferable to just, wise rule. As I said, Plato presented the first rigorous account of communism. Equality is a crutch; it’s what we use because we don’t have anything better. A wise ruler would look at a large boy with a small coat, and a small boy with a large coat, and see that the best solution is for them to exchange garments.

Without rehashing what I said earlier, the problem is that despots aren’t wise. Despots rule exactly, but capriciously, without regard for the just or the good; they rule for their own benefit. To safeguard ourselves from unwise rulers, we rely on laws. But laws are clumsy; what we gain in fairness we lose in exactness. The despot might make the aforementioned boys exchange coats, or he might take them for his own. Laws, on the other hand, will say that each one’s own is his own; it cannot distinguish. To the degree that we allow it to distinguish, we only enable others to judge those cases, and therefore we succumb once again to despotism.

But once again, the philosopher loves the good, and loves wisdom (sophos). “Social stratification” is a poor term because it implies “haves and have nots.” It implies that there is a palace and gold plates for the rulers, and squalid sheds for the farmers. Instead, the philosophers are philosophers precisely because they love wisdom, and not material things.

52

[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
Totalitarian state systems lack legitimacy, so they can’t work. Its probably not the system to favour, wherever you’re from.[/quote]

Define legitimacy. Is not the most just rule the most legitimate? Is a fifty-one percent majority vote to have you executed legitimate simply because it is democratic?

53

Good thoughts nephorm. But don’t you think that we hit a snag when there is a difference of opinion as to what is just?

54

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Good thoughts nephorm. But don’t you think that we hit a snag when there is a difference of opinion as to what is just?[/quote]

In Socrates’ best city, there is no difference of opinion regarding justice, as the city itself is the model of justice: each part minds its own business.
Of course, that makes necessary not only myth and education, but also rhetoric; the people cannot be expected to understand the Philosophers’ decisions, but rhetoric makes those decisions accessible and reasonable to opinion (doxa) and speech (logos).

There aren’t be many things to upset the citizens anyway… every citizen has what he needs and no more; he has no family, and thus no interests independent of the polis.

55

[quote]nopal_juventus wrote:
I also agree that choice is probably one of (if not the) most human things about us. That’s why it saddens me to believe that it’s necesarry to remove that to eliminate suffering. I dunno, I keep changing sides on the matter, and I’m only 16. Maybe in a couple of years I’ll have another revelation and know better.[/quote]

As I mentioned before, I understand your frustration. I understand that you really want to belive there is some better way, a way to reduce the pain you see every day.

Also, I’ll admit that I believe that in many occasions there is a certain peace in not having a choice.

I also believe that many people think they have choices (and freedom) but it’s only an illusion – they really don’t.

However, knowing – for a fact, without illusion – that your ability to choose is removed from you altogether in critical parts of your life creates some of the most pervasive suffering. If it didn’t, going to jail wouldn’t be seen as punishment (for most people, at least).

So, isn’t it a bit contradictory to believe that taking away choice will remove suffering? It might relieve other forms of suffering (as I said, having no choice does bring some peace sometimes), however, the suffering it adds is inevitably worse.

56

Ah, capitalism and socialism. It is best to view these two subjects more as a range instead of just one or the other.

The real argument is to what point do we increase or reduce socialism, and increase or reduce capitalism. Truly to go to either extreme is not beneficial. Socialism just does not work, but on the other end you cannot have capitalism without rules.

First (and I have said this before) capitalism works because it is the most similar to nature. Survival of the fittest. If you have a few companies competing, and one is screwing the customer left and right, they will not be in business very long. Also if a company is selling crap compared to the other companies, they will fail.

It does not sound very nice, but the weakest of the heard will be picked off. Just realize that you are the predator.

The biggest problem with capitalism is actually ignorance. I hear people tell me over and over that you only get ahead by screwing people. That if you are successful, it is because you steal, or are crooked in some way. But not one of these people is successful. They are all either looking for somebody to blame for them not being successful, or are justifying their own lack of integrity.

Interestingly when I hear about the successful business people being interviewed, the term integrity comes up quite a bit. I just heard Dave Ramsey on the radio talking about this subject. (I caught the middle of his discussion, so I don’t know where he got the information.) This is not the first time I have heard this.

A great misconception about business people is when you listen to the news, and hear stories such as Enron. But you never hear the good stories, only the bad. Also these stories are of these people getting in trouble, which should be further proof that it is harder to succeed if you have no integrity.

Also capitalism works best with intelligence. In other words if you do stupid shit, you will probably fail. Luck will only carry you so far.

As far as studies showing how people in other countries are all happy wonderful people, while Americans are loathsome angry bitter people, I call foul. It is very hard to gauge a subject like happiness. And when it comes to comparing people from one country to another, politics comes into play too easily.

An example are comparing American school intelligence to other countries. Our country takes the whole of the school population, while many other countries only take their brightest students. Many countries do not want negative information coming out about their people.

In these countries there can be people who think that their answers to a question will be taken to the government, and they don’t want that.

Then there is the problem of how people feel when they are being questioned. Say they were asked on last Friday. You know, April 15th? There were a lot of unhappy people then.

