Are Capitalism & Competition 'Natural'? Or Is A Lack of Compassion Being Framed As 'Normal'?
So.. supporters of capitalism often claim capitalism is natural and a result of natural hierarchy that cannot be escaped. The inference is that 'nature' (which is not usually defined by them) is 'designed to be' or 'just is' a certain way that means that the 'best' results occur as a result of competition and 'winning' in that competition. Since capitalism is essentially based on competition, they say that capitalism is both 'the best' and 'most natural' economic system.
Here's the thing. In case you missed it, the people with the most money today are among those who have created the global tyranny system and fraud machine that involves the banks, military industrial war machine and so many other corrupt entities. Their 'wealth' is largely the result of manipulation, coercion, theft and even genocide. I'm not talking about 'average millionaires' here - I'm talking about the people calling the shots in the oil, weapons and related industries who essentially have unlimited money. So is this REALLY 'natural' and 'the best' we can do?
The response to this tends to either be along the lines of 'the problem is government, not capitalism' or 'you are jealous'. Setting aside that these people simply don't know whether I or anyone else is truly jealous or not (hint: I'm not) - let's look at government. If government disappeared somehow, then we'd still have many of the same needs, wants and people in society. Given that it is well documented that the governments that these supporters of capitalism rightly criticise for their activities ARE operated today in answer to the wealthiest capitalists - how do the pro capitalists suggest we sort this out? The wealthiest capitalists would still use their wealth to achieve similar outcomes, with or without a government – they would just change the form of their connivance.
I have never heard a real answer to this from die hard capitalism fans and while I am open to hearing it, I think this lack is because there really isn't an answer to it that doesn't involve some kind of wealth redistribution or financial reset - which they generally will never accept. This is a large part of why 'anarchist' groups fight forever, going around and around in totally pointless 'discussion' over the phony left/right paradigm.
To achieve actual change means we need to move beyond this and analyse reality accurately and without bias. As a systems engineer, this is what I am trained to do and it is totally obvious to me that any form of government will be corrupted by whoever wants to corrupt it unless changes are made on very deep levels in nearly all of us so that we don't support this happening - which would also mean that any government would have to be radically different to how it is today if we are to truly thrive. The rules of society have to fully support the voice and power of all people to stand up for themselves in the face of tyranny - including the tyranny of wealth that wants to buy your enslavement. I also know that the heartless among us will try to dominate in whatever the prevailing economic system is and if you completely remove government they would likely rejoice in that they wouldn't have to put up the pretense of actually caring about you any more, via their bought and paid for politicians.
Solving a systematic problem requires systematic thinking and solutions - we need to understand the principles involved and each live our lives in the ways that are most aligned with real freedom and balance – otherwise we will naturally end up reliving the repeating patterns that we have been living for a very long time. Reality cannot change until we do. Ultimately, free will leads the way in this and so it is not for me or anyone else to determine for others what their future holds or how they must live. However, that extends both ways and it is not right for people to try to tell me how to live, either directly or via government and it’s monopoly on violence.
I actually choose to live in balance to the best of my ability, which means you won’t ever find me starting wars, fights or other forms of imbalance – so before judging that I am some kind of ‘threat’ to something, perhaps first consider the number of millions of people who have died in the name of governments or at their own hands – often people the governments have been ‘elected’ by.
My overall takeaway point for fans of capitalism is this:
If you think that capitalism is the most fair way of living, but it’s dependency on money/tokens and ‘proof of ownership’ is entirely open to corruption – shouldn’t you be putting massive amounts of resources into creating a totally foolproof way of having real and fair capitalism that isn’t corrupt? Since without this, it is no better than any of the corrupt systems you claim it 'beats'. The only move I see to do anything remotely like that is the cryptocurrency scene and many in that scene do indeed identify as anarchist in thinking (remembering that anarchy only means ‘no rulers’). In my analysis, there is a reason why pro capitalists don’t have an immediate answer to this challenge and it is because there really isn’t a fully workable solution to this that doesn’t ultimately rely on ‘who has the bigger guns’. There’s no way around it – humanity has to be evolved to a pinnacle of enlightened compassion before we can have real balance and even stand a chance of being psychologically and emotionally clear enough to know, feel and live the genuinely ‘best’ economic and societal way on this planet.
If capitalism really is the 'best' and most 'natural' system, then it's fans need to demonstrate how a finite planet can sustain ever increasing scales of armament in it's competitions without also developing a deep compassion that inherently draws people together such that they don't even want to compete with each other.
Those who are heavily invested in 'winning' will unconsciously refuse to consider the alternatives because they hate 'losing' and haven't thought freely enough to learn that there really can be alternatives that are better for everyone, including themselves. If you could have everything you actually need to feel good, why would you continue to want to compete? Perhaps because you have bought into the idea, maybe long ago, that you are a loser? Healing these old imprints and memories is necessary to be truly free as you can't be free as long as your own subconscious is controlling your choices for reasons you aren't even aware of. Personally, I know I feel best when everyone else feels good and has what they need - I would have to deeply question myself if I felt 'good' because people were in a famine, for example.
