"Minecraft billionaire complains about being rich"

[The Intransigent Faction]

Being rich isn't all it's cracked up to be, according to Minecraft billionaire Markus Persson.

In a series of tweets over the weekend, the video game designer bemoaned the loneliness, isolation and lack of motivation that large wealth can create.
"The problem with getting everything is you run out of reasons to keep trying, and human interaction becomes impossible due to imbalance," he tweeted.


"Hanging out in ibiza with a bunch of friends and partying with famous people, able to do whatever I want, and I've never felt more isolated."
He also wrote that employees of his company "hate me now" and that he found a "great girl, but she's afraid of me and my life style and went with a normal person instead."



Media outlets around the world seized on the tweets, calling Persson depressed. The billionaire again took to Twitter on Monday morning to defend his comments, saying, "fwiw, while there are articles about my depression because I had a bad day and vented on a trend I saw, I'm sitting here having a nice day."


Regardless of whether his tweets were momentary venting or a sign of deeper malaise, Persson's comments reflect some of the lesser-known downsides of a massive windfall, or "sudden wealth syndrome."
This has been known to occur among founders who sell their companies (Microsoft acquired Minecraft last year).



Entrepreneurs who are naturally driven to create, build, innovate and work around-the-clock realize their dream upon selling their company. But once they do, they sometimes find themselves flush with cash but deficient in purpose.


What's more, being rich allows someone to disengage from the hoi polloi and live in peace on the top of the mountain. But that peace can also be isolating.


Add to that the distrust that can come with being rich—as some assume everybody wants something from them—and being rich can quickly become its own form of prison.


Though many will not take pity on others' riches, Persson's comments offer an important lesson: When it comes to large wealth, be careful what you wish for.


I wasn't sure where to post this, but it's an interesting case study. I don't know if I'd go as far as to take pity on capitalists, but they represent capitalism's waste of people's potential in their own way.

[Guardia Rossa]

Yes, If I am not wrong, Marx or Engels said that even the bourgeoisie loses in capitalism exactly because they can't be really achieve happiness, they can hide their unhappiness in some expensive trinkets or by accumulating more and more pieces of paper theorically worth something, but in the end they are unhappy and empty inside.

:grin: But they won't drop the diamond grenade, after all it's made of diamond!!1!!

[RedWorker]

What a fucking lifestyle and degenerated personality. A couple of days spent in a pseudo-depressed state passed off as a life drama and being plastered as a story in front of the faces of people who could ACTUALLY be experiencing some sort of negative event. "Hey guys I was in Ibiza with a pseudo-girlfriend bunny and now I'm thinking of all the things I could've been doing with my millions and I'm not, damn, my life is so damn hard, oh and also I think my workers dislike me".

More wealth is linked to higher happiness according to the studies I saw - I remember the last information I read, at a certain income point approx. 0% of people were reported as being unhappy.

You're sad because you're rich? Being rich IS making you sad? So give all your money away or shut up.

Where the FUCK are news articles about the actually relevant horrid shit happening to billions of people right now? Why the FUCK is there a news article about a rich person feeling kinda sad for a few hours because he's bored in Ibiza? What is this, the fucking Daily Mail reporting about Kim Kardashian and Nicki Minaj? Oh wait, it's exactly that.

Oh no this isn't even an article about how he's become too distanced from people and is now missing some family member or good friend, this is literally a fucking article about someone being bored in Ibiza.

Fucking degenerate bourgeois crap.

Hey, I was experiencing a few distressing events involving geographical movement and interpersonal relationships (just regular life, nothing really bad) a few days ago. Where the fuck is an article about this? Oh wait, I'm not bourgeois and I don't have one of these shitty lifestyles the media loves. Too fucking bad.

[BIXX]

Good, I hope he feels alone and isolated forever

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

i can think of a few cures for his malaise

[Os Cangaceiros]

He should just give all his wealth to me. I'll shoulder that burden for him.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

There is something to be said for how even the bourgeoisie can't live fully human lives in capitalism, given that they don't really have a choice when it comes to things like the M-C-M' cycle ("The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being.") This, however, is both disgusting worship of enterpreneurs and the most ridiculous sort of whining and everyone involved should be fined with the proceeds going to me so I can be miserable as well.

