This is in reply to Brad McCormick's posting in which he argues that "a more
nuanced sociological inequity" is the real or more real reason that
capitalism exists. It's an interesting thought. Yes, and what about the
"mob" and "pirates", perhaps it would be better to just label them "illegal
entrepreneurs", but then of course so are wage earners in a sense
entrepreneurs. Why would someone study for 5 years of apprenticeship to
have the privilege of unstopping plugged toilets except they perceive that
activity will give them the best rate of return on their learning
investment.
So it comes down in the end that all who work or engage others to work are
in an entrepreneurial system to get the most "profit" from their particular
circumstances. If it happens to have some perks, like deductible lunches or
writing off your car expenses - hey just another little reward (profit) to
be gotten out of the system.
I concur that "If profits per se were the
real final objective (solution?), then, in a way somewhat
analogous to a Laplacian universe, language
would cease to have any logical force (being reduced,
everywhere and always, to a market penetration tool), which I believe it is
because almost any discussion sooner or later leads to a monetization
evaluation.
The degree to which we have come to view the world and the activities that
humans can do in the world has been reduced to the Cartesian and Rouseaean
concepts of logic, number and eventually to money to such a degree and has
so perverted language that discussions of any activity become impossible
without a monetized evaluation.
One of the advantages that attracts me to the concept of a Basic Income as a
"right" for every citizen of every country is that I perceive it to be the
sword that can cut through the unreality of numeracy and logic and the
resultant of that line of thinking which leads to monetization. It would
seem to me, that any advanced society would make it a basic right to provide
the economic assistance that would assure the daily survival of every member
of the race.
Of course, we cannot have discussions of "rights" in this society without
the argument of costs and benefits and who pays and who receives, all
language which destroys morality, fairness, sharing, consideration,
affection, respect of others and many of the other words that we as humans
use in our interactions with each other but are negated by a capitalistic
system.
Like horses, we have been born to pull the plow. For what? Survival isn't
the problem, distribution of goods and services is the problem. Even with
our inflated world population, effective redistribution of wealth, products,
food and services, most if not all could live a comfortable life. It may
not be the life of the energy pigs in the Western world but a life of food
and shelter and community and access to learning and occupation and family
is possible through the concept of sharing. It is not possible, in my
opinion through the concept of profit.
So Brad, I disagree, it is not the perks of the office meeting or a
businessman's lunch that keeps capitalism going, it is the perverting of
life to a language that defines reality as a competition which of course is
reinforced with sciences current love affair with evolution. Let me ask you
a question? Why do humans have bad teeth? If evolution was all it is
cracked up to be, surely we could have evolved out of tooth decay. If you
have no teeth, it is pretty hard to chew grain or a hunk of meat.
You stated, "I think "competition" serves more as a kind of social glue for
the persons involved." If by social glue, you mean sucking up so that you
can take advantage, I concur. We existed for a long time with cooperative
models of human association and our basic biological model of the family is
the ultimate cooperative model. We have left that behind to move to the
concept of the wolverine - get together to mate and the rest of life is
looking out for number one and by the way, don't forget to negotiate a good
pension.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