Now you might have noticed that I didn’t use the word communism. The actual truth is that there has never been a true communist state. Socialism was actually only supposed to be a way for the people to hold everything in place to turn into the magic utopia of communism. The government is actually supposed to magically dissolve into nothingness, while everything suddenly works perfectly.

I don’t know if I fully defined it properly, but seems like a weak fantasy.

57

[quote]hspder wrote:
I also believe that many people think they have choices (and freedom) but it’s only an illusion – they really don’t.
[/quote]

Can you please explain this further? Are you saying that capitalists are really just simpletons fooled into thinking they have a choice, but are really just puppets on a string? Whose string are they dangleing from?

What is the reality behind this illusion, and who is the perpetrator of this magic trick?

58

Maybe I can add something. I am a business owner near NYC. I’ve been reading a lot of theory here but little practice. I strongly believe in the capitalism in this country because it can lead to the fulfillment of the “American Dream”; which usually includes a home, getting good education, and peace of mind for your family’s future, and anyone can achieve it.

Successful businesses are started by people who are passionate about what they do. I knew I was doing the right thing when I realized I would do it everyday for free. I didn’t see it as a way to great wealth, the vast majority of profits gets re-invested in the company, but don’t get me wrong-- I deserve to be paid for what I do. Greed is something in us, not a product of the system.

Creating a business is like giving birth and raising a child. It is a separate, legal entity (which even has a tax number, like a social security number) and needs to be feed, supported, and taught. The growth and well being of an economy is dependant on the growth of businesses. As my business grows, I hire more employees. The unemployment rate goes down, people are able to provide for their families and secure a future. And yes, it should be competitive.

Competition can bring out the best in us. Look at any sport, including body building. Someone, some team is clearly better than the others, and we rightfully reward that. It continually raises the bar. People should be rewarded differently for their level of contribution to success, and there is nothing wrong with that. “Screwing” someone by cheating, or cooking the books, or not paying your employees what they are worth is not razing the bar, hurts business, and is not good capitalism. I say hate the player, not the game.

I read things here like capitalism in its “pure form” is this or that. Its pure form only exists in a text book. You can read about a perfect human in a text book, but that does not exist in the real world. Business owners, no matter the size of the business, have an ethical choice in how that business is run. Government makes it easier for businesses to be more ethical by giving tax breaks. This way I can grow my business faster and easier, and I am able to donate to charities or create a non-profit division of my company to provide relief to the needy, or research grants, or even tuition assistance.

Businesses fulfill a need that the business owners see as lacking in a market place. That need will come from the people. The price is not only dependant on what the market can bare, but also how much it cost to make (which includes labor, parts, and services) and what profit can be made to insure that more of the product can be made. It’s not about gouging customers. It’s about creating a profit for growth, which means everyone benefits.

59

[quote]rainjack wrote:
hspder wrote:
I also believe that many people think they have choices (and freedom) but it’s only an illusion – they really don’t.

Can you please explain this further? Are you saying that capitalists are really just simpletons fooled into thinking they have a choice, but are really just puppets on a string? Whose string are they dangleing from?

What is the reality behind this illusion, and who is the perpetrator of this magic trick?[/quote]

I don’t know what made you think the comment was specific to capitalism and/or to any specific style of government; it wasn’t.

It happens to people anytime, anywhere, to anyone, under any regime.

It’s not necessarily about people being puppets; usually people are deluding themselves.

Yes, we had and have cases of governments, companies, institutions or groups of people inducing mass brainwashing. That’s, after all, part of the essential definition of far left or far right. So any group of people in the far left or right will try to transform everyone around them into puppets, yes.

But most of the time it’s people deluding themselves. Because they want to. And they’re all not simpletons. It’s just human nature – even very intelligent, successful people can delude themselves into thinking they have choices because it makes them feel more “in control”.

And you know what? Many times, it’s even a Good Thing™. Much like faith. Which, by the way, sometimes intersects with Choice, because in some cases our Choices reveal our True Faith (even though, theoretically, it should be the opposite).

Yes, Faith should, in theory, take away the process of choice from us (can I really choose to commit adultery knowing I can face eternal damnation if I do?) – and bring peace through it. But it really doesn’t, does it?

This duality is fascinating, and that was what I was talking about.

I can give you examples of illusion of choice if you want me to – however I believe that if you, for a moment, move away from thinking my belief is an attack on capitalism (it’s not – it’s just about human nature, and one of the fundaments of Game Theory) you’ll quickly understand what I mean.

60

Interesting point around choice.

It also ties into conformity. as “individuals”, we think we dont conform, say by waring outlandish clothes. but in this way, slot into another range of conformity.

How we make decisions, where and when, why we pick up coke rather than pepsi “cos the taste is better”, right-o. All of these apparent choices are influenced without our awarness.

Have you heard of a guy called Derren Brown? Google him, and if you can see him on TV, its amazing. He utilizes such tricks that are used by adertisers, tarot readers, “psychics” to trick, manipulate and somewhat disprove some of the paranormal phenomena (talking to dead, sceance etc>). All done in a magician stylee.