[The Intransigent Faction]

More wealth is linked to higher happiness according to the studies I saw - I remember the last information I read, at a certain income point approx. 0% of people were reported as being unhappy.

Funny, because there's a huge body of research about workers to suggest quite the opposite. Sure, consistently being among the wealthiest probably demands keeping the suffering of the poor out of sight and out of mind to a degree, or being downright apathetic. Sure, socialism would easily solve their problem and in any case it's not a problem on the level of workers struggling day-to-day simply to survive. However, research is quite clear that, as the trite saying goes, money doesn't buy happiness. It might make you more secure and less miserable than if you were the poorest of the poor, but never truly satisfied or fulfilled.

In fact, workers who have a certain degree of greater control over their workplace (albeit inadequate as long as it's within the confines of the current global system) are happier than those who are paid more. As communists, we know that workers' misery doesn't stem merely from not having enough money, although this obviously is no small matter when money is needed to survive. It's simply the focus of research to the exclusion of alternatives which don't suit the purpose of the current system. Obviously, the rich will have much greater 'creative control' and security, but if they don't live in constant fear of losing that, they live an isolated existence as Greavyard described. Sociopaths, of course, thrive among the rich as they don't have to hide from the negative effects of capitalism. They simply don't give a shit.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but trying to pass off the negative effects on those at the top of a system that promotes sociopathic attitudes as an individual instance of depression seems misleading, as well. Of course, socialism would solve that problem, and it's not at all equivalent to the struggle for mere survival of workers. Nevertheless, capitalism has a psychological impact on both the ruling and the oppressed classes.

None of that is to suggest that we should pity 'entrepreneurs'. Rather, it shows that the capitalist class itself is not always immune to the alienating effects of 'its' system, and yet continues to support it (as, for example, even oil tycoons would ultimately suffer from the negative environmental impacts of climate change). "We shouldn't pity the capitalists; we should expropriate the property" is precisely the point. They won't voluntarily relinquish their position, not because it's the best thing that could happen to them and they'd be crazy to give it up, but rather even in spite of the fact that giving it up could be the rational thing to do for their own well-being (and that of the working class who would build the alternative system in its place).

[PhoenixAsh]

I know a lot of people who are isolated and alone without motivation and lacking the financial means to do whatever the hell they want or even a means to break out of their isolation by going to the bar or visiting relatives. I kind of feel that this person doesn't really have a right to complain.

I am sure he is lonely and that his personal problems are real enough....but they are easily solved by giving most of his money away...as that whole too much money thing seems to be exactly the issue for him.

But I am sure that won't happen.

[RedWorker]

Funny, because there's a huge body of research about workers to suggest quite the opposite.


Why is the conversation being shifted from the general population to workers?
How does it prove the 'opposite' when this concerns workers only and we are talking about rich people?
Does this research actually exist? Can you please provide citations of meta-studies?



Sure, socialism would easily solve their problem and in any case it's not a problem on the level of workers struggling day-to-day simply to survive.

It is not a problem.


However, research is quite clear that, as the trite saying goes, money doesn't buy happiness.

Evidently not according to the most widely publicized studies - any deeper information than that would however be appreciated.


It might make you more secure and less miserable than if you were the poorest of the poor, but never truly satisfied or fulfilled.

How exactly does wealth prevent one from living a satisfying and fulfilling life? Complete, immediate, limitless, etc. fulfilment of any need at the good and service consumption level simply can not be reduced to "being more secure and less miserable [than] the poorest of the poor".


In fact, workers who have a certain degree of greater control over their workplace (albeit inadequate as long as it's within the confines of the current global system)[...]

It is not merely inadequate - cooperatives simply do not constitute any break with capitalism. Nor do they form any sort of alternative to the 'current global system', or even have a possibility of existence outside it.


[...] are happier than those who are paid more.

