89 replies to this topic

[Hostile]

People are capitalist by nature

Prove it. Indeed, define "nature". I'll give you a tip though, to save time: You can't. So don't try to argue something as rediculous as this. If you insist though, be my guest. This is something I'm pretty well-versed in. But I digress.

Either way, just because something is "natural" to man doesn't mean it's a clever thing to do in a modern, developing world. Obvious examples: Rape, murder, oppresion. This is a general statement, I do not in any way agree that mankind is naturally capitalist. In fact I find the statement absolutely ludicrous.

If people are naturally capitalist, explain the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, where everybody provides for the community as a whole? Sure, later developments allowed instincts of greed to get a foot between the door, but originally, we were all a bunch of communists. And if people are naturally capitalist, why are some more inclined to be capitalist than others? Why would there be counter-capitalist ideologies? Isn't human nature a more general term than that? Or perhaps you mean to say that some people grow up to be capitalists, while others don't? Or are they all closet-capitalists?

So Hostile, are you one of those people who actually believe bullshit like The Secret? Because that's what your "achievers" rhetoric stinks of. Do you really think it's the people's fault they're being cut short?

Note: I am not a communist, nor do I think communism is human nature. I don't believe in either capitalism or communism because both require a certain kind of faith or will to follow. Communism requires a belief in the eventual good of man, while capitalism requires me to believe that competition can lead to improved lives for all. I have no such pretentions or desires. As for what is human nature; nothing. No such thing as a concrete definition of human nature.

Based on your negative reply and your link, I don't think I'd like "The Secret." Sounds spooky and definately not what I'm talking about unless you try to make those words fit into my mouth. IMO capitalism is nature for human beings. The whole idea of bartering and trading something for something else.

Does the hunter gatherer thing really need to be explained? People go out and gather food in many forms through gathering and hunting for the greater good of the tribe. While it worked in the day, aren't we abit more evolved than having to go back to living in communes (tribes) ?

I see where you are going, what came first the commune (tribe) or the barter/trader. I'd assume the tribe. Is that what you want, to return to the ways of the commune? And to answer your second question about why some are more capitalist than others, easy because some people think they deserve something from the tribe and others teach the tribe to better themselves.

Remember the old saying "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

I'd rather learn to fish than have to be forced to take a fish from the fisherman without giving him anything in return because "he owes the tribe so."

Most ideologies are pretty useless at defining human nature. If anything, Darwin is the closest, combined with Maslov's hierarchy of needs. Left and right are just excuses for those in a advantageous position to keep their status quo.

If you want to call that capitalist then a lot of things can be called capitalist. Nature would be the biggest capitalist of them all. And I really wouldn't call that an ideology well-developed by human philosophies.

I agree, nature is the biggest capitalist. Small fish eat parasites off the skin of large fish. Bees trade pollen for honey. Small mammals deposit seeds in their feces in exchange for the nutrition provided by the fruit they ate. I totally agree...

[Vortigern]

"Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; give him a fishing rod... and he'll probably break it up for firewood. Or swap it for a fish."

Hostile, your example at the bottom there doesn't show nature is capitalist. If anything, that shows nature is communist: everything doing what it does best for equal reward and the overall good of the larger society. And I don't think Matias was saying that the tribe model is better than modern society, just that it suggests capitalism is not human nature because more primitive societies, at a time when human nature was still indulged quite heavily, would identify more strongly as communist.

[Hostile]

Than we agree to disagree...

[Ash]

Basically, your sentiments are that it's the fault of the person at the bottom rung that they can't afford to go on and be a CEO and earn God knows how much, and that they should be shat on by the upper echelons of the organisation as much as possible to remind them of their place in society.

Could you be any more feudalist?

If everyone was a CEO, the company would cease to function. Nobody would be making anything or providing the services that the company was supposed to. So no, not "anyone" and not "everyone" can be a CEO. The company needs the people at the bottom probably more than it ever needed the people at the top. And you are basically arguing that that those people at the bottom don't 'deserve' a living wage.

Well, I do. When one man receives an annual salary equivalent to twenty-five of its lowest-paid employees, something is seriously wrong. He is not doing the work of twenty-five men (not even saying he doesn't work, but that is physically impossible for him to do), so why should he be paid as though he is? You might argue that he makes more money for the company than any one of those men. But that's taking them individually, and doesn't account for the fact that those twenty-five never had the opportunity to do what the one man does and are instead stuck on the bottom rung scratching a living.

By all means pay the top executives more, but tie their wage to that of the guy at the bottom - as one gets a 3% rise, so they all should, to reflect the company's improvement on last year's figures which is every bit as much to do with the guy at the bottom as it is the guy at the top. Because whether you're a "capitalist", a "communist" or whatever silly inane label you want to give yourself the fact remains that the success of a company is a collective effort. Without the bottom-of-the-ladder people, the execs wouldn't have anything to make money from.

[Hostile]

First of all, we all know everyone isn't gonna be a CEO. Most people don't want to be. And how is the concept of self improvement feudalistic?! That one didn't even make sense. And it sure beats sitting around whining about CEO bonus checks.

There is a reason someone in charge is making what they make, because not just anyone knows how to do his job. Bosses don't sit around in their offices and smoke cigars and do nothing. It's a stressful job. A lot more stressful than some machine operator feeding plastic containers into a feeder in some factory. Please...

Also don't forget consumers dictate whether a company does well or not. Employees are only there to support the mechanism that continues to drive consumers to buy your service or product.

This concept reminds me of this time I stopped into a resturant during a trade show and this young teen girl ignored all of us and talked on her mobile till the boss came over and scolded her. I overheard her later talking to her friend saying the boss thinks the customers are more important then the employees..."

