Alternative to Greed

[Comrade Corwin]

I am strongly drawn to the Communist/Socialist ideology because of its values of cooperation, moderation an efficiency. Sometimes I'm pulled into the false reality of an idealist, just so I can have a few unhaunted happy days. Eventually, however, you have to come back to reality and except the fact the people will not all do something because it is right, the masses wont listen to you because you have made good decisions so far and no one wants to fight when it is easier for the others to fight hard for you to fix their problems, espeically in the culture of the United States of America.

Now, I recently came to the conclusion that all current forms of imposed socialism, communism or anarchy are foolish. The ideals are amazing and should be worked towards, but all our ideologies are being ruined by one factor: greed. Greed is inherent in all human beings and located in the pleasure center of the brain. Only a few hundred monks in Asia have found a way of ridding themselves completely of the green monster. True socialism always leads to big "father knows best" government, rebellion and eventually violent imposing of law. Communism and anarchy ask that people put down everything and simply start loving eachother like a massive hippie commune, which will not happen and even if it did all it would take is on person to say they wanted more and gangs and fascist governments would sprout around everywhere, sending us right back where we come from.

I do have, however one solution that I can think of. I call it the "morphine of the masses". This is where you give the people something that scientifically and psychologically fulfill the needs of the pleasure center of the brain that eliminates the need for greed. If the people can't have greed what can you offer them instead, and don't say "love, peace and happiness" because no one has bought that for centuaries. An alternative, inject society twice a day with this one thing and their greed is subsided. What could it be? I haven't figured out the answer. Can anyone figure out the answer to this puzzling question that might very well save the human race?

[Hit The North]

Your pacifying drug has already been thought of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

Huxley's Brave New World was, however, not a utopia but a dystopia.

I can't really see much in this thread which is philosophical, so I'm going to move it to Learning where this can be discussed more generally.

[Hegemonicretribution]

A few points: Greed, even if inherent, does not override all other considerations and so does not confine one to act only on this disposition. Engineering a society of co-operation rather than competition also appeals to the 'greedy' because it still requires less effort. The only objectors would be those who need to take large risks, as well as fulfill greedy urges....that is I accept your argument, which I do not.

If we are inherently greedy, then we are also inherently benevolent and inherently social. Why does greed have priority over these other tendencies in influincing actions? I do not think you can establish this.

Before any of this gets off the ground however, I would lke to see a source for the claim that greed is located in the pleasure centre, and the inferences that you have drawn from it.

There are standard responses to the problem of greed, which do not require compulsory mass-druggings, but I will allow those in learning to tackle this.

Suggest move to learning?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Beat me to it, thanks Bob The Builder.

A usual account of greed invloves a basic understanding of evolution, scarcity and of the impact of an environment.

Humans are not natuarly greedy, they do not possess anything which could determine them as such. Phsyiologically and genetically humans may be said to be disposed towards certain actions in certain situations. Our genes do not contain the rules for action in the very complicated world we live in, they furnish us with tendencies that have proved successful enough to survive to this day. If the conditions which would evoke certain actions do not arise, then neither will those actions.

More specifically; say there is a 'greedy' gene. This will likely be a gene which has been useful in the past; a degree of selfishness in times of scarcity may have proven benificial to the individual for example. This does not mean that the same indivual in a circumstance of plenty would act the same. Indeed there may be a genetic tendency towards co-operation in such a situation.

Now this massively underplays the complexity involved, but illustrates my basic point. We do not know enough to establish whether or not people are simply selfish or greedy or altruistic, even observation of current society would imply a mix of both. Even our genetic dispositions are influenced by circumstances which brings me nicely on...

Society plays a massive role in determining ones actions. Indeed to survive in society you must interact with that society, not how you want it to be, or how it was, but with how it is. Thus the realities of one's situation already massively influence the potential actions available. This is why it is not apt to simply observe social reality and determine the 'nature of man' from it. To do so would neglect the role that society itself plays.

