Are capitalism and compassion incompatible with each other?
The desire to help people and desire to make money seem to be unavoidably conflicting interests, no matter how people try to sugarcoat it. Except for people who are already filthy rich and dedicated their lives to philanthropy, everyone else who wishes to pursue a path of genuine human compassion has to also concern themselves with making money at the same time.
Also, Notice how every cause intended to help people has like over 9000 charities, but although they may help people on one end, the solutions to the major problems of humanity are matters of politics, not charity.
>>24732099
To be a Capitalist, you either have to be very cynical or very optimistic. You either believe that everything will turn out of fine if government just doesn't intervene (optimist) or you don't care if people die because they can't pay the bills and shit and that it might even be better that way because the meak shall inherit nothing and stuff (cynical)
Since I'm neither an optimist nor a cynic, I'm not a capitalist.
>>24732163
I can tell you know literally nothing about economics.
>>24732099
>the solutions to the major problems of humanity are matters of politics, not charity.
Capitalism is the solution to most of the major problems humanity faces.
Communism is still a good idea.
>>24732163
>Implying the government is the good guy by default
>>24732197
Not really its pretty shitty
>>24732099
Ultimately it doesn't matter because liberal democratic capitalism is collapsing
By making money you are already helping others because you produce things that other people need. Capitalism is unique in that it takes the greed of people and turns it into a productive force. Without capitalism there can't be any compassion because everyone would merely fend for themselves trying to find food or shelter, which are otherwise provided for by the free market.
I think it depends very much on how you define capitalism.
I think the idea of private ownership of property is so universal and existentially natural that to insist on banning this is inherently immoral. If someone has something in their possession that they haven't acquired through force, in general - at least on the level of indivdual people owning actual THINGS, then I can't see any real moral justification for taking it from them by force.
So if capitalism is merely the private ownership of property with a government enforcing laws that protect this ownership, I can't really see any viable alternative that would require a major evil take place.
The anti-capitalists are right in pointing out how easily wealth can accumulate into the hands of a few, and the huge power disparity this can create, and that this is not fair - because really what individual can really claim to be fairly responsible for owning vast amounts of wealth?
The most obvious solution to me is for every single person who cares, to work - not just for themselves, but for other people DIRECTLY (rather than these charity organisations you mention). The world would be infinitely better off if everyone would simply help other people by offering jobs, training, resources to others.
This will never happen though, and any attempt to find a truly moral 'social order' is going to fail.
>>24732215
>the government exists to serve the people
>I consider myself a socialist
Curious to know what your major was.
>>24732229
You wouldn't say that if you knew the first thing about economics.
Under a capitalist system, GDP per capita will always go up.
Statistics support this.
But whatever. Keep sucking Obama's dick. IDC.
>>24732277
Thats implying GDP per capita is somehow the answer to everything
The most important thing is military power which is best sustained with a fascist system
Is a criminal, committing criminal acts to gain money, considered to be exercising capitalism? Like a bank robber or something. It's illegal sure, but the earning of money through work, legal or not still fits the bill, shouldn't it?
I'm not American or smart so I know nothing about capitalism
>>24732099
>everyone else who wishes to pursue a path of genuine human compassion has to also concern themselves with making money at the same time.
you'll find that concern for this moral-hazard problem in all economic systems. Lots of people (including most of this board) would much rather be supported in life without contributing anything back, so every system has some way of trying to get people to not do that. Capitalism just does it differently, by aversion to social-welfare schemes and charity, so that you can pay your own way or not eat, than communism does, where they straight up force you to either work or be sent to the gulags.
>The desire to help people and desire to make money seem to be unavoidably conflicting interests
well theoretically every (private-sector) transaction in a capitalist society is beneficial to both parties, or it wouldn't take place. I think the problem is something closer to the fact that there are a lot of people that just don't have anything anyone else wants - either assets or skills or what have you. Some subset of those will attain something valuable to others, if you give them a starting place, some others will just consume whatever resources you put into assisting them to no broader benefit. The problem with capitalism is that it can't give a starting point to the first group, the problem with compassion is that it can't cut off the second group.
>>24732268
>The anti-capitalists are right in pointing out how easily wealth can accumulate into the hands of a few
Those people fucking earned that money you idiot.