The phenomenon mentioned by Tim Cornelis in other threads suggests that cooperative members have to work harder for less pay - no wonder then that many times the workers simply prefer not to bother with this at all. Why would they be happier and in any case how would we deal with the phenomenon that correlation does not imply causation? Members of cooperatives usually have become so by an explicit process, which means they could be a minority group which really are made happier by it in contrast to the experiences of others.


As communists, we know that workers' misery doesn't stem merely from not having enough money, although this obviously is no small matter when money is needed to survive.

If a worker had a sufficiently large amount of money his character as worker would be lost unless he explicitly preserves it, which in any case means that he cannot qualify as a proletarian anymore. Then, of course, this "workers' misery" must be completely linked to money.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the nonsense that suggests that the fact that higher-earning workers exist proves either that communism must be wrong, or they must not be proletarians, etc.


Obviously, the rich will have much greater 'creative control' and security, but if they don't live in constant fear of losing that, they live an isolated existence as Greavyard described. Sociopaths, of course, thrive among the rich as they don't have to hide from the negative effects of capitalism. They simply don't give a shit.

No person who qualifies as 'rich' has a fear of losing it (unless he is completely stupid) and there is no reason why they would live in an 'isolated existence'. Many of them have thriving social lives .

"Sociopaths [thrive] among the rich"? What source is there for this? I would be inclined to believe the opposite, more wealth today means less mental illness.


but trying to pass off the negative effects on those at the top of a system that promotes sociopathic attitudes as an individual instance of depression seems misleading, as well.

This has nothing to do with depression, it is literally mere pseudo-depression experienced for a couple of days by someone who is bored in Ibiza. This is exactly what the article states.

Nor am I reducing anything to individuals, I am simply talking about the individual instance here; however, what backs up the assertion that there are systematic negative effects for the ones at the 'top of the system'?


Nevertheless, capitalism has a psychological impact on both the ruling and the oppressed classes.

What evidence is there for this assertion?


None of that is to suggest that we should pity 'entrepreneurs'.

Of course not, nor should we delve into moralism; it won't help to be angry or hate them for this behaviour. If I knew that guy, I would probably be friendly to him. That doesn't exclude me from criticizing the context to this article which is truly depraved.


Rather, it shows that the capitalist class itself is not always immune to the alienating effects of 'its' system, and yet continues to support it

Such 'support' does not emanate from e.g. amount of personal satisfaction but rather merely constitutes objective class interests.


even oil tycoons would ultimately suffer from the negative environmental impacts of climate change

This really is a careless statement. They have nice houses in places with good environments, and eventually they may very well set higher standards of environmental effects before it produces anything that may truly damage them.

[Palmares]

I think the real issue here is that he is feeling guilty about creating that diabolical, soul-destroying, apocalypse-bringer that is Minecraft.

I guess he didn't realise how much of monster he was creating, ... as Zizek would call it, a "thing", much like the guy who invented the atom bomb did. When you are creating a "thing", it could end up being any "thing".

In summary, it ain't no thang [thing]. :grin:

[Ocean Seal]

So the way I interpret this is not with pity, but rather with an understanding of how capitalism does not efficiently allocate its resources to fuel creativity. Much in the same way that the capitalists believe that having a high wage floor kills work ethic, assigning billions to one creative man's idea effectively kills creativity in that individual. Why was he selected to manage such an enormous amount of resources?

[Guardia Rossa]

Pity is for starters, bourgeoisie is just plain stupid.

RedWorker, richness doesn't makes one happy, there are numerous studies pointing this way. Until a point where you have most things you need you grow in hapiness as you get richer, but after that richness can't help you or provide anything to you.

And the richer you get, the less happy you are.

Of course, it's not a unhapiness on poorness level, it's just they are less happy then mittlebourgoesie and such.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Pity is for starters, bourgeoisie is just plain stupid.

RedWorker, richness doesn't makes one happy, there are numerous studies pointing this way. Until a point where you have most things you need you grow in hapiness as you get richer, but after that richness can't help you or provide anything to you.

And the richer you get, the less happy you are.