The assumption that greed is natural is a cornerstone of bourgeois ideology. So is the assumption that we are all currently greedy. This is an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophecy because the inescapable greed of individuals implies that collectives cannot work, and that we are indeed of a struggle of one against all. #Hence capitalism is justified.

It is true that such a system perpetuates greed. It justifies it as natural and makes it the drive for achievement. This further entrenches the belief that it is natural and that capitalism is right. However it neglects to account for collective societies which have functioned along very diifferent lines. In such cases there is no natural concept of ownership, little if any crime etc.. Now these are typically small and unindustrialised societies, but the point is that greed is not always prevalent, it just something that occurs more and more in industrial societies as necessary for sustaining capitalism.

All of this is unnecessary when you slay another fallacy; that of scarcity.

The reason we are greedy is because there is not enough to go around,, and therefore we want to secure enough to make sure we are OK, even at the expence of others. This would be a real problem if scarcity actually existed as a natural rather than created phenomena. The fact is that we produce enough to satisfy the needs of all, it is just that much is wasted to keep prices artificially high, or is enevenly distributed. In a situation of abundance, greed becomes far less problematic. Why take more than you consume? Why would consumption be a problem if we produce more than enough?

The only goods that may cause a problem are certain luxuries, which by their very nature are not available to all; eg mansions. Works on fetishism have some very good accounts of this, but as a brief account for such goods I offer the following: Why not share them out? This way as many people as possible can enjoy them. This seems better than the current stuation anyway which already reserves them only for a few.

[Voice_of_Reason]

I do have, however one solution that I can think of. I call it the "morphine of the masses". This is where you give the people something that scientifically and psychologically fulfill the needs of the pleasure center of the brain that eliminates the need for greed. If the people can't have greed what can you offer them instead, and don't say "love, peace and happiness" because no one has bought that for centuaries. An alternative, inject society twice a day with this one thing and their greed is subsided. What could it be? I haven't figured out the answer. Can anyone figure out the answer to this puzzling question that might very well save the human race?

So, you want to forcefully inject people with drugs? I wouldn't care if it made people invincible. You would have to kill me to stick a needle in me.


Humans are not natuarly greedy, they do not possess anything which could determine them as such. Phsyiologically and genetically humans may be said to be disposed towards certain actions in certain situations. Our genes do not contain the rules for action in the very complicated world we live in, they furnish us with tendencies that have proved successful enough to survive to this day. If the conditions which would evoke certain actions do not arise, then neither will those actions.

As for Greed this is better than my explanation would have been.

[ZeroNowhere]

Greed? I don't mind greed. Why the hell would greed prevent socialism?


Communism and anarchy ask that people put down everything and simply start loving eachother like a massive hippie commune, which will not happen and even if it did all it would take is on person to say they wanted more and gangs and fascist governments would sprout around everywhere, sending us right back where we come from.
No, that's just the primmos.

Really, the whole 'greed spoils socialism' thing is just some bollocks based on the idea that socialism is just wealth redistribution or whatever. It's not, it's the abolition of classes.


I do have, however one solution that I can think of. I call it the "morphine of the masses". This is where you give the people something that scientifically and psychologically fulfill the needs of the pleasure center of the brain that eliminates the need for greed.
Your socialism is boring as fuck.


If the people can't have greed what can you offer them instead, and don't say "love, peace and happiness" because no one has bought that for centuaries.
Heavy fucking metal.

[Invincible Summer]

I'm just wondering how the OP came to these conclusions about greed

[benhur]

The reason we are greedy is because there is not enough to go around,, and therefore we want to secure enough to make sure we are OK, even at the expence of others. This would be a real problem if scarcity actually existed as a natural rather than created phenomena. The fact is that we produce enough to satisfy the needs of all, it is just that much is wasted to keep prices artificially high, or is enevenly distributed. In a situation of abundance, greed becomes far less problematic. Why take more than you consume? Why would consumption be a problem if we produce more than enough?


There are two problems with this. First of all, even if scarcity is eliminated, there could still be the greed for power, the desire for authority, and so on. Second, certain luxury items can never be produced in abundance, and hence the greed to acquire them before my neighbor does will always be there. All this leads to conflict, abundance or no abundance.

