Countering this ridiculous argument (about the Recession)

[Hexen]

From this thread.

http://forums.white-wolf.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1179100#post1179100


The system rewards putting a service or product out that consumers want. Period. The mess we're in is the result of the state stepping in a choosing winners and losers - on both sides of the market. That you think greed isn't a symptom of the human condition is telling of your naivete. It's no wonder you completely misunderstand the free market.

Put down Noam Chomsky for three seconds and read a real book.Any counter of this?

[Iron Felix]

Am I not human because I am not selfish and greedy, then? Is my selflessness...inhuman? Such arguments don't deserve replies.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Greed is only a human condition in a system that gives no other option. See how quickly people would stop being greedy if they were given a comfortable life without any outside pressures on them. (Debt, Banks, Money)

[RedRose]

Greed is actually groomed under capitalism, because without it one cannot really prosper to any great degree. With everyone's needs covered, there would not be any need for greed because everyone would be able to live a comfortable life and prosper.

[Blake's Baby]

I've never read Chomsky.

[Ism]

Show him this video,



then ask him if he can find just [I]one trustworthy scientific study that proves his point that people are 'greedy'. If he cannot (which I bet since it's simply not true), tell them that your arguments revolve around science and rationality and that it is actually them who are too idealistic, optimistic, dreamers and so on. It's funny, all the arguments that are used against revolutionaries are actually true for reactionaries :lol:

Actually, I shouldn't be laughing even though it's so ironical. It's fucking frustating getting told you are too idealistic and whatnot when you actually rely your theories on analyses and scientific studies rather than some postulatory bullshit on human nature on whatnot even though it can't be proved. It's like an atheist vs. theist discussion. Scientifically, all odds are against capitalist ideology - which is why I believe more and more people will become revolutionary just like theists became atheists. Suddenly, we'll have our revolution. ASAP, hopefully.

---

On 'greed': What people want is a regular life free of stress from not being able to feed their families properly. But that's not greed, that's just common sense. If we guarantee everyone a regular life free of economic pressure, we will see people come up with fantastic ideas because they can spend a lot more of their time doing stuff they actually like rather than just scanning all sorts of superflous garbage in Wal-mart eight, twelve or even more hours a day.

[ВАЛТЕР]

u6XAPnuFjJc

Ism's video he was talking about.

[Lobotomy]

By greed I assume this person means the need to accumulate as much property, wealth and capital as possible. This is not a trait that is inherent in humanity as a whole. It is inherent in cultures. American Indian tribes, for example, did not feel the need to accumulate capital for themselves. The idea of owning land or resources was a concept that was completely alien to them. There are centuries of proof that humans can live reasonably without capitalism. Most just choose to ignore it.

[DarkPast]

Iron Felix said it all - it's a human nature argument and should be ignored.

Human norms are almost entirely shaped by their natural and social environment. Our distant ancestors, living in scarcity as they did, may have needed to be competitive in order to survive. But we no longer need to do this; it is the ruling class that propagates such reactionary ideas in order to justify the exploitation they subject the working class to. The idea of socialism is to harness modern technology in order to create a material base from which human culture could be changed in a fundamental way. Instead of rewarding the most ruthless and greedy, our society would be based on equality, justice and direct democracy.

Also, you can remind him/her that, by and large, products in modern society do not arise simply because the consumers demand them. Demand is being manufactured all the time through advertising, and there's professionals who are paid to start trends. Capitalism needs people to be consumers - this is why phenomena such as planned obsolescence exist, and why people are constantly pressured to buy things they don't really need.

Oh, and what's a "real book" supposed to be? Atlas Shrugged? :laugh:

[Tim Cornelis]

Human norms are almost entirely shaped by their natural and social environment. Our distant ancestors, living in scarcity as they did, may have needed to be competitive in order to survive.

Even this is false. Anthropologists have uncovered, if you will, the fact that primitive societies were very cooperative in nature, and social hierarchy was limited or virtually non-existent (varying from tribe to tribe).