Of course, it's not a unhapiness on poorness level, it's just they are less happy then mittlebourgoesie and such.

Thank you. This is all I was saying. You can't make blanket statements that wealth leads to happiness, because that's just not true.

Spare me the excessively long back-and-forth nitpicking.

[The Intransigent Faction]

RedWorker:

1. You made a general statement that wealth leads to happiness. It doesn't.
2. It applies to both. Whether rich or poor, having more money doesn't mean psychological health, enjoyment of creative labour in itself, etc.
3. Such studies are referenced several times in this forum. Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn is the best example.
4. The self-destructive profit-driven psyche of the rich isn't a problem? Because that's what I was saying was a problem. What an odd thing to say for a communist.
5. No, cooperatives are inadequate precisely BECAUSE they do not constitute a break with capitalism. You're just engaging in semantics.
6. The way in which wealth is acquired, and the psychological effects which this system produces, are indeed a barrier to happiness. Acquisition of wealth, treated as an end in itself, is not a path to happiness. There's a reason the "American dream" involves the pursuit of happiness and not simply happiness itself. Namely, capitalism never allows one to think that he or she has enough, and "Complete, immediate, limitless, etc. fulfilment of any need at the good and service consumption level"
7. It's not linked to money. It's linked to control over the means of production or in workers' case, lack thereof.
8. Uh, yeah, capitalism perpetuates a constant sense of insecurity. No amount of wealth is deemed sufficient because the moment one stops accumulating, the vultures start circling. Ever heard of "artificial scarcity"? When has a capitalist ever said "No need to worry about next quarter. We have enough profit. We don't need more"? If you think the only way to lose a significant amount of wealth is "stupidity", then yes, you are too focused on individuals as opposed to the larger context. Sure, Bill Gates is in all likelihood never going to go bankrupt, but is that enough for someone to be happy living in a capitalist society, such as it is? No. Rich people can have friends, and family they care about, but what wealth can't do is substitute for that.
9. Regarding sociopaths...how fucking daft can you be? I really hope I don't have to explain, on a leftist forum, how a sociopath would thrive in capitalist competition.
10. You see nothing at all wrong with the psyche of the rich? Good to know.
11. Finally, you said something right. We shouldn't moralize. That was precisely my point.
12. OK, that's my point. Support for capitalism is the result of objective class interests which capitalism perpetuates. This includes a myopic worldview in which short-term profit is deemed important about all else. The point that such a consciousness is self-destructive is not a controversial one at all.
13. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the myopic nature of capitalists. You must have been reading the research funded by those oil tycoons if this is what you truly believe. If capitalists would all, in unison, stop polluting the moment it could come back to hurt them, they would have already stopped quite a while ago.

Phew...now, if this must continue (I hope not), the point-by-point format in which it's going is really a pain in the ass.

[Hatshepsut]

We have another Atlas shrugging beneath the weight of a planet on his shoulders. With Ayn Rand, the unhappy goddess of capitalism who smoked herself to death, looking on. C'mon Galt, now withhold your wealth-creation from our sorry world and cheer the comebacks of tuberculosis and cholera. The folks over at The Economist are hardly fooled:

"Money can buy happiness," May 2, '13
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-0

Although 1 to 10 Likert scales and whatnot make rather vague measures of life satisfaction. Probably why Stanford Business School says that when you take a $5 bottle of wine and slap on a $250 price tag, its quality really does improve even though you didn't do anything to the wine:

"So, in essence, price is changing people's experiences with a product and, therefore, the outcomes from consuming this product."

Baba Shiv
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/baba-shiv-how-wines-price-tag-affect-its-taste

No wonder Marx called it a fetish.