I did a face-palm-slap when I heard her say it. But that is the mentality of a lot of people. Employees thinking they are more important than the customers or the management. Employees have a set job, complete the job and go home. Management has big stuff like sales and production numbers and profit and loss statements to contend with.

"There is one person who can fire everyone in the company from the president on down. It's the customer by taking their business elsewhere." ~Founder of Walmart

[Ash]

First of all, we all know everyone isn't gonna be a CEO. Most people don't want to be. And how is the concept of self improvement feudalistic?! That one didn't even make sense. And it sure beats sitting around whining about CEO bonus checks.

Read my argument again:

Basically, your sentiments are that it's the fault of the person at the bottom rung that they can't afford to go on and be a CEO and earn God knows how much, and that they should be shat on by the upper echelons of the organisation as much as possible to remind them of their place in society.

Self-improvement isn't feudalistic. Ensuring those at the bottom are kept there is. And how is that accomplished? By not paying people enough to even try to get out of it. More to the point it still doesn't make CEO bonus payments right, whatever spin you put on it. You're still saying that it's those people's fault for not being/wanting to be the CEO, and that because of this they are guilty of not wanting to improve themselves. Fact is, a lot of people can't afford to go on a training course, or go to university. Or, as you say, they don't want to. That shouldn't preclude them from earning a comfortable living, but it does.

There is a reason someone in charge is making what they make, because not just anyone knows how to do his job. Bosses don't sit around in their offices and smoke cigars and do nothing. It's a stressful job. A lot more stressful than some machine operator feeding plastic containers into a feeder in some factory. Please...

I bet the CEO doesn't know how to do the factory-feeder's job either. And by a long chalk the factory feeder works harder, longer hours. The majority of the managerial types' time is number-crunching, form-filling and ordering the lesser people around. Maybe the odd meeting to see how best to improve next month's margins ("INCREASE PRICES!" "FIRE EMPLOYEES TO REDUCE COSTS!" "CHEAPER MATERIALS!"). This stuff isn't really as stressful as people make out it is. A bit paperwork-heavy and the odd order requisition form to keep on top of but generally it's all vested in pure logic. Try getting chucked right in the middle of a family feud that has involved numerous allegations from both sides of disorder, assaults and property destruction, working out who to arrest and who to charge, who to interview and who to release. At four o clock in the AM. Now that's stressful.

Also don't forget consumers dictate whether a company does well or not. Employees are only there to support the mechanism that continues to drive consumers to buy your service or product.

This concept reminds me of this time I stopped into a resturant during a trade show and this young teen girl ignored all of us and talked on her mobile till the boss came over and scolded her. I overheard her later talking to her friend saying the boss thinks the customers are more important then the employees..."

I did a face-palm-slap when I heard her say it. But that is the mentality of a lot of people. Employees thinking they are more important than the customers or the management. Employees have a set job, complete the job and go home. Management has big stuff like sales and production numbers and profit and loss statements to contend with.

"There is one person who can fire everyone in the company from the president on down. It's the customer by taking their business elsewhere." ~Founder of Walmart

You just said yourself (with a quote that has since become largely hypocritical as far as Walmart are concerned, I might add) that the front-line employees providing good service is of the most fundamental importance to a business because if they didn't the customers would go elsewhere. So why are the front-line staff members not paid with their importance in mind? I never said that managers didn't do something useful. I'm not saying that the top investment banker guru shouldn't get a tidy wage for his trouble. I'm saying that the desk clerk providing a real service to real people deserves some real recognition for their real work.

You're not selling your argument to me, Hostile

[duke_Qa]

If you want a field to grow, it needs nutrients. The maya civilization found that out the hard way. Nature might be capitalistic but it is also as cold as a Kelvin. If you are ignorant for the rules of nature it will bite you in the arse.

Governments and laws are not meant to be there just to control the people, they are there to control the corporations and the rich ones too. No one is above the law. And when you bring destruction and desolation upon people for being ignorant and greedy, they should pay. Big money equals big responsibilities. dire disasters should cause dire punishments.

It helps thinking of mankind as a gestalt/hive-mind. Mankind-voice speaks, quiet in the halls:

"Once We have experienced that something burns' date=' We do not put our hand into the fire for petty things. We learn, We make rules, We follow the rules. And[/font'][/size][font="Century Gothic"] We move on with our journey into the unknown."

Kinda cool concept that one. Although as with any sort of personalization it is prone to getting words put into it's mouth. also quite totalitarian but thats what all organisms are.

[Pasidon]

Well, Hostile is in the right grounds, but in the wrong mind-set. It's not unknown that the rich aren't kind and the poor have no say in the matter. It has nothing to do with capitalism. It is a system to keep the masses happy and blinded by the reality of nature. But there is no use complaining; the system is so well indented into this world, it cannot be undone. There will always be a rich man above every man, so satisfaction will never be gained no matter how high you aim anyway. The system was designed to keep the masses in line, and the real issue isn't even apparent, so it cannot be argued. We, of a certain name, invented capitalism, but are in no way capitalists.

[Ash]

That, at least, we agree on Pasidon.

[duke_Qa]

Capitalism is a stepping stone in a macro-biological fashion, Just as mitochondria are a vital part of microbiology in creating lifeforms capable of creating larger objects like muscles and hearts.

Once as many impurities as possible can be removed from the equation of capitalism; We will get the opportunity to stop spending so much time on robbing each other blind and earning money. Then we can spend time on the bigger things.
Not very possible without superhuman support, but we might get there within the century.