The basic, compassionate and empathic reality behind the intent to find real balance and dispense with the idea of competing against everyone needs to be more deeply understood and felt into and without this, we cannot even call ourselves fully human - let alone humane.
Wishing you well,
Ura Soul
This post was originally published at Ureka.org: Earth Heart Community.
I tend to agree with the overall message. That (human) government will always be subject to human foibles, as will capitalism, has been clear to me for a long time. For reasons of practicality, however, I disagree with one idea, which is expressed in the following text:
"[S]houldn’t you be putting massive amounts of resources into creating a totally foolproof way of having real and fair capitalism that isn’t corrupt?"
Assuming that I--the reader--am the "you" being addressed, my answer is "no." Aside from the fact that I don't have massive resources, the pure reality of my world is that I can barely afford to keep hearth and home together; how can I justify diverting even a minuscule amount of what is, allegedly, mine to what would be--if I were to do so acting alone--a completely futile effort? And yes, this is the "fault," if you want to put it that way, of capitalism and the government, both. It also is the fault of all us _you_s who are afraid to commit what resources we might have to a perhaps impossible-to-attain goal. Still, as Benjamin Franklin is reported to have said, "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." At this point in time, it seems that we are hanging separately. I wonder what it would take to make us all hang together?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. The 'you' in the quote from me is generally directed to 'the collective' group of capitalism fans - who do, collectively, have massive wealth (according to their own way of measuring it). I have no problem directing my resources to what I think / feel stands a chance of making life better - it just happens that at the moment I am finding it tough to find anyone other than myself who aligns with me on that enough for me to want to expand the organisation of it. That said, though, I do dedicate a lot of my time to practically creating things that can help us to find solutions.
I feel that what is needed for us to come together is multi layered - however, the first layers include the need to clear out the old beliefs and unprocessed emotions that have use internally struggling and seeking to compete instead of seeking practical solutions that combine our power in beneficial ways. Part of the problem, as I see it - is that the thumbscrews have been turned on most people to such an extent, using commerce and mind control, that they feel they don't have time or will to do much other than seek to increase their own bank balance and then spend their money on trying to get high in some way.
I tried to make the following reply immediately but ran into a problem with my system that I was unable to resolve until just now. Here it is:
You say "thumbscrews," indicating that people are being coerced into believing that they (we) don't have the wherewithal (power, freedom, and so on) to focus on anything other than their (our) bank balances. I'll need to give that some thought, and I might find myself agreeing with you. But here's what makes me balk at doing so: By western-based standards, we (my family and I) are in the socioeconomic class known as the middle class . . . barely. Until recently, I had four jobs, though only one of them was full-time. Still, I worked--work--as many as 65 hours per week. This is neither a competition nor a complaint, but my contention is that even if I had the inclination to "get high," I would not have the time or the money to do so.
Everything is broken, I think, but unless I decide to fold in on myself and give up--destroying what small measure of stability my family and I have--I will have to keep running (hard!) to maintain my position. Broken or not, what is in place is what is in place, and there are no realistic alternatives (yet!). For me, there is no coercion. I have to earn enough--in conjunction with my wife--to survive. Beyond that, I can imagine something better, and I can determine the steps that might lead me to that better something, but survival and the necessity of working within the system make it difficult, if not impossible, for me to--realistically--be able to do anything to improve things for myself and, not incidentally, humankind.
It is fear, not coercion. Let us say, hypothetically, that someone (you?) comes up with a viable replacement for capitalism and that it is a system that resists human manipulation. Convincing me of its necessity and convincing your neighbor of its necessity, and convincing that middle-aged nurse who was in line in front of you at the supermarket yesterday (and whose feet hurt, you could tell) of its necessity is the easy part, requiring no real commitment on the part of those whom you have convinced. It is when you urge us to action that fear will set in: What happens, we think, if he is wrong? What happens if, well, if something happens, and we lose our homes/jobs/families/lives?
I have spent much time--in private--railing against this or that injustice, this or that system. What stays my hand from making my objections public is that I have few alternatives to offer.
Finally, my hope lies with my son and his compatriots (of which, perhaps, you are one). He (and they) is as dead set against capitalism (and the current form of democracy as perpetrated in the US) as you seem be. If I am myself stymied concerning how to effect positive change, I have real hope that he/they will find a way to do so. It is foolish and irresponsible to place the burden of change on those who are yet to come, but there you go.
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
Hi @ura-soul!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 7.064 which ranks you at #90 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 198 contributions, your post is ranked at #160.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
Congratulations! I just stopped by to say that your post has been selected as a daily Featured Post of my personal curation project! You can find the daily Featured Post HERE.
I upvoted your contribution and I put it on the list because to my mind your post is what I call a quality content!
I am @miti, a manual curator that shall make available all his Steem Power to authors deserving of support. Let's make STEEM great again!
Have a nice day and keep up the good work!
@ura-soul You have received a 100% upvote from @intro.bot because this post did not use any bidbots and you have not used bidbots in the last 30 days!
Upvoting this comment will help keep this service running.