[RedWorker]

1. Obviously there is correlation between some measures of happiness, wealth and income, even though the results haven't been all that clear. See e.g. this meta-study (http://w.timothy-judge.com/documents/Therelationshipbetweenpayandjobsatisfaction.pdf).
2. It is likely correlated. Mental illness thrives among the poorest according to some things I've read.
3. I'm not about to read a whole book. Which data there proves any of my assertions wrong?
4. Is it an odd thing? Why would a materialist speculate about psyches, as if class analysis depended on that capitalists were some sort of mentally sick evil people? Perhaps capitalists do have a sick psyche - but is there any evidence for this? To me it makes more sense that more wealth/income = higher mental health.
6. Again, I have yet to see any evidence about these 'psychological effects', or how they constitute any barrier to happiness, seeing how many rich people are perfectly happy. Actually any rich person who isn't completely stupid is completely safe and does experience complete, immediate, limitless, etc. fulfilment of any need at the good and service consumption level. A lower amount of money than the richest people have is needed to experience this in a fully secure way for a lifetime.
7. If a worker suddenly receives 40 billion dollars, he will only be a worker as far as he remains working (no reason for him to go on), and furthermore stops being a proletarian according to Marx and Engels since his survival does not depend on exploitation any more. This is an extreme example - a worker could also save up and technically move out of his class status through e.g. investments. I am not claiming that this systematically occurs.
8. Again: Actually any rich person who isn't completely stupid is completely safe and does experience complete, immediate, limitless, etc. fulfilment of any need at the good and service consumption level. A lower amount of money than the richest people have is needed to experience this in a fully secure way for a lifetime. (...) The ones who retire. Being a capitalist is like a job for them so why would one randomly say that? That would be mismanaging the company. (...) If you're rich then it is. (...) How does this prove that there is more than one way to significantly lose wealth? You jump from ways to lose wealth to talk about happiness again. All I said is that wealth/income is correlated with happiness - your assertions here don't neccessarily contradict that.
9. If you claim that being rich or a capitalist is correlated with being a sociopath then you need a source. As simple as that.
10. Please make an effort to properly refute points. And, of course, the materialist class analysis that I subscribe to does not engage in talk about 'psyches' - that does not necessarily mean, however, that rich people don't have a correlation with a bad psyche.
13. The point is, capitalists many times by own initiative create higher environmental standards for their businesses to follow. Our analysis should never rely on the notion that they would never do such a thing by themselves - sometimes the logic of capitalism results on it. And of course, the polluters living in nice houses don't feel one effect of their environmental destruction.

Reply with quotes:



1. You made a general statement that wealth leads to happiness. It doesn't.

Obviously there is correlation between some measures of happiness, wealth and income, even though the results haven't been all that clear. See e.g. this meta-study:

http://w.timothy-judge.com/documents/Therelationshipbetweenpayandjobsatisfaction.pdf


2. It applies to both. Whether rich or poor, having more money doesn't mean psychological health, enjoyment of creative labour in itself, etc.

It is correlated. Mental illness thrives among the poorest according to some things I've read.


3. Such studies are referenced several times in this forum. Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn is the best example.

I'm not about to read a whole book. Which data there proves any of my assertions wrong?


4. The self-destructive profit-driven psyche of the rich isn't a problem? Because that's what I was saying was a problem. What an odd thing to say for a communist.

Is it an odd thing? Why would a materialist speculate about psyches, as if class analysis depended on that capitalists were some sort of mentally sick evil people?

Perhaps capitalists do have a sick psyche - but is there any evidence for this? To me it makes more sense that more wealth/income = higher mental health.


6. The way in which wealth is acquired, and the psychological effects which this system produces, are indeed a barrier to happiness. Acquisition of wealth, treated as an end in itself, is not a path to happiness. There's a reason the "American dream" involves the pursuit of happiness and not simply happiness itself. Namely, capitalism never allows one to think that he or she has enough, and "Complete, immediate, limitless, etc. fulfilment of any need at the good and service consumption level"

Again, I have yet to see any evidence about these 'psychological effects', or how they constitute any barrier to happiness, seeing how many rich people are perfectly happy.

Actually any rich person who isn't completely stupid is completely safe and does experience complete, immediate, limitless, etc. fulfilment of any need at the good and service consumption level. A lower amount of money than the richest people have is needed to experience this in a fully secure way for a lifetime.


