Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by The X
I believe you do not understand the concept of altruism.
I understand the concept of altruism. The problem is that the concept does not beget the mechanics and/or the means thereof.
I do; but in all of my own observation, the ability to technologically or logistically support altruistic behaviour, has never been our biggest
obstacle. It has always been primarily a case of people such as yourself pointing out that altruism is logistically infeasible, and that we therefore
should not bother to even attempt it in the first place.
Lack of technological ability, or resources, is not the primary obstacle between us and a post-scarcity (or at least provisionally post-scarcity in
terms of the commodities needed for baseline physical survival) society. Our major obstacle is the inescapable presence of people who have been
brainwashed by demoniacs such as Milton Friedman, and who thus coercively insist (and would even be willing to engage in physical violence towards
those of us who advocate it, to the point of death) that abundance is not only impossible now, but that it always will be.
I personally do not want to continue to live in a Capitalist society; or more specifically, to be fair to Capitalism and its' advocates, I do not want
to live in a society based on the large scale, corporate, metastasized mockery of such that we have now. I also do not want to live in a society
which is based on an implicit assumption, that self-centered psychopathy is the inherent nature of human beings.
So that we can be clear, I want to explain to the advocates of Capitalism who are present on this site, the form of Capitalism which I am willing to
tolerate, and I will provide two examples of such.
In the first example, I purchased a copy of Minecraft, in September 2010. I did not pirate the game, or attempt to do so. I observed my brother
playing the game on his computer for perhaps 30 minutes first, in order to evaluate it, and then decided that I would like to obtain a copy of it. I
also wanted to pay Notch for it, as a conscious and deliberate act of support for the specific form of Capitalism that I am willing to advocate.
Point the First:- Notch utilised his own (intellectual) capital, in order to develop a product. (Minecraft)
Point the Second:- Minecraft was a product that I felt would add value to my existence.
Point the Third:- Notch was also offering it for a very reasonable price, which was well within my means. (What the market will bear, to use the
Point the Fourth:- At that time, I was confident that my money was going directly to Notch himself, or reasonably close to it. He had not at that
time formed a corporation; and if he had done so, I most likely would not have purchased the game.
It is noteworthy that since forming
a corporation around it, Notch's development of Minecraft has taken a direction which, in a number of respects, I do not approve of; and it is my
belief that corporations are an inherently and inevitably corrupting influence on the individuals who are part of them.
The second example took place during my own playing of World of Warcraft, in late 2006. Before you laugh, realise that for some time, WoW gold was
tradeable for real money. At this time, I was working towards paying for my level 40 land mount in the Horde; a wolf. WoW's economy back then was
completely non-inflated, and scrupulously honest compared with later periods. I required a minimum of 85 gold for the purchase, and at the time, on a
good day, I was able to make 10 gold.
I made this gold by going into Tanaris, hunting the various animals there, skinning them, and bringing back the leather in order to place it on the
neutral Auction House there. I was able to consistently get one gold piece for a full stack of 20 strips of thick leather, and the quota I was able
to manage, was 200 strips per day.
This, again, was something I consider an example of fair Capitalism. I was able to utilise the environment immediately accessible to me, to acquire a
product that was of value to others, and receive a just price in exchange for it.
So to summarise the prerequisites of what I define as Capitalism in an acceptable form.
a] It must be local, and non-global. The single main reason for this, is the limitation of human cognition. In order to maintain human integrity,
there must be a scenario where people are directly accountable to each other. A second reason, is because a monetary system cannot cope with every
commodity on the planet being within a single economy. Inflation gets out of control, and the currency becomes worthless. WoW demonstrated this when
its' economy got too large, and the real world economy has shown it as well.
b] It must be non-corporate. Accountability is a big part of the reason for this, as well. As an individual paying money for something, I want the
individual receiving said money to be an individual, as well.
c] It must either utilise gold, or at the very least, a currency which is based directly on a known commodity. I have never read any element of
Capitalist theory which names funny money as a prerequisite. The US dollar is currently not based on anything other than numbers on a screen.
As a final point, I am tired of unintelligent and/or mentally lazy, armchair advocates of Capitalism, who insist that a post-scarcity scenario, in
terms of literally *any* commodity is impossible. There are some commodities where this is not possible, yes; the rare earth minerals in particular
come to mind. There are others, however, such as Internet bandwidth, (and truthfully, most of our staple food items, if they were only produced and
distributed intelligently) where it absolutely IS possible, and greed is the only thing preventing it from happening.
Capitalism's theorists say that a Capitalist is rewarded via innovation and the creation of new markets; also via creating products within existing
markets that legitimately add value to the consumer's existence. They do NOT say that a Capitalist is rightfully rewarded for creating artificial
scarcity and monopoly, in commodities which could be made technologically abundant. The telecommunications industry insists on making bandwidth
artificially scarce, purely because they are too stupid and/or lazy to be able to come up with new markets to move into; not because said bandwidth
has any true need to be scarce, whatsoever. Before they discovered the Internet, it wasn't.
The same with Big Media. That entire industry maintains a monopoly by perverting the legal system; not by doing anything that truly adds value to
human society. Musicians and artists have been poor for the majority of human history, other than the current time; as much as they may not like it,
it is their natural condition. This is because music and art are in no way, truthfully, unique commodities. Big Media has created an elaborate
system of legal fictions and outright lies to attempt to claim otherwise; but that is all they are.
I have had to undergo a very long and laborious journey on this point; but I have finally realised that I am not, in fact, a Marxist. Capitalism
need to go back to its' truly pure roots.
edit on 29-1-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)
29-1-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)