General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf capitalism is sociopathic, how should we make a living?
Hypothesis: Capitalism is structured in such a way that rewards sociopathic behavior, i.e. maximizing personal gain and corporate profits for a minority, inevitably leading to things like inequality of wealth amongst the population, etc.
If the Capitalism is Sociopathic hypothesis is true, then everyone not at the top is effectively enabling sociopathic behavior (by being a Loser laborer not paid a rational wage or a Clueless middle manager whose main job is to hide the class struggle) and/or participating in it (e.g. with investments in publicly traded corporations, entrepreneurs, etc.).
One option for a Loser at the bottom of the economic pyramid is to do just enough work to skate by. This is one rational (cost-benefit calculating) choice known as being a slacker.
Those who overperform end up becoming members of the Clueless, aka middle management, and their reward is dedication to a firm that is not dedicated to them. This requires a certain kind of constant inauthenticity. Some Losers are groomed to become Sociopaths. They do this by taking big risks (e.g. entrepreneurial endeavors inside or outside the firm)...
The Clueless are increasingly irrational because firms are being restructured, joined, and destroyed at ever increasing rates by Sociopaths. So it is becoming more and more popular for business advice to follow the lines of “don’t be a sucker, you too can be the oppressor!” We are all encouraged to be our own boss, i.e. to become a Sociopath running our own mini empire...We are even encouraged to personalize capitalist structures by exploiting global currency differentials between rich and poor countries by making U.S. dollars while living in a developing nation, or hiring “virtual assistants” to do our busy work freeing us up to do high-leverage activities which really bring in the money, thus asserting our status on the top of the pyramid with our own cadre of Losers serving our amassing of capital...
I also tried taking the Sociopath route of becoming an entrepreneur. I didn’t realize it was a Sociopath thing though until I encountered the harsh reality of startup culture, which is populated primarily by Sociopaths and Losers aspiring to be Sociopaths (who are largely destroyed by the more practiced and natural Sociopaths).
So what other options exist? That is what I am contemplating now...Anti-sociopaths and sociopaths actually have a lot in common, which is probably why I have had so many tremendously evil people in my life and on my radar. We both seek to do something based on our own principles which defy conventional morality. Sociopaths seek to do what benefits them regardless of what is right, whereas anti-sociopaths seek to do what is good, regardless of what benefits them...
http://beyondgrowth.net/social-criticism/if-capitalism-is-sociopathic-how-should-we-make-a-living/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
delrem
(9,688 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)The barter system.
nxylas
(6,440 posts)Politics is even less forgiving than business for that. I have an idea for a modern day remake of Mr Smith Goes To Washington, in which Mr Smith ends up taking the path of Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich and Paul Wellstone - ridiculed, marginalised and ultimately killed in a plane crash (personally, I do believe that Wellstone's death was an accident, simply because I think he posed less of a threat alive than martyred, but the latter makes for a more dramatic story).
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)we actually live in a mixed economy with this sort of naked capitalism existing, but in the midst of many other forces.
One can make a living and avoid the jungle. It might not be easy, but it is quite possible.
Competition and control are at the heart of most things we do-- even allegedly Marxist societies were run by people on power trips who filtered up the egalitarian mountain and communes started with the best of intentions usually fail.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Communist systems cannot compete with disaster capitalism.
RKP5637
(67,107 posts)Pandora's box.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And as automation becomes ever more sophisticated and more common there will be fewer and fewer means of making a living not owned by sociopaths. Just like we can't all make a living flipping burgers for each other (something becoming automated btw) we also can't all make a living fixing robots.
RKP5637
(67,107 posts)politicians addressing this fact. Most are riding by the seat of their pants, others are too stupid. Some know exactly where we are headed, but remain silent trying to maintain the status quo. Certainly brilliant economists and others know the future, but are for the most part silenced or choose to remain silent.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)It must really, really, suck to exist in that type of consciousness; sounds like hell to me.
world wide wally
(21,742 posts)Regulation plays a key role. America has never been like it is now and we have to adapt. This talk of "historical America" doesn't even exist in any way shape or form. There is no homesteading. There is no open land to be explored or places to be settled. Unregulated capitalism just doesn't work in a country that has been around for over 200 years and has over 300 milion people with ever inch of land accounted for.
Time to face the facts and EVOLVE
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Scandinavian-style Social Democracy, while not perfect - no system is - would certainly be an improvement over our current state of affairs. But when even center-left types like Bernie Sanders are dismissed by many people as kooks - and moderate-to-right-leaning types like Obama and the Clintons are smeared as "leftists" - it seems like lassez-faire capitalism isn't going away any time soon. Even though, ironically, countries like Denmark and Norway are considered some of the best places to do business.
brush
(53,773 posts)the decades old Montdragon Cooperative in the Basque region of Spain.
It's been successful and has worked well for many years.