7. It's not linked to money. It's linked to control over the means of production or in workers' case, lack thereof.

If a worker suddenly receives 40 billion dollars, he will only be a worker as far as he remains working (no reason for him to go on), and furthermore stops being a proletarian according to Marx and Engels since his survival does not depend on exploitation any more.

This is an extreme example - a worker could also save up and technically move out of his class status through e.g. investments. I am not claiming that this systematically occurs.


8. Uh, yeah, capitalism perpetuates a constant sense of insecurity. No amount of wealth is deemed sufficient because the moment one stops accumulating, the vultures start circling.

Again: Actually any rich person who isn't completely stupid is completely safe and does experience complete, immediate, limitless, etc. fulfilment of any need at the good and service consumption level. A lower amount of money than the richest people have is needed to experience this in a fully secure way for a lifetime.


When has a capitalist ever said "No need to worry about next quarter. We have enough profit. We don't need more"?

The ones who retire. Being a capitalist is like a job for them so why would one randomly say that? That would be mismanaging the company.


If you think the only way to lose a significant amount of wealth is "stupidity"

If you're rich then it is.


then yes, you are too focused on individuals as opposed to the larger context. Sure, Bill Gates is in all likelihood never going to go bankrupt, but is that enough for someone to be happy living in a capitalist society, such as it is? No. Rich people can have friends, and family they care about, but what wealth can't do is substitute for that.

How does this prove that there is more than one way to significantly lose wealth? You jump from ways to lose wealth to talk about happiness again.

All I said is that wealth/income is correlated with happiness - your assertions here don't neccessarily contradict that.


9. Regarding sociopaths...how fucking daft can you be? I really hope I don't have to explain, on a leftist forum, how a sociopath would thrive in capitalist competition.

If you claim that being rich or a capitalist is correlated with being a sociopath then you need a source. As simple as that.


10. You see nothing at all wrong with the psyche of the rich? Good to know.

Please make an effort to properly refute points. And, of course, the materialist class analysis that I subscribe to does not engage in talk about 'psyches' - that does not necessarily mean, however, that rich people don't have a correlation with a bad psyche.


13. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the myopic nature of capitalists. You must have been reading the research funded by those oil tycoons if this is what you truly believe. If capitalists would all, in unison, stop polluting the moment it could come back to hurt them, they would have already stopped quite a while ago.

The point is, capitalists many times by own initiative create higher environmental standards for their businesses to follow. Our analysis should never rely on the notion that they would never do such a thing by themselves - sometimes the logic of capitalism results on it. And of course, the polluters living in nice houses don't feel one effect of their environmental destruction.

[The Intransigent Faction]

If you don't want to read it, then don't start giving me links and saying "read this", either. If you're going to ask for specific pieces of evidence in lieu of citing a general source, then the same should apply to you. In any case, that book is a whole collection of studies which demonstrate exactly what I've been saying (and copying and pasting them all here would just add more unnecessary length): Crude behaviorist carrot-and-stick motivation is ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. Being paid to do a task actually undermines intrinsic motivation by turning it into a chore. How the fuck is it so difficult for a communist to understand this, and to understand that the root of the problem of capitalism is not merely that workers don't own enough wealth, it's that capitalists control the means of production? Obviously, workers' wages can only be so high, but that's not the point. The problem with wage labour is deeper than wages never being able to be high enough. In the case of capitalists, either the capitalist is well-adjusted to the system's insistence on an endless pursuit of profit at others' expense (i.e, willing to be manipulative, to disregard others' well-being, etc...sociopathic traits), or he finds refuge from these psychologically-damaging demands and non-fulfilling work in pursuit of "Complete, immediate, limitless, etc. fulfilment of any need at the good and service consumption level". Because capitalists, like workers, are defined not merely by the number of dollars in their possession but by their relation to the means of production (in their case as owners), there's a vast difference of degree among them. While Bill Gates may or may not be perfectly happy, you will find plenty of capitalists perpetually envious of him in spite of the fact that they will have plenty more wealth than the workers they exploit. Having enough resources not to starve is a necessary condition for happiness, but it is not sufficient if one spends one's life perpetually in pursuit of more, which is precisely what capitalism (due to artificial scarcity) motivates everyone to do. In workers' case, more wages are pursued for the day-to-day survival struggle. In capitalists' case, they are damned as capitalists to perpetually pursue more profit. If they win the capitalist lottery then they may be able to acquire more than they would ever "need" to be competitive in the market (and if they remain that wealthy it suggests ignorance or not caring quite enough about the exploitation that got them there). If not, then that is what they spend their lives as capitalists pursuing.

