Counter Argument On Greed

[Solace]

I got this in a debate about greed. Overall, he says that greed is not a social creation, but rather part of us. Frankly, I got no idea how to reply. What would you say?


“Look at children playing. They can be happily playing by themselves in a group or individually together. Nothing will ever happen based on the basic differences between them. But, they will fight over toys, who has the best (perceived or otherwise), the biggest or even just the most colorful. These fights are not about fulfilling needs like food, shelter, or even survival. It is all about you have something I want, in short greed. They care about s/he has something I want right now. It is not about trading tit for tat either, they want to keep what they have, in case they wish to continuing playing with it whilst adding to their collection with what you are playing with simply because it strikes their fancy. They may let it sit untouched for hours as long as they know they control its use. Therein lies the basic tenet of greed, control. I control the goods, the grain, the money, the ability and therefore I am happy. I can stop you from doing this, and that gives me my measure of control, which fulfils my need for greed. I may gain nothing other than the satisfaction that I have hoarded something you need or want and thereby made you subjective to my whim. You can do nothing without my approval. In a basic sense, my greed is such that I own you.”

[Don't Change Your Name]

It's funny because I can't seem to remember fighting with other kids for toys, the only thing I remember is me fighting about which toys I wanted to use and how this affected the other kids... and in fact I don't think kids are very smart so they can react on various ways to different things, including "private property".

If you are a kid and you know other kid has a nice toy you enjoy playing with, just become his/her friend and you will be able to play with it. I don't think kids will control their toys too much to avoid his/her friend using it, especially if letting them use them for a while can also mean that they will allow him/her to use theirs to compensate. But as I have said, kids don't have their brain sooo developed, so it's not wise assuming things based on what people does when they are very young...

[redstar2000]

Small children will, if given the opportunity, play with their feces for a while, too.

I think what's really at work in this illustration of "greed" is the desire of any living organism to control its environment...to arrange matters in such a way as to maximize its own well-being.

Grabbing additional toys is a way of protecting against the undesirable condition of "not having any toys". When children learn over time that plenty of toys are always available, then the "instinctive greed for toys" atrophies...like any function for which there is no practical use.

Of course, as children grow up, they find themselves in situations where "greed for other things" may be a beneficial behavior...in which case, they will be "greedy".

I have observed that by adolescence, kids generally start thinking about "bigger things" than "how much stuff" they can accumulate. In a lot of cases, they have to be "taught" (indoctrinated, propagandized, etc.) all over again how the "purpose of life" is to acquire more stuff.

One "good" way of doing that is to constantly emphasize that "everyone else is greedy for more stuff"...so you'd better start getting greedy too, otherwise you'll be "left out with nothing".

Now and then, they actually have the effrontery to call this "career counseling".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Solace]

Grabbing additional toys is a way of protecting against the undesirable condition of "not having any toys". When children learn over time that plenty of toys are always available, then the "instinctive greed for toys" atrophies...like any function for which there is no practical use.


Wow. That’s actually, in a nutshell, what I said.

But one can say that you move to the simple acquisition phase to a more stable gain for the sake of gain.

Bill Gates can be used as a good example. The guy has enough money to live twice. He still invests his money to make more. And what’s the use? He doesn’t care about how much money he has, he only cares about the fact that he can.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Hmmm. The situation you describe is certainly true in some cases...

But equally, it is untrue in many others. If you watch a child, or remember your own childhood, you will see that sharing develops at this early stage too. No child wants to be left out; friendships and social interactions begin at the ages of two or three - learning to share is an integral part of this.



I have observed that by adolescence, kids generally start thinking about "bigger things" than "how much stuff" they can accumulate. In a lot of cases, they have to be "taught" (indoctrinated, propagandized, etc.) all over again how the "purpose of life" is to acquire more stuff.

One "good" way of doing that is to constantly emphasize that "everyone else is greedy for more stuff"...so you'd better start getting greedy too, otherwise you'll be "left out with nothing".


Very insightful. And, to a large degree, correct. I think that Capitalism and the markets, though, are countering this alarmingly effectively. The continuous invention of fads and crazes is proof of this. I like to think that I was never really a part of this; i've been an individual from day #1. BUT, during the crucial "post-puberty" period, I admit that I succumbed to advertising and "peer pressure" (an amazingly strong force) more than once... Soon after this though, I began to develop my political views and reject ultra-consumption and the like. And I've never looked back!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 04:00 AM
I got this in a debate about greed. Overall, he says that greed is not a social creation, but rather part of us. Frankly, I got no idea how to reply. What would you say?


