I refuse to participate in Capitalism and it's destroying me

[nuwu]

stopp seeing capitalism as a black and white "religion of greed". it is still the best tool we have for collective intelligence (assuming imaginary perspectives are real), unless better models come out of smart-contracts or something. communism does not provide the same global consensus and unity, and the issue can not be ignored without having things devolve into feudalism

[Leo Gura]

On 10/3/2022 at 8:51 AM, Shawn Philips said:

Let's be real. The survival problem can be solved with great intelligence and technology.

We can provide shelter and food for every human being. We can print 3d houses affordable for eveyone. We can automate farming with robots and AI to end famine worldwide. But the governments dont want that. Because this is a menace to the status quo of the pyramidal society.

And as we know the governments work for the rich's interests firstly. Scarcity is man-made so the powerful can keep being powerful and the poor being poorer.

And the only way the government will give everything free for everyone will be at a high cost: personal freedom.

Dude, modern government has already made life so easy that most people die from shoveling too much food in their pie hole.

Stop being ungrateful. Now is the easiest time to be alive ever in human history.

Nobody owes you survival. Do it, or die.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Leo Gura

[spiritual memes]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Dude, modern government has already made life so easy that most people die from shoveling too much food in their pie hole.

They die because a lot of food is unhealthy, which is a problem with capitalism.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, spiritual memes said:

They die because a lot of food is unhealthy, which is a problem with capitalism.

No one is forcing you to eat it.

If you die because you cannot stop putting donuts in your mouth, well, that's almost comical by our ancestor's standards of survival.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Leo Gura

[spiritual memes]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No one is forcing you to eat it.

If you die because you cannot stop putting donuts in your mouth, well, that's almost comical by our ancestor's standards of survival.

I agree with you on an individual level.

However on a societal level, due to capitalism, companies design their products to maximize profits and as such, they put in ingredients that are extremely addictive to our animal brains as well as being cheaper than healthier options. This makes people have an innate dopaminergic bias to eating these foods. Furthermore, healthy foods can be expensive and time consuming to cook especially if people are extremely busy (which they are because of capitalism).

No one is forcing people to eat donuts. But you cannot deny the effect of capitalism on people dying because they ate too many donuts. The american diet is extremely unhealthy and a lot of that is attributable to capitalism. 

 

[Ulax]

@Dinkle64 I'd recommend thinking about your situation in terms of your needs. I can recommend you a resource to start of with if you want. Would you like that?

In my perspective, everything we do, even in our mind, is an attempt to meet a need of ours. So, all thoughts are an attempt to meet a need.

So, to my mind, your present actions are not because you refuse to participate in capitalism. Instead, it is because what you are currently doing is meeting one or multiple of your needs, including your thought that you are refusing to participate in capitalism. For example, you might be meeting a need for significance (being in 'in group' of anti-capitalists) and a need for rest (by not working).

So, I'd recommend learning about what the universal human needs are. Then what your present unconscious strategies are for meeting your needs. Then find a mentor that will help you change your needs meeting strategies so that you can meet your needs in, what I see to be, a more adaptive way. An example of this last step would be a depth psychotherapist. A mentor like Thais Gibson's online academy could be a useful start.

I'm not intending to communicate judgement or fault. However, to my understanding, if you do not become conscious of the driving force of needs then your behaviour will remain a mystery to yourself.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Ulax
correction

[Ulax]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

No one is forcing you to eat it.

If you die because you cannot stop putting donuts in your mouth, well, that's almost comical by our ancestor's standards of survival.

However, to my mind, our ancestors only didn't die from that because they had a different combination of circumstance, life experience and biology. So, in that aspect, I'd say our ancestors are privileged compared to a guy who died from excessive doughnut eating.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, spiritual memes said:

Furthermore, healthy foods can be expensive and time consuming to cook especially if people are extremely busy (which they are because of capitalism).

How is that the fault of capitalism? Under your system, how would you make healthy food more cheaper?

Edited October 5, 2022 by zurew

[spiritual memes]

11 minutes ago, zurew said:

How is that the fault of capitalism? Under your system, how would you make healthy food more cheaper?

Because of capitalism, companies prioritize profit over peoples health. Companies will therefore optimize for taste and price i.e the cheapest foods that activate dopamine receptors the most. These foods tend to had extremely high sugar, fat and salt as well as other dodgy chemicals.

Unhealthy foods tend to be the cheapest as well as the most widely distributed and advertised. Can you name me a food franchise that is healthy and as cheap as mcdonalds and burger king?

I don't really have a perfect solution for this but at the very minimum, I would increase taxes on extremely unhealthy food and use the profits for heart disease research. Even this would have a huge public backlash and likely wouldn't have a chance of being passed.

The problem isn't just the economic system. It's more the culture that arises as a result of capitalism that encourages people to consume to excess. Stage green countries like Norway and Denmark have much lower rates of obesity than the US. Asian countries like China and Japan have even lower rates of obesity because overconsumption isn't built into their culture.

[zurew]

40 minutes ago, spiritual memes said:

Because of capitalism, companies prioritize profit over peoples health.

Thats not just capitalism, if there is a company that will automatically optimize for some profit, now how much that company will optimize for profit will depend on how much it is regulated by the government, and of course, it will be based on its development.

40 minutes ago, spiritual memes said:

Unhealthy foods tend to be the cheapest as well as the most widely distributed and advertised

Yes, because thats how the market is today. This could be modified a little bit with regulations, but this is a very tricky problem. 

40 minutes ago, spiritual memes said:

Can you name me a food franchise that is healthy and as cheap as mcdonalds and burger king?

No, but processed food will be unhealthy and cheaper in general.

40 minutes ago, spiritual memes said:

I would increase taxes on extremely unhealthy food and use the profits for heart disease research.

Then it seems you aren't talking about a different economic system, you are talking about regulated capitalism.

 

40 minutes ago, spiritual memes said:

Asian countries like China and Japan have even lower rates of obesity because overconsumption isn't built into their culture.

Overconsumption of food is just one metric to look at. I think in both Japan and China people are working their ass off and are sleeping in metros and overworking in their whole life.

 

I think most of your points are not exclusive to capitalism structurally, because if they would be, then most of these couldn't be solved with regulations or with hybrid systems.

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2022 by zurew

[spiritual memes]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

Then it seems you aren't talking about a different economic system, you are talking about regulated capitalism.

Yes because I don't believe any of the western countries are gonna adopt socialismt anytime soon. Best we can do is mimic the scandinavian countries. If somehow a socialist system were in  place, I'm willing to bet obesity would be much lower.

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

Overconsumption of food is just one metric to look at. I think in both Japan and China people are working their ass off and are sleeping in metros and overworking in their whole life.

People in the US are also overworked. Although China and Japan especially have overwork built into their culture.

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

I think most of your points are not exclusive to capitalism structurally, because if they would be, then most of these couldn't be solved with regulations or with hybrid systems.

I don't thine regulations are going to solve these problems, only soften their effects. A real solution would require a fundamental shift in culture and an increase in consciousness.

These points are absolutely exclusive to capitalism because no other political system requires people to overconsume to excess to function. If people don't consume in a capitalistic society the economy fails. 

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, spiritual memes said:

These points are absolutely exclusive to capitalism because no other political system requires people to overconsume

You don't have to overconsume under a capitalist system (there wouldn't be a problem if there wouldn't be artificially created demand). If that part wouldn't be there, then the market would change and adapt as it needs to the culture and to the real demand.

5 minutes ago, spiritual memes said:

Yes because I don't believe any of the western countries are gonna adopt socialismt anytime soon.

I don't know what you mean by socialism, because there is a lot of different versions of it. Do you mean no market at all or do you mean regulated market or do you mean no private ownership or do you mean something different?

11 minutes ago, spiritual memes said:

If people don't consume in a capitalistic society the economy fails. 

If people don't consume or consume very littile in any economic system today, that system will fail.

[spiritual memes]

50 minutes ago, zurew said:

You don't have to overconsume under a capitalist system (there wouldn't be a problem if there wouldn't be artificially created demand). If that part wouldn't be there, then the market would change and adapt as it needs to the culture and to the real demand.

But why is there artificially created demand? Capitalism

53 minutes ago, zurew said:

I don't know what you mean by socialism, because there is a lot of different versions of it. Do you mean no market at all or do you mean regulated market or do you mean no private ownership or do you mean something different?

A system where the means of production are owned collectively.

54 minutes ago, zurew said:

If people don't consume or consume very littile in any economic system today, that system will fail.

The US is structured such that overconsumption is required for economic stability. The US economy/ politcal system and culture is based on neverending economic growth. What do you think would happen if US economic growth was 0? would people be like 'This is fine.'?

[Ulax]

59 minutes ago, zurew said:

You don't have to overconsume under a capitalist system (there wouldn't be a problem if there wouldn't be artificially created demand). If that part wouldn't be there, then the market would change and adapt as it needs to the culture and to the real demand.

I don't know what you mean by socialism, because there is a lot of different versions of it. Do you mean no market at all or do you mean regulated market or do you mean no private ownership or do you mean something different?

If people don't consume or consume very littile in any economic system today, that system will fail.

You don't think capitalist systems inherently leads to artificially created demand?

[zurew]

15 minutes ago, Ulax said:

You don't think capitalist systems inherently leads to artificially created demand?

The answer is yes, it does lead to artifically created demand, but it can be regulated but I don't think its exclusive to capitalism. Demand of anything could be manipulated by the government as well.

18 minutes ago, spiritual memes said:

But why is there artificially created demand? Capitalism

How is artifically created demand fades away under your system?

20 minutes ago, spiritual memes said:

What do you think would happen if US economic growth was 0? would people be like 'This is fine.'?

I don't think there is any economic system today, where there is a goal to have 0% gpd growth. 

25 minutes ago, spiritual memes said:

A system where the means of production are owned collectively.

In a system where there is no market, I think it could be argued that artificialness is much more there, because everything is artificially moderated but by who? 

[spiritual memes]

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

The answer is yes, it does lead to artifically created demand, but it can be regulated but I don't think its exclusive to capitalism. Demand of anything could be manipulated by the government as well.

How would you regulate it?

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

How is artifically created demand fades away under your system?

First of all, I am not advocating for socialism as I do not think it is realistic. I think social democracy like the scandinavian countries is the best path in the short term.

That being said, in a socialist society, collective ownership and central planning would result in decisions that benefit the collective stakeholders instead of purely maximizing the profit of shareholders in a capitalist system. This would naturally result in less