So much of your response is just so much daftness that I can't be fucking bothered to go point-by-point. If you think being rich is the way to happiness, and that its loss or the perpetual drive toward accumulation in an environment of artificial scarcity is a sign of stupidity, then I don't know what you're doing here. No, I don't need a fucking source to make the point that sociopaths thrive in a capitalistic environment because it should be fucking obvious given the nature of both capitalism and sociopaths. It's not some moralization about capitalists being evil people (though one could argue that they are without undermining amoral reasons for opposing capitalism). It's simply that a capitalist society promotes a sociopathic psychological state given the psychological demands that material conditions impose. Workers and capitalists are both necessary in a capitalist system, and so such crude commercial conceptions of what happiness is are hegemonically pushed on both.

[Lord Testicles]

If you can't find some happiness with your 1.5 billion dollars then you're a useless human being.

[RedWorker]

Brad: I honestly do not understand why you have emotions mixed in your replies, unless either a) you don't really want to participate in this discussion or b) you're angry because you can't refute my points. If a) then leave (it's you who participated in this debate - did you just aim for mindless confirmation or trivial discussion and are angry at the appearance of real arguments?), if b) come up with better arguments. I don't understand what need there is to annoy me with some statements, I am limiting my involvement in this discussion to reason and arguments, so you are intentionally trying to affect my emotions and I'm not intentionally trying to affect yours, yet the justification for you doing this seems to be that I am affecting yours (like it pisses you off to read and "have to reply" to my posts) - funny, isn't it?


If you don't want to read it, then don't start giving me links and saying "read this", either. If you're going to ask for specific pieces of evidence in lieu of citing a general source, then the same should apply to you.

Giving a 11 page study in which everything is concentrated and relevant information could be found within 30 seconds by merely navigating along the page is not the same thing as giving a 398 page book which is not even readily available online and with no specific citations provided.

This is a meta-analysis i.e. a study over several studies. It does well to inform readers that the correlation between income, wealth and happiness isn't all that clear, BUT that there's definitely data which suggests correlations:

Either way I'm going to provide some specific citations:

"the richest Americans are happier than the average American (Diener, Horwitz, & Emmons, 1985), and the average individual is happier than the very
poor (Cummins, 2000). Moreover, across nations, the correlation between average well-being and average per capita income
ranges from r̂=.50 to r̂=.70 (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002). However, the relationship appears to diminish substantially when
the analysis is confined to wealthy nations (Helliwell, 2003). Thus, at the macro level, results suggest contradictory conclusions
regarding the importance of income to life satisfaction."

"Studies at the individual level reveal similarly indeterminate findings. Diener and Seligman (2004) concluded, 'Dozens of
cross-sectional studies reveal that there is a positive correlation between individuals' incomes and their reports of well-being'
(p. 7). On the other hand, in the U. S., Diener, Sandvik, Seidlitz, and Diener (1993) reported the average correlation between
income and well-being to be quite modest (r ̅=.13). In an international study, Suh, Diener, Oishi, and Triandis (1998) found the
same result (r̂=.13). On the other hand, Cummins (2000) concluded, 'There are numerous empirical reports indicating that
people who are rich have a level of subjective well-being that is substantially higher than people who are poor' (p. 133). Thus,
though the data tend to indicate a small, positive correlation between income and subjective well-being, this conclusion cannot be
proffered with much confidence."

You can learn more by reading it.


In any case, that book is a whole collection of studies which demonstrate exactly what I've been saying (and copying and pasting them all here would just add more unnecessary length): Crude behaviorist carrot-and-stick motivation is ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.