Joe Chi Minh
(15,229 posts)'Giving to the poor
Ambrose considered the poor not a distinct group of outsiders, but a part of the united, solidary people. Giving to the poor was not to be considered an act of generosity towards the fringes of society but as a repayment of resources that God had originally bestowed on everyone equally and that the rich had usurped.[30]'
.. from Wikipedia.
Amazing consecration as bishop. He wasn't even a baptised Christian at the time, so it was quite a rushed job. I believe he eventually coached St Augustine of the famous 'Oh God make me pure, but not just yet' prayer!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)But, silly me. I got an earful from the Native American side of the family.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)by Richard Wolff. Worker Self-Directed Enterprises might let us have a future.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Problem is - as noted in the OP - companies who don't exploit their employees or contribute to wrecking the environment, find it difficult to compete with those who couldn't care less about such things. Makes strength in numbers all the more important, I suppose.
rogerashton
(3,920 posts)I've met some of the young folks building these do-it-yourself community enterprises. They're the good folks. It isn't easy, though -- particularly raising finance. But it is working.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)" everyone with a successful business is a sociopath! I tried it and failed, so I'm normal. Everyone that performed better than me is damaged though."
Sound like this person is creating a reality to cope with their own insecurities.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)years/decades? A handful of folks accumulating vast wealth while average people struggle to get by?
You really need to think beyond one person's success or failure (including your own).
linuxman
(2,337 posts)It's there for all to see, plain as day (anecdotal and in hard numbers).
My issue is with this person acting as if a person would have to be damaged to be an entrepreneur. It's just icing on the cake that this person attempted such a thing their self, but is now free from the burden of their own assertions since their own efforts were a failure.
Ad for my own failures, I have none in the business world. I'm an employee, not an owner. That doesn't stop people from implying that I'm a sociopath myself due to my profession too. It's a lame shtick. Vilify the other as damaged. It hurts them and lifts you up ad a paragon of good, as you are so unlike them. The old lady running the gelato stand isn't a sociopath. The guy who fucked thousands of old folks out of their retirements is a different matter.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)to say the least. The folks at the very top of your industry (CEO's etc.) might be a different story, though.
"The old lady running the gelato stand isn't a sociopath. The guy who fucked thousands of old folks out of their retirements is a different matter."
Absolutely. And even the OP seems to have no problem with responsible entrepreneurship - though he does make the point that it's hard to compete when you have concerns beyond profit (like reducing your carbon footprint, or treating your employees decently).
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)have an exclusive line on "reality" though?
I personally think the resort to "this person is obviously damaged in some way to think such things" is just an easy, thoughtless & basically stupid cheap shot.
See? It's easy to do and just takes a minute.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)Full stop.
Call me crazy, but for someone to deal in such absurd absolutes seems less than genuine/rational.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Orrex
(63,207 posts)Especially the sour ones.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)What I do know is that many, if not most, of the middle-class opportunities which were available to my parents' generation - my dad is an office worker for a small-ish private company, and my mom is a soil scientist for the USGS, if it matters - are no longer available to mine. Most people my age I associate with, work relatively low-paying jobs and don't plan much for the future, because what's the point? Sure, I guess we could take pride in not being "the oppressor," but being a low-paid worker bee frankly sucks.
I myself have mostly taken the "slacker" route in life - my college major was literature/creative writing, and other than writing a few books (all fiction) I haven't done a whole lot in the 8 years since I graduated. Certainly my folks' comfortable income and lifestyle have made it easier to live that way, but I know it can't go on forever. The question "What the hell am I going to do with myself?" - on both a practical and existential level - has slowly become more urgent and panic-ridden over time. As for those who have it worse than I do, I can't imagine how they even manage to get up in the morning. The future really does seem bleak.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)longer available? That's just so....odd
https://www.usajobs.gov/JobSearch/Search/GetResults?OrganizationID=IN08
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Page 1 of 1
https://www.usajobs.gov/JobSearch/Search/GetResults?OrganizationID=IN08
So very few for anything related to what his mother did.
It's your response that's odd.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Capitalism has produced higher living standards *at every centile* than any other system ever.
The fact that the rich are more better off than the poor does not change the fact that the poor are better off.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)That make your sneakers for pennies a day in third world countries.
Or the people who throw themselves off buildings after making your iPod.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)"It's not my ox being gored. Everything is great!"
TBF
(32,056 posts)in what way? How are you measuring that? Let's see some objective stats on this.
"Now you peons just go live in your 200 sq ft trailer and shut up until your shift at Walmart"
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)That runs until one entity owns everything.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)You cannot ''fix'' something that was fundamentally flawed to begin with. And yet that is what almost all are expecting to happen. That somehow a miracle will happen and the very system designed to help create and later maintain capitalism in all its most cancerous forms, will one day turn on it founders and benefactors and simply via edict begin working for the common good.