So it's quite foolish to deny that greed isn't a problem. It most certainly is a problem, which is why in the last hundred years, every socialist revolution starts with splendid ideals....but what happens in the end? A greedy, corrupt leader ruins all the hard work done by the workers, and we're back to square one. We should be fools to ignore this.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I have to say I agree with Hegemonicretribution on this one. We live in a time of manufactured scarcity but in reality if we were to work just for the things we need then there would be a surplus of goods. I think that as a necessity another aspect of greed, power, should also be abolished. If we eliminate both scarcity and hierarchy from human life then there wil be no need to be greedy. Everyone has the same power, everyone has the same ability to take what they need. I cannot see greed being a problem in such a society.

[ZeroNowhere]

I have to say I agree with Hegemonicretribution on this one. We live in a time of manufactured scarcity but in reality if we were to work just for the things we need then there would be a surplus of goods.
Yes, but that would be pathetic. The human race could and should strive to do a hell of a lot more than just survive.


I think that as a necessity another aspect of greed, power, should also be abolished.
You make it sound like one can just get rid of 'power', whatever the fuck that means, by decree.


If we eliminate both scarcity and hierarchy from human life then there wil be no need to be greedy.
Yes, but some people still might be 'greedy', I have no issue with this.


Everyone has the same power, everyone has the same ability to take what they need. I cannot see greed being a problem in such a society.
But I thought that we were abolishing 'power'? :D
Anyways, I can't see greed being a problem, scarcity or not.

[Hegemonicretribution]

There are two problems with this. First of all, even if scarcity is eliminated, there could still be the greed for power, the desire for authority, and so on. Second, certain luxury items can never be produced in abundance, and hence the greed to acquire them before my neighbor does will always be there. All this leads to conflict, abundance or no abundance.

So it's quite foolish to deny that greed isn't a problem. It most certainly is a problem, which is why in the last hundred years, every socialist revolution starts with splendid ideals....but what happens in the end? A greedy, corrupt leader ruins all the hard work done by the workers, and we're back to square one. We should be fools to ignore this.

If you read the very next paragraph I suggested an answer to this, although I purposefully did not go into detail as this would be getting a little more technical than was perhaps required of basic responses to greed on a first reading.

The desire for many of those luxuries are accounted for in works on fetishism, as I said the problems of certain luxries are important, but this is not as basic as more general problems of greed. This can be discussed better elsewhere. The situation we currently have is that we produce these goods only for a very limitted number of people, if we take away private ownership of such luxuries then they are there for all. So whilst no one has a diamond ring, nearly everyone could have access to one...not perfect I know but I was only suggesting this. Please feel free to start a thread on luxury, I will endeavor to respond.

Yes greed for power would be a problem, that is why maintaining so much of the previous structure of hierarchy, or invoking more entrenched ones causes such a problem. Is it really a problem with greed that creates the problems with the leaders? Or is it a problem with authority itself? Wow revolutions had leaders, and the leaders were reluctant to give up power. I suppose you could expand a definition of greed to account for this....personally I choose to blame authority itself. All forms of governance first take self-preservation as their immediate task. Get rid of the leaders and then you take away the means for someone to seize control. Also I would question the slendid ideals of every socialist revolution....but I will let that pass.

ZeroNowhere


Yes, but that would be pathetic. The human race could and should strive to do a hell of a lot more than just survive.
Damn straight! It is producing a surplus that allows this. The surplus already exists, so when it is better distributed we free ourselves up to pursue so much more.


You make it sound like one can just get rid of 'power', whatever the fuck that means, by decree.
The key is overthrowing the old power structures without re-creating them. Insofar as power structures are retained they are to be retained by the proletariat, not by a figurehead individual, a vanguard, or even a party. I am sure someone will disagree with me on this though..


Anyways, I can't see greed being a problem, scarcity or not. It is a problem given scarcity, sorry if I missed it, but I would like to see how it would not be.