?Look at children playing. They can be happily playing by themselves in a group or individually together. Nothing will ever happen based on the basic differences between them. But, they will fight over toys, who has the best (perceived or otherwise), the biggest or even just the most colorful. These fights are not about fulfilling needs like food, shelter, or even survival. It is all about you have something I want, in short greed. They care about s/he has something I want right now. It is not about trading tit for tat either, they want to keep what they have, in case they wish to continuing playing with it whilst adding to their collection with what you are playing with simply because it strikes their fancy. They may let it sit untouched for hours as long as they know they control its use. Therein lies the basic tenet of greed, control. I control the goods, the grain, the money, the ability and therefore I am happy. I can stop you from doing this, and that gives me my measure of control, which fulfils my need for greed. I may gain nothing other than the satisfaction that I have hoarded something you need or want and thereby made you subjective to my whim. You can do nothing without my approval. In a basic sense, my greed is such that I own you.?
It is always hardest to argue against things that have a grain of truth to them even when the conclusions they draw from this grain are incorrect. I think in part, controll is part of greed and babies and small children are completely helpless and so they are necisarilly self-absorbed. Babies can not feed themselves and have little understanding of how to fufil their needs besides crying or taking what they need. If you offer a kid a cookie, he'll take it no matter if he's full or not because he dosn't know when such an opportunity will arise again. When I was a kid I would hoard my haloween candy and would eat sweets every chance I got but now I know I can buy some candy anytime I want so there is no need to horde it or eat it all the time or be "greedy" about it.

Adults on the other hand can make efforts to meet their own needs and they will meet this needs in the best or easiest ways they can. In tribal cutures or in situations where people have become isolated from the rest of society, cooperation with others is often the best way to meet these needs. In capitalism where everything is controlled by a minorety of people and we have to meet our needs by meeting their conditions, greed as we know it comes into play. People are constantly asked to screw over their fellow in order to be able to better meet their own needs in capitalism by competing with others for the artificial scarcisty of jobs or income.

If people did have more controll over their lives; could have a place to live where they wouldn't be thrown out if they couldn't make rent each month, then there would be little use of greed because people would know that they could get what they want when they want without having to screw-over anyone else.

My favorite example of the "greed as human nature" argument is water. In the US most of us get basically free water and know we can simply turn on the tap and get it whenever we want... you don't see people greedily hordeing water or staling other people's water because we have controll over ourt personal water supply more or less. If we were in the desert and came across a fountain, we would probably "greedily" horde that water and if we felt there was a limited supply of water werte would probably forcibly protect that water from being used by animals or other people.

So I think greed is primarily based on the material circumstances rather than some perverse sence of happiness from controilling the lives of others.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 12:19 AM

Grabbing additional toys is a way of protecting against the undesirable condition of "not having any toys". When children learn over time that plenty of toys are always available, then the "instinctive greed for toys" atrophies...like any function for which there is no practical use.


Wow. That?s actually, in a nutshell, what I said.

But one can say that you move to the simple acquisition phase to a more stable gain for the sake of gain.

Bill Gates can be used as a good example. The guy has enough money to live twice. He still invests his money to make more. And what?s the use? He doesn?t care about how much money he has, he only cares about the fact that he can.
Well Bill Gates also is a philanthaper (sp?) and will give crumbs from his money-horde because it might make him feel better or it might get him tax breaks or political power or clout and simply because he has the luxury to do so when the rest of us might shrug our sholders when a bum asks us for a dollar and we only have a coupple of bucks to last us for the day -- even though we genuinely wish we could help the homelsee guy out a little.

Greed in a business sence is a little bit different than personal greed because the system demands that in order for a business to survive it must turn a profit. Bill Gates is not personally greedy when his company takes over another company, he is just a vile businessman doing his evil job and it is a systemic problem not a personal greediness problem.

[Solace]

Greed in a business sence is a little bit different than personal greed because the system demands that in order for a business to survive it must turn a profit. Bill Gates is not personally greedy when his company takes over another company, he is just a vile businessman doing his evil job and it is a systemic problem not a personal greediness problem.

Your explanation is not satisfying.

This "evilness" didnt fall from the sky.

Something motivates it. Why does he keep on doing his job? Why does he keep on taking over other companies? He doesnt need that money. He doesn't need anymore profit.

So, what?

[redstar2000]

Oddly enough, in Marxist economics the capitalist is not a "villain" motivated by "mindless greed".

According to the "rules" of capitalism, a business must either grow or shrink -- there's no "steady state" or "equilibrium". It is "eat others" or, sooner or later, "be eaten".

Some prominent capitalists have deliberately cultivated a public image of "ruthlessness" in pursuit of profit...but there's no way of knowing if the image corresponds to the reality.

Because even the most "kind-hearted" capitalist must behave just exactly like the "ruthless"...or "be eaten".

Marx used to joke about how far more capitalists have been destroyed by other capitalists than will ever be destroyed by communists.

He was right.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:48 AM
According to the "rules" of capitalism, a business must either grow or shrink -- there's no "steady state" or "equilibrium". It is "eat others" or, sooner or later, "be eaten".
Exactly. If you have a small business but suddenyl you have a lot of demand for your products, you can't just keep on the same level. Then growth becomes an unstoppable process. That might explain why kids could want more and more toys. After all their parents worked hard so that they could have toys, so they can't just lose them.

I doubt this would happen in an ideal society.

[Anarchist Freedom]

red star hits this on the nose, greed is sadly encouraged by capitalism. I think that people are naturally greedy some more then others but if we are to teach the people what greed does to the world then we can some day hope for a brighter future......


:che:


CGLM! (http://www.cglm.tk)