continuation of what I posted on the discussion site...
responding specifically to Ashley's comment about how compassion and selfishness are both practical responses to our environment....
The application of survival of the fittest Darwinism to human interaction is called social dawinism, and it was used in the early 20th century to justify the oppression of many groups, and the insitution of problematic policies like eugenics. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism
I think the reason humans choose selfishness over compassion is not a result of their fundamental selfishness, but instead their socialization towards selfishness. This socialization is created and perpetuated by capitalism.
I am not denying that selfishness would exist outside of capitalist socialization, I am just denying that it would be so big a force, or that we would even think of it as something that is "natural" unless we were socialized to do so. I don't really think it makes sense to say that humans should compete with each other in order to be happy, unless your idea of happiness is very materially based.
If you acceppt that capitalism (or even some other method of socialization) is the cause of selfishness, it seems almost beside the point to ask questions about the "true nature" of humans. The reality is: Some of us live awesome lives under capitalism, which promotes and encourages (through material rewards) selfishness over compassion. As first world dwellers, we already get some of the awesome life at birth as an inheritance. In this sense, we already have a greater tendency to conform to capitalism/socialization because it has already provided us with awesome things. Most people in the third world dont get that kind of inheritance, and never achieve it because of the way the global system of power is oriented, thus, many of them have comparatively painful, difficult lives.
In other words, selfishness helps first world dwellers live (or have meterial rewards), and it helps third world dwellers die (or not have material rewards).
(this is a simplification.)
If you were to remove capitalism from the picture, people would be more compassionate, because it would be in their best interest to support others rather than compete with them. Compassion would (will/does) benefit everyone more than competition and selfishness would (will/does). This is the principle of mutual aid (google it).
The specific alternative models to capitalism vary, and many can be described as utopic, idealistic, or impossible. I believe that utopias are not impossible: they are just very difficult to sustain in general, and particularly difficult to sustain on a large scale. One "utopic" example (not sure if the people living there would describe themselves this way) is a commune/community called Twin Oaks (google it).
The application of survival of the fittest Darwinism to human interaction is called social dawinism, and it was used in the early 20th century to justify the oppression of many groups, and the insitution of problematic policies like eugenics. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism
I think the reason humans choose selfishness over compassion is not a result of their fundamental selfishness, but instead their socialization towards selfishness. This socialization is created and perpetuated by capitalism.
I am not denying that selfishness would exist outside of capitalist socialization, I am just denying that it would be so big a force, or that we would even think of it as something that is "natural" unless we were socialized to do so. I don't really think it makes sense to say that humans should compete with each other in order to be happy, unless your idea of happiness is very materially based.
If you acceppt that capitalism (or even some other method of socialization) is the cause of selfishness, it seems almost beside the point to ask questions about the "true nature" of humans. The reality is: Some of us live awesome lives under capitalism, which promotes and encourages (through material rewards) selfishness over compassion. As first world dwellers, we already get some of the awesome life at birth as an inheritance. In this sense, we already have a greater tendency to conform to capitalism/socialization because it has already provided us with awesome things. Most people in the third world dont get that kind of inheritance, and never achieve it because of the way the global system of power is oriented, thus, many of them have comparatively painful, difficult lives.
In other words, selfishness helps first world dwellers live (or have meterial rewards), and it helps third world dwellers die (or not have material rewards).
(this is a simplification.)
If you were to remove capitalism from the picture, people would be more compassionate, because it would be in their best interest to support others rather than compete with them. Compassion would (will/does) benefit everyone more than competition and selfishness would (will/does). This is the principle of mutual aid (google it).
The specific alternative models to capitalism vary, and many can be described as utopic, idealistic, or impossible. I believe that utopias are not impossible: they are just very difficult to sustain in general, and particularly difficult to sustain on a large scale. One "utopic" example (not sure if the people living there would describe themselves this way) is a commune/community called Twin Oaks (google it).
posted by Liz @ 8:19 PM
1 Comments:
At 8:58 PM,
Liz said…
why hasn't capitalism broken down if it isnt our true nature?
like I said in my post, I think I actually object to the term "true nature." I see it more as an ethical imperative, i.e. how SHOULD we live our lives, notwithstanding how DO we live our lives. in fact, we COULD live our lives in any number of ways, but the best (according to wise ol' me) is by compassion, not by competition/selfishness. why is this the best? because it allows for a far more equal distribution of resources, for one, and it feels better (i.e. more ethical.. at least to me it does).
but back to the question: why has capitalism gone on for so long if it is not our true nature?
capitalism is self reproducing and self supporting. capitalism breeds capitalists. also, capitalism destroys anti-capitalism. case in point: the spanish civil war yeilded a pretty amazing horizontally based anarchist society that was getting its shit in order, successfully resisting the fascists, and starting to rebuild social structures along radical lines. then, the fascists (capitalists) came in and crushed them. this, of course, is the anarchist/leftist interpretation of the spanish civil war, not the one Mr. Hines and Mr. Baron taught us in high school (I know cause I did my senior year history paper on it and they told me to discount the anarchist position at every turn...) A guy named Harold Bookchin wrote a book about this, and there is also info on it (th radical interpretation of the spanish civil war) online if you search Spanish Civil War and Anarchism.
as for communism: I am no communist, and have only a basic understanding of marxism. I find the monolithic rejection of Lenin and Stalin on the basis of their evil treatment of the opposition problematic, but that being said, I really haven't studied them in depth. I dont think that communism the way they did it is effective: I think any kind of anti-capitalist society requires intentionality and desire on the part of ALL people living in it (and this is why anarchist communes work: because they are small enough) not just the ruling party. There are inherent problems in forcing people into a system they dont agree with, particularly if they are expected to work fot the good of that system. Another reason communism in russia didnt work (and a problem that horizontally organized prodcution systems face today*) is they they are operating in a very different way from capitalism/capitalist systems of production, but they still must compete with capitalism.
*one example of this is currently developing in Argentina following its economic collapse in 2001: the horizontally organized Recuperated Factories Movement (MNER). look for info online, or I can tell you more about it in person: it is way cool and inspiring to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home