And I also disagree with the notion that "human norms are almost entirely shaped by their natural and social environment", we generally are of nature empathic, charitable and prone to solidarity. Even in a system that facilitates and stimulates greed acts of charity and altruism are relatively widespread.

In another RSA video a guy pointed to evidence suggesting humans are not softwired to be selfish but rather the other way around.

Human nature can be both altruistic and egoistic. But only those with economic power (the capitalist class) are generally prone to egoism as evidences they are less likely to give to charity than wage labourers (they are made to be greedy).

EDIT, the RSA video: l7AWnfFRc7g

[RedSunsZenith]

The fact that this person seems to ignore the impact of the economic and social stucture of a society on how people interact with one another is telling of his or her own ignorance. Maybe he or she should put down the Ayn Rand for three seconds and look around.

[DarkPast]

Even this is false. Anthropologists have uncovered, if you will, the fact that primitive societies were very cooperative in nature, and social hierarchy was limited or virtually non-existent (varying from tribe to tribe).

That video was interesting, thank you. That said, I know the early humans cooperated within their social groups, but what I'm interested in is how much did the different groups/tribes cooperate with one another?

[Blake's Baby]

Impossible to know. Some archaeologists/historical anthropologists (and it seems most of the media) think there was a lot of inter-group competition; other anthropolgists and archaeologists think things were probably more peaceful. We really never will know, unfortunately.

What we do know, is that our closest living relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, have social strategies that include both co-operation and competition (so the 'humans naturally compete all the time, we're just animals' argument falls down, because not all animals compete all the time).

But the horrorshow stuff is always sensationalised in the media: compare the number of 'neanderthals ate their babies' stories (anything about ancient canibalism really) stories as compared to the 'neanderthals were quite friendly and helped grandmothers across streams' stories you get on and in the news. It's not for nothing that 'the ruling ideas of every epoch are the ideas of the ruling class'.

[Oswy]

From this thread.

http://forums.white-wolf.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1179100#post1179100

Any counter of this?

Firstly, the system makes great effort to shape what we want, the media is dominated by their messages. If we have a disposable income we're encouraged to 'want' all kinds of crap which gets thrown in the garage within a few weeks or months, because these are false wants. Secondly, the system is only interested in satisfying the wants of those who have money. The more money you have the more your wants can and will be satsified in this system and the less money you have the less your wants will be satisfied, if you have no money you are shit out of luck. Markets don't give a fuck about people who have no job and no money, these people can go away and die quietly under a rock somewhere as far as markets are concerned.

Oh, and markets aren't free, they're very much rigged by capitalist interests.

[Oswy]

Greed is actually groomed under capitalism, because without it one cannot really prosper to any great degree. With everyone's needs covered, there would not be any need for greed because everyone would be able to live a comfortable life and prosper.

I think this is a very important point. Capitalism needs us to behave in a greedy and selfish manner because it needs us to always be unsatisfied and working to buy all the crap that is made which is actually a substitute for our real needs. When people buy expensive watches and sports cars what they are really doing is trying to buy real human needs, social needs like respect, acceptance and affection among their peers. It's all too obvious and very sad.

[Ocean Seal]

The system rewards putting a service or product out that consumers want. Period.
I guess we must all love http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal


Period.
Whatever you say Internet tough guy...



The mess we're in is the result of the state stepping in a choosing winners and losers - on both sides of the market.
Ahh the state regulation route. Remember that time before state regulation when the market crashed. What did they call that again? Ah, the Great Depression.


That you think greed isn't a symptom of the human condition is telling of your naivete.
So what your saying is that those 90,000 years we lived in a collectivist classless society our intentions were governed by personal greed? Curious indeed. Also if you think that greed is an anti-communist argument you misunderstand communism. It is about collective class interest, not some kind of moralistic or idealist approach. It is about the working masses rising up out of necessity.


It's no wonder you completely misunderstand the free market.
The fact that you believe that a free market is the cure to all ails without understanding that the ruling class will never stop using the state as its instrument is indicative of your naivete.