[ZeroNowhere]

It is a problem given scarcity, sorry if I missed it, but I would like to see how it would not be.
If there were scarcity, in, say, diamond rings, how is this supposed to undermine the entire socialist system?


The key is overthrowing the old power structures without re-creating them. Insofar as power structures are retained they are to be retained by the proletariat, not by a figurehead individual, a vanguard, or even a party. I am sure someone will disagree with me on this though.
Well, of course, we should not seek to, as Marx put it describing the positivists, "put a new hierarchy in place of the old one."

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

This same "drug" your talking about is used by capitalists to support greed.It's called commercialism.Also why do such a thing.We must not brainwash society and distract it from greed we must let them smash it with the hammer of communism."To half quote an icon of mine , Liberatory drugs won't liberate people,the people have to liberate themselves".



-Last half of quote,Che Guevara

[Hegemonicretribution]

If there were scarcity, in, say, diamond rings, how is this supposed to undermine the entire socialist system?

Sorry I did not realise that you were distinguishing between scarcity as a general concept and the scarcity of certain luxuries; you are correct such scarcity is not a problem. Many desires of this type are examples of assuming value beyond that of labour/use. If the value is considered to be aesthetic, then it is best displayed publically, and enjoyed in public.

This is more of a response to benhur's concerns rather than those raised in the OP, but as I said I will not go into detail in this thread. I think we are very much in agreement on this :thumbup1:

[Comrade Corwin]

Okay, this is not an argument of whether or not greed is a problem within society. If you wish to debate that point, there are many other discussions on that topic. This, however, was a think tank I started with the assumption (unchangeable) that greed was a serious problem within the community or simply it would make the world a better place if it could be subsided, if not eliminated.
Another assumed factor in this discussion was that greed (within the pleasure-center) could be psychologically measured and studied.
One misunderstanding that took place here is that, by my metaphorical wording, I had suggested that we medicate the populace into being selfless. That was not the case at all. If it had been, I believe I'd want to bring that topic up amongst doctors and chemist and not necessarily a forum specialized for leftist ideologists.
My question is, what can we provide for the masses that would stimulate the same centers of the brain previously attended to by what we categorize as greed, selfishness, egotistical desire, etc.? My idea was a product in the form as an activity of some sort that satisfies the populace. The answer is not honest work, because if that were true we would have had no problem what-so-ever transitioning into a pure socialist state already.
Now, I know this may require research or stabs in the dark. I am well prepared for there not to be an educated answer or any answers at all. I don't have the answer and I don't believe any prominent science teams have discovered the answers yet, so this isn't an easy question.

[MikeSC]

Working within a framework that doesn't give the opportunity to let greed supersede need would help. Lots of people say Communism won't work because of "human nature", not because it's at all true, but because it's an easy non-argument that can be made about anything.

[robbo203]

You have to start from an understanding of what communism (socialism) is in order to understand why greed is not a problem. Communuism embodies the principle "From each according to ability to each according according to need". Literally speaking that means people have free and unrestricted access to the things that they need which they appropriate without any form of payment in exchange. In other words, it means a society without money or barter. This is a logical extension from the fact that means of production are held in common. Becuase they are held in common that rules out the possibility of economic exchange or , to put it differently, any form of economic exchange e.g. wage labour, buying and selling etc, implies the absence of common ownership and therefore communism

Critics contend that this is just not feasible and people will simply take more than they need.i.e. they will behave greedily. But why? Greed is a reflex of economic scarcity and, as has been pointed out, scarcity is something that is manufactured by capitalist ideology in line with its expansionist competition-driven dynamic. We already have the means to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs. The world can produce anough food to feed everyone adequately. We can also house everyone satisfactorily. In Spain where I live there are currently 3 million empty houses - EMPTY houses!. Also, what is not often appreciated is that that MOST of the work that we do today is only necessary for operation of a capitalist economy and will completely disappear in a communist society - from bank workers to real estate salemen and a hundreds of other kinds of joibs. This will effectively more than double the work force for socially useful production in communism.