Well, that doesn't necessarily engage with what we're talking about: correlations between wealth, income and happiness.


Being paid to do a task actually undermines intrinsic motivation by turning it into a chore.

As far as I have read when the labor is fully physical more income means more motivation, otherwise more income doesn't mean much.


How the fuck is it so difficult for a communist to understand this, and to understand that the root of the problem of capitalism is not merely that workers don't own enough wealth, it's that capitalists control the means of production?

Obviously that's the problem, though also one of the characteristics of capitalism is that workers cannot acquire that wealth. You're basically positing a strawman here: merely because I did not agree with your specific assertions about wealth and workers doesn't mean I believe the ROOT problem with capitalism is that it doesn't give workers enough money.

But if all workers had 40 billion dollars then there would probably be no problem - the only problem is, of course, that this is impossible.


Obviously, workers' wages can only be so high, but that's not the point. The problem with wage labour is deeper than wages never being able to be high enough.

And which assertion of mine are you refuting here? Either you're imagining what I'm saying or you're intentionally coming up with a strawman.


In the case of capitalists, either the capitalist is well-adjusted to the system's insistence on an endless pursuit of profit at others' expense (i.e, willing to be manipulative, to disregard others' well-being, etc...sociopathic traits)

Again. What source suggests a correlation between psychopathy ("sociopathy" doesn't seem to have a very clear, distinct definition), a clearly defined disorder, and the capitalist class? At this point, this is pointless speculation about how capitalists have "evil psyches". Functioning normally as a capitalist respects the morality etc. dictated by the superstructure and is not indicative of poor mental health.


Because capitalists, like workers, are defined not merely by the number of dollars in their possession but by their relation to the means of production (in their case as owners), there's a vast difference of degree among them. While Bill Gates may or may not be perfectly happy, you will find plenty of capitalists perpetually envious of him in spite of the fact that they will have plenty more wealth than the workers they exploit.

We were specifically talking about rich people.


Having enough resources not to starve is a necessary condition for happiness, but it is not sufficient if one spends one's life perpetually in pursuit of more, which is precisely what capitalism (due to artificial scarcity) motivates everyone to do.

A capitalist can easily dedicate his life to activities that enrich his mind, personal projects, exquisite social and cultural interaction etc. A worker meanwhile is very bound to wage-labour and does not have easy access to such things.

Again, all I'm claiming is there's a correlation between wealth/income and happiness - I'm not going to debate mystical statements like "accumulating money is the path to happiness".


So much of your response is just so much daftness that I can't be fucking bothered to go point-by-point. If you think being rich is the way to happiness, and that its loss or the perpetual drive toward accumulation in an environment of artificial scarcity is a sign of stupidity, then I don't know what you're doing here.

Again, I'm not going to debate mystical statements like "accumulating money is the path to happiness". Obviously a communist argument could be made from the notion that rich people are happier and capitalism therefore limits others from being happy, so I hardly see how this excludes me from being here. In any case, a communist should always recognize reality, so even if a communist argument could not be made from this, if a communist believes that real data results in a certain conclusion, why would he not accept that, and then make it clear why such data doesn't prove communism wrong unlike what others may claim?


No, I don't need a fucking source to make the point that sociopaths thrive in a capitalistic environment because it should be fucking obvious given the nature of both capitalism and sociopaths.

Evidently it is not 'obvious'. Psychopathy is a clearly defined mental disorder. Being a capitalist exists within the bounds (of morality, etc.) dictated by the superstructure. It's possible they could be more likely to have that disorder, but the conclusion that they do is not obvious. A source should be given for such strong claims.


Workers and capitalists are both necessary in a capitalist system, and so such crude commercial conceptions of what happiness is are hegemonically pushed on both.

My post is not a "get rich quick then spend all day on the beach" advertisement. I, myself, quite dislike the status and ideological conception of money, probably taking it to a point you can't immediately imagine. This is a debate. So your statement here is pointless.

[QueerVanguard]

If he doesn't like it, he could send me the $$$

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

with his help i could realise my dream yacht-communist lifestyle