RE: The paradox of being “anti-capitalist” in a capitalist society
I appreciated your post and your attempt to articulate very difficult thoughts and feelings. Thank you!
There are far too many camps, labels, opinions and positions to even begin understanding much less addressing. All of them simply reflect what's inside the individual, for better or worse.
There's good evidence that humans spend a lifetime programming their neural networks to become whatever it is they become. As we know, the output of a neural network is dictated by the input or learning data set. Some of us are programmed to be capitalist, some anarchists, others socialists. None of these programmatic outcomes really matter. For folks to debate these outcomes is even less meaningful. (Should the verb be plural in that sentence? I confuse myself!) For example, to debate fiat vs crypto currencies is meaningless. The answer is that NEITHER should exist.
The first critical point to the discussion is the learning data set since that is what dictates our beliefs and behaviors. The second critical point is a question, can we significantly influence/determine our learning data set?
Just look at one near universal characteristic that humans share regardless of culture or time. Humans lie to each other. Why?
Just imagine a world where everyone simply told the truth? Such a disruption in our learning data set would completely and irreversibly alter our global notion of "economy" and "politics." In fact we probably would decide there's no need for such things.
How do we reprogram lying out of our nature? After lying we can tackle greed. It seems to me that until we can do that everything else is just an intellectual exercise in futility.
(Full disclosure, I do believe we can make such changes! I do think we should discuss it. Can we reach a critical mass? I don't know.)
Nice! I don’t know if I fully agree that it’s meningless, but it certainly is missing a more central point that you hit on, we are forming all of these stances through the lens of our culture, a culture that has many problems. Before we solve problems that we face, we need to solve the problems that we cause. You bring up lying, I think we are looking in the same direction. Rather than framing things as far as how much “value” they add, I believe it’s more crucial to look at how much trust they build. Most activity that we deem “wrong” comes from a place of mistrust. Mistrust for the government, mistrust for the people, mistrust between races, for the rich, for the poor. I believe this is where the conversation should begin.
My purpose for writing this wasn’t to convince ancaps that their opinions are wrong and mine are right. It was to say “let’s talk about it and try to hear each other out and learn from each other”. An attempt at building trust, as most of my work is.
Sometimes we employ hyperbole for emphasis. Language is so much fun.
Absolutely we must start with "honest" conversation between humans (dogs pee on poles and sniff butts but we seem to have lost that ability. How I envy the simplicity of a dog's life.)
The tricky part is the "honest." As you observe virtually everything, family, culture, education, etc. has programmed us to be who we are. Who we are dictates our behavior, including conversation. Our notion of right and wrong is absolutely the result of our programming. (I literally believe we are programmed by our unique data set which we call our "past experiences") Even our notion of honesty is determined by our past experiences.
If that is true, then future experiences can similarly re-shape our thinking/behavior. We can re-program ourselves. The challenge here is that while we can gradually re-program ourselves we have no perspective from which to optimally decide our new direction other than our past experiences which is what got us in this mess in the first place. It is a conundrum so say the least. That brings us to two possibilities,
To come full circle and to the point, an "honest" discussion is one in which we discuss all possible alternatives pertaining to our re-programming, without insisting on our point or resisting other's points. For such a conversation to progress all the parties to it should be "equally experienced" otherwise the words quickly stop flowing. What do I mean by "equally experienced"? If a person has been programmed to believe that the moon is made of cheese and lacks the "experience" to consider other possibilities it's really hard for any discussion of advance beyond the constraint of that individual.
So where to have this conversation?
I think the act of recognizing that you are programmed and can reprogram is more significant than you make it out to be. A new kind of openmindedness can open up from here and then experiences will still be seen through the lens of past experiences but we are able to begin to see the lens, characters in a story who know they are characters in a story. This is quite profound and if it was truly widespread, I beleive the Culture would be much more proactive and accepting of as many kinds of people as possible.
So...who’s going to start the buttsniffing club on steemit? ;-)
Another way to look at it is not as "programmed vs re-programmed", but that in fact we are in a constant state of BEING programmed. From that perspective the challenge is easier to see. Namely, how do we choose our preferred programming? What is the NEXT BEST STEP for us to take?
All that we have learned from the past has brought us to our present, less than desirable, current state. That implies that we are not capable of knowing/discerning the next best step and therefore impotent to choose the next best step . Historically humans have never learned from their past. If we had we wouldn't be in our current state. Why should we suddenly expect it to be any different? Libraries are filled with pithy tomes of how we OUGHT to be. They describe in great detail the desired state for humanity.
We know WHAT we ought to become; we just don't know HOW to become. If we did we would have already arrived. A second possibility is that we are simply POWERLESS to affect what we know to be true.
For me the relevant question to ask is HOW does the individual achieve that next state. Philosophy hasn't helped any more than religion has. What has science added to the progression of mankind other than bit and bobs of knowledge? (and they can't even agree on those) Which revolution, social or intellectual, has not reverted back to the state they fought to escape?
Going back to the example of truthfulness, why do we still lie if we know better?
Of course if we could influence our future programming it would solve the cultural bias blight from which we suffer. For now living in a foreign country and learning a foreign language might be the next best thing. But for Americans even that is no guarantee with our myopic view of most things.
Our sense of smell, or rather the profound lack of it, is another discussion. For many animals smell defines a significant percentage of their world view. Just imagine if we could still smell the receptiveness of a prospective mate how much simpler life would be. No, I'm afraid our butt-sniffing days are lost forever. Pity! ;-)