Another point. Why do people continue accumulating wealth when they already have more than enough? The answer is that status in a capitalist society correlates with financial achievement and striving for more status in capitalism means there can be no limit to the amount of wealth one should accumulate.. In a free access communist society, on the other hand, there would simply be no point whatosever in accumulating wealth to gain the esteem of your fellow human beings when everybody has free access to that wealth. The only way you can gain the esteem of your fellows is through your contribution to society

There are many other arguments that I could touch on that effectively demolish the "greedy person" objection to communism but I will leave it at that

[Comrade Corwin]

I am ending this conversation. It doesn't seem like I will be getting my answer here. Thank you all for your contributions.

[el_chavista]

It doesn't seem like I will be getting my answer here.

In the primitive communist society greed makes no sense.
Even in lower animal societies you can see examples of auto sacrifice of a member on behalf of the community.
You're confused with class societies where luxury, envy and greed are the motivation of the privileged elites.

[Comrade Corwin]

Okay, everyone, please discuss the likeliness of greed being a source of disharmony in society somewhere else. How do you close a thread? I'd really like to do that.

[Rjevan]

You cannot close a thread yourself, you have to contact a mod or admin but I don't know if they will close a thread without a good reason...

[robbo203]

Yes, but that would be pathetic. The human race could and should strive to do a hell of a lot more than just survive.


You make it sound like one can just get rid of 'power', whatever the fuck that means, by decree.


Yes, but some people still might be 'greedy', I have no issue with this.


But I thought that we were abolishing 'power'? :D
Anyways, I can't see greed being a problem, scarcity or not.

Not to sure about this. I think you need to define the terms more clearly. "Greedy" in relation to what? Material goods? knowledge? life experiences? love or what? Maslows hierarchy springs to mind and his differentiation between growth or self actualisation needs and deficiency needs. I have no problem with the argument about "greed" for self actualisation but deficiency needs is another matter

I think it was Engels who made the point somewhere that if there is scarcity then all the old filthy business of competition would start up again (or words to that effect). Greed is an emotional reflex under conditions of scarcity and here of course I am talking about a scarcity of material goods as was Engels. These concern deficiency needs. Greed is what is axiomatically assumed by conventional bourgeois economics - insatiable demand and limited supply - which is then used to justify the need for a market to efficiently allocate goods. Scarcity is built into the concept of opportunity costs- if you opt for A that means you must forego B. You cannot have both A and B. Economics is about making efficient choices (between A and B,for example) that allow you to maximise your utility, so the argument goes. It is a truism to say if I chose to go to the cinema then I cannot go iceskating or annoy the stalinists on Revleft by pointing out the state capitalist nature of the Soviet Union. However overcoming this argument presupposes a certain reasonablenesss on our part. Thus, we are not going to be unduly worried about not going iceskating for the time being or whatever while we are going to the cinema and this is in a way not behaving greedily. Accepting we cannot have everything

In a communist society of course we will all depend on each other and the recognition of this will be part of the reason why we would want to exercise a degree of self restraint - a sense of moral obligation if you like - on not just freerid at the expense of others. Such moderation in consumption will derive not only from the recognition our mutual interdependence but also of course from a recognition of the strain we put on the environment in the form of rampant consumerism. Given enough to satisfy our reasonable needs people do not behave greedily. I live outside a small spa town in southern Spain and throughout the town there are fountains of drinking water which comes from the same source as that which is bottled in a nearby factory and sold in supermarkets. But the fact that it is freely available via the town fountains and in abundance means that people adjust their behaviour accordingly . It is irrational and silly to behave "greedily" - take more than you need - when what you need will always be around to freely take.

Capitalism does indeed manufacture scarcity in all manner of ways and the greed that it encourages actually leads to atomism , narcissim and egoism - ways of thinking that hinder the development of cooperative consciousness that is the hallmark of communist thinking.

On the other hand there is the counterargument that while we live in capitalism , while we are engaged in the class struggle, there is a case for saying we should be more "greedy". The workers are far too generous towards the capitalists in allowing themselves to be source of surplus value.

The point is to differentiate between the different contexts in which we are talking about greed as well as clarifying what precisely we are being greedy over.