They offered a product/service and people paid for it. That's how they accumulated the wealth.
>>24732294
>Thats implying GDP per capita is somehow the answer to everything
Give me a reason as to why it's not.
>>24732311
>Capitalism just does it differently
Under a capitalist system, most NEETs would die in their rooms.
I'd say statism and compassion are incompatible.
There's an interesting quote from Jailbird "where kindness fails etiquette prevails", my interpretation of that was always "unkind people will act with apparent compassion for the sake of the social order".
It's the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, the more you're motivated to do good by outside forces, the less internally motivated you will be to do good.
Capitalism is so poorly defined you could easily make an argument one way or the other. I'm against statism, which some would argue is the ULTIMATE form of capitalism, but people don't just consume for the sake of consuming (unless the STATE tells them to), generally they'll gather wealth and resources for the sake of taking care of/impressing people.
As long as that's a part of our nature, people will prioritize each other over material goods (again, unless the STATE tells them otherwise).
Then again, I'm probably completely wrong. It's really Hobbes VS Rousseau, 'humans are naturally competitive' vs 'humans are naturally compassionate'.
To be honest, I think both sides oversimplify it. I think whether humans in a state of nature are violent and warlike, or caring and communal, depends largely on the environment they find themselves in. And I feel like the environment we have at the moment, while it needs some sort of commonwealth, needs to be less strictly regulated. Basically only keeping certain dangerous technologies from people while underplaying their existence/potential accessibility.
Basically I've written an essay to tell you 'I don't know, but I sure am well read aren't I?'
>>24732326
Because if a society becomes weak and decadent from capitalist hyper consumption and predatory media practices they'll be easy fodder for any enemies both foreign and domestic.
>>24732341
Why does any of that matter? Compassion or state authority?
People need to be told what to do by smarter people, thats how it was and will always be
Let's forget bullshit theorizing for a while. Empirically, pre-capitalist peasant societies and communist societies such as Eastern Europe has less social trust, social cohesion, etc, and more backstabbing, snitching etc.
>>24732384
They had more cohesion and social trust. There was a larger active community and people cared about issues rather than the mind numingly useless modern pleb.
>>24732326
>Those people fucking earned that money you idiot.
But they earned that money within a context of a society. Let's take the example of Gina Rinehart in Australia. She's an heiress to a fortune of billions of dollars, she was simply 'born' to a man who'd created and built up this business. That man in turn may have (let's assume he did) done everything legitimately, obeyed the law, never cheated anyone, never done anyone violence - simply exercised his talents freely, etc... you cannot deny that his ability to acquire mines within Australia are a product of the society as a whole. He used roads and rains and all sorts of infrastructure paid for by the taxpayer. His business is regarded as an established legal entity because the Australian government enforces laws to protect his rights. His company can thrive because of the relative stability in the region created by the Australian military (and more importantly, a global security framework maintained by the US and other western allies). The resources he's digging up were only found because of technologies and science developed by others, and the resources can often only be used for the same reasons.
So "no man is an Island", he just happens to have been lucky to be born in his circumstances, and to have developed certain skills, to have made certain choices. You cannot say that he's 100% responsible for his earnings. He used the wealth he acquired to create new wealth, and eventually became a billionaire, and now the money belongs to people who didn't even do a thing to create this money.
This is a real problem, especially when we look outside of western countries and look on a global scale, where Western countries are able to use their advantages to get richer and richer off poorer countries. In some ways these poorer countries benefit, in many ways they stay subjugated or become more subjugated.
>>24732366
Right, I'm against a specific type of statism which, if you read beyond the word statism, you'd understand.
>while it needs some sort of commonwealth
Humans are obvious hierarchical, but are you going to argue that world leaders and CEOs are natural alphas? I doubt it.
The natural alphas are the guys in prison for assaulting someone who threatened their social group.
Why the fuck has /r9k/ become /pol/ for dumb children i.e. libfags? are you too scared of /pol/ banter or something?
>>24732366
Also,
>Why does any of that matter?
>It's the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, the more you're motivated to do good by outside forces, the less internally motivated you will be to do good.
>>24732439
Alpha and beta is a ridiculous concept. As someone who has actually socialized I can safely tell you that. Meyers Brigs classifications are much better.
INTJs and ENTJs are natural leaders. >>24732445
Tbh too much shit posting, too many retards and also too slow
>>24732445
>implying /pol/ arguees politics
>>24732473
But why does that matter? As long as everyone is relatively provided for and has what they need, what was done to sustain that doesn't matter.
Peoples opinions are expressly irrelevant to the real world
>>24732477
>As someone who has actually socialized
>Meyers Brigs classifications
>INTJs and ENTJs are natural leaders.
I think you're just retarded my man
>>24732477
>ethology is bullshit
>outdated personality research that is largely considered pseudo-science by most scientific psychologists/neuroscientists is legit.
> too many retards
Indeed.
>>24732487
I guess it doesn't matter if you think 1984 describes a utopia.
Either the state is keeping an eye on you 24/7 to keep up the extrinsic motivation, or you need intrinsic motivation.
>>>/pol/
Typing this so I can post.
How's everyone doing tonight? Tip your waiters.
>>24732500
>>24732501
>talking shit about Briggs
Yes blah blah its not technically scientific , but however it's perfectly reasonable for informal discussions like this, its for the most part true to life in many ways and is far more accurate than the alpha beta dichotomy.
>>24732501
Ethics is the stuff of idiotic so called philosopher's who don't understand morality is human synthesized and irrelevant.
>>24732518
I wouldn't mind 1984, if it was more meritocratic and comfortable. Toe the party line and you could get far.
At least it would be white and not feminist.
>>24732560
There are two groups that win in 1984, the high ranking public servants and the proles.
You're effectively living in that 'utopia' now, and I daresay you're one of the poor saps in the middle... hence why you're on a board well known for people expressing discontent with society.
>>24732519
>tipping
Capitalism works so well in the US, waiters need tips to survive.
>>24732602
Ehh, im not unhappy at all and to call our world Orwellian is a vast vast over exaggeration. We're decadent, weak, and degenerate but I would not say we have too much authority or control, just a lack of it.
Our society became decadent when the individual mattered more than the group.
>>24732542
I'm not talking about the colloquial, redpill, alpha beta bullshit.
I'm talking about actual ethology. Where it isn't a 'dichotomy' and a beta isn't a loser but, rather, the next in line to become alpha.
Nature doesn't select for sociopathic PUAs to be natural alphas, they're just playing a game. Nature selects for caretakers and altruists to be alphas.
If it's really triggering your autism this much, replace 'alpha' with 'pack leader'.
And no, Myers Briggs, especially if you self-test, has almost no scientific credibility. Look at any discussion about it and you'll see a distinct lack of agreement about the very specific mannerisms of each personality type.
>Princess Diana and Aldous Huxley had the same personality, apparently.
>>24732632
No, room 101 doesn't exist.
But the more gun control you legislate in America, the more mass shootings there appear to be. Which completely validates my point.
>>24732677
But from what standard can we say nature chooses a leader anyway.
If sociopathic characteristics arent naturally leadership ones then why are they the most successful ones?
>>24732481
/pol/ argues the essence of politics: Jews
>>24732721
Because we're not living in nature. That's been my entire argument, a'la Rust from True Detective (shitty reference, I know, but it's a good point) 'We are an aspect of nature separate from nature'.
I understand the idea that 'everything is natural', like Spinoza's perspective. But I'm actually talking about nature as if it isn't completely meaningless, ie, it's the opposite to artificial.
Everything I'm arguing is pretty much everything r9k represents, that we came too far too fast and now this insane culture of consumerism has led to a backwards, upside down, almost-dysfunctional world on the brink of destruction.
Then, out of the ashes, a more compromising, natural, system will replace this oppressive, alienating one.
Nature always prevails.
>>24732099
Yes, I don't give a shit about poor people. if they starve to death it's just natural selection in action
>>24732099
I wrestle with that a lot. I do ultimately think there is a way to both exist in the world comfortable (in other words make money) and be living a life that contributes to the greater good. That's my overarching life goal is to not just be a leach on the world. And that does not just mean having a job. If you work all your life for a company or what have you that serves no greater purpose than to either make money or worse, harms others in the course of generating that money, to me life's not worth living. I haven't found the balance yet. I hope to this coming year.