- What is written can be erased. What is the foundation must be overturned.
K&R
[center]
Resource-based Economy
The Venus Project
[/center]
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)It's a resource concentration mechanism. Short term interests will always eventually win out. That's why civilization spread everywhere, and why capitalism beats out other ways of applying civilization. It's why humanity is at the top of the food chain.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Selfish greed is the cause of this ecocide slide we're on. Civilization was an attempt at eliminating scarcity that actually existed at one time, but that has largely been overcome through technology and science. It is the existing institutions of government and the rich elitists who control them who restrict our technological capability in overcoming society's problems because it can't be monetized.
- Capitalism is CANCER. Period.
Capitalism is SLAVERY that uses debt instead of chains........
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)Selfish greed is the cause of this ecocide slide we're on. Civilization was an attempt at eliminating scarcity that actually existed at one time, but that has largely been overcome through technology and science. It is the existing institutions of government and the rich elitists who control them who restrict our technological capability in overcoming society's problems because it can't be monetized.
- Capitalism is CANCER. Period.
Attempting to eliminate scarcity is selfish greed. Who voted on that issue? Nobody. Certainly not anything that wasn't human. We just did it. Other groups did it, and wanted someone else's stuff, and just took it. We need that land, to build that road, so those trees are going to have to go. We'll domesticate this and that species, and breed them to our specification, to fit our needs. But that's ok, because that's just how life works. We can't not do it that way. Technology and science have just increased our ability to do it.
We also don't overcome problems, we just change the problem. For example, our biggest problem, death. We haven't overcome that, we've just changed it. Now we have more people, and more people living longer, and they all need stuff to do, and they all need to eat, and all of that requires resources, and getting and using those resources is the slide we're on.
One thing that will be interesting is what happens when we physically have fewer people on the planet from one year to the next. We're not there yet either, and every institution we've ever built is based on there being more people. More consumers, and more importantly, more taxpayers.
We can't stop, but we can't continue.
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)...then the game changes. "Selfish greed" creates the need for 'more'. More doesn't even concern itself with 'better' and this results in the excess of consumer products that fuel all the social problems that were highlighted in DeSwiss' first video.
.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)It's like the words green or sustainable. We started messing with the environment when we hunted with sharp sticks, let alone started using external sources of energy. We have no idea what is or is not sustainable until it isn't. We're all still here, so global capitalism is currently sustainable. More can be better, better can be more, or anything in between. It all depends on who you're talking to.
Why do we want to increase the efficiency of solar panels, or wind turbines, etc? So that we can use more of that energy. More, in those terms, is apparently better.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)And allow government-run enterprises to compete with capitalist concerns.
In the first case, you run the company as essentially a non-profit, paying everyone who works there if not identical salaries, something in a vary narrow band. So maybe the CEO makes only 3-5 times as much as the lowest paid employee on staff, and does not get 'bonuses' that ever bump him or her above that - everyone in the company gets equal bonuses. You make employee and environmental safety important parts of the business, and you factor in your 'externalities' so that you're not forcing the government to essentially subsidize you.
In the second, by allowing government to compete in business, you both get direct revenue from the government, so collected taxes can be lower, since the government has other revenue streams, and, because you're the government, you can act like that private business above, and treat the employees in a similar more egalitarian fashion. This makes you more competitive, since you're not paying obscene executive salaries, and puts pressure on private companies to likewise pay less to execs and shareholders.
(Edit: Obviously my reply is not directed at a single individual, but is rather suggesting a framework from within which anti-capitalistic pressure can be brought to push society towards a more socialistic path.)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)So the government could develop its own search engine to compete with the likes of Google, for example. This could be the next big government-initiated IT project following the Healthcare.gov project.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)and exploiting unfair trade to acquire a pile of trade goods, productive assets or money for the purpose acquiring power to manipulate others can be sociopathic.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)I'm not sure one should call capitalism 'sociopathic'. Probably better to call it 'amoral' (lacking in morality).
Still, sincere compliments for getting the wheels turning.
moondust
(19,977 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 25, 2015, 11:34 AM - Edit history (2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracyIncidentally, Bernie Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)It is one of the good solutions available to minimize the injustice of being bound to a capitalist ruleset.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)nobody seems to be searching for a happy medium yet and time is running out .
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)misses the problem. Capitalism structures the economy and society, including social relations. There are no personal alternatives to be entirely free off it, though the closet would be living in the woods, entirely off the land. But even then the land itself is delineated and owned according to capitalist notions of private property. The very notions of loser and slacker, as the writer defines them, are produced by capitalism.
The first step is to understand the issue, and that is where Marx and other histories of the development of capitalism are instructive.
While we as individuals can take steps to lessen our own role in the exploitation of others, the ultimate solution is not personal but collective.
ncjustice80
(948 posts)It is the only eay to go.
