[ExI] Capitalism, anti capitalism, emotional arousal

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Why people think OWS has to do with going back to hunter-gatherer society
or communism?
Look at this for example:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/new-livelihoods/whos-building-the-do-it-ourselves-economy

What is here that sounds like wanting to go back to hunter-gatherer society?
Giovanni


On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2011/11/12 James Clement <clementlawyer at gmail.com>:
> > Stefano Vaj posts:
> > IMHO, there are a number of question here, which might be open even
> > for the most fervent Randian amongst us:
> > ...
> > - The *political* issues with capitalism, as opposed to *ethical*
> > issues ("greed and oppression", etc.), are IMHO:
> > i) Should really power and status in all societies be determined only
> > by one's money?
>
> No, it should be only one factor. I would argue that it IS only one
> factor. We have fame, reputation, ingenuity, intelligence,
> friendships, family ties and so forth. A typical Kennedy, Clinton or
> Bush has more influence than they deserve on their own merits, does
> that mean that we should be trying to tear down the families of power?
> How much money one has, and particularly how much one is willing to
> spend on the spread of memes important to that person, is and should
> be one factor in power. I don't agree with Soros most of the time, but
> I defend his right to do what he's doing.
>
> > ii) Should one's money itself be determined on the exclusive basis of
> > features which often have little "natural" or social utility and
> > mostly perpetuate themselves through vicious circles and probably
> > outdated civilisational paradigms?
>
> I don't think this is the case, at least most of the time. Can you
> give more examples of what you're thinking here? The most important
> feature of a person who gains riches in our system is the willingness
> to take risk. Risk is central to our capitalistic system.
>
> > iii) Should self-referential interests of a globalist financial system
> > be allowed to expropriate popular sovereignties and induce stagnation
> > and loss of cultural/political pluralism and diversity à la Brave New
> > World?
>
> The brilliance of the founding fathers was in realizing the necessity
> of a balance of powers in maintaining a working system. The balance of
> power between government, corporations and the press (among others) is
> just as important to our system as the balance between the judicial,
> legislative and executive branches.
>
> It is hard to argue that corporations are currently more powerful than
> the government... but I think you can argue that the people have less
> power than ever, and this had led to both the Tea Party and the Occupy
> Wall street movement (to the extent that each is not astroturfed.) The
> people are trying to get their power back from both. The Tea Party
> from the government, and the Occupy Wall street from corporations.
> Both have a point, to be sure.
>
> The question would seem to be how to give the people their part of power.
>
> > My responses:
> > i) Capitalism does not set moral/ethical standards in a society.
>
> Yes, that's correct.
>
> > It's an
> > economic system that lets competition determine factors such as what gets
> > produced, who owns the means of production, and what price is set for
> goods,
> > services, labor, and resources. It's perfectly acceptable that society
> > determines (even in a Capitalist system) that something other than
> wealth is
> > esteemed.
>
> And it does.
>
> > ii) Capitalism rewards producers with resources for supplying products or
> > services that are demanded by consumers. If you think the consumers are
> > wrong in their choices, then you can try to persuade them to spend their
> > capital in other ways, short of coercing them.
>
> Or you could coerce them. The government often does, in fact. When it
> goes into Gibson Guitar and takes away all their rare woods, it is
> limiting consumer choice. (Whether you agree or not with this specific
> case.) When it artificially props up solar companies, it is doing the
> same. It does that sort of thing ALL THE TIME. In fact, I would argue
> that the government is the prime source of coercion in our society.
>
> > iii) Why do we let politicians sell their votes and provide some groups
> with
> > benefits at the expense of others? We could easily throw them out of
> power,
> > but the fact is that most people are too lazy or insecure to really
> change
> > the status quo.
>
> Or ignorant...
>
> > What I find admirable about #OWS is their contempt for
> > corrupt politicians and the lobbyists/Corporatocracy that pays them off
> for
> > such benefits. If we limited the power of politicians (went to a
> government
> > either controlled directly by the Citizens through referendums, or simply
> > limited the scope of what government could do to defense, police and
> courts,
> > then the politicians would have no ability to hand out favors, and
> > corruption would virtually cease.
>
> If OWS had a cogent alternative to the current system, that would make
> them more credible. The tea party is simple, they want lower taxes.
> The OWS is more complex, as some of them want communism, some the
> return to a hunter-gatherer society... it's very confusing to a casual
> observer.
>
> -Kelly
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20111112/60c4b82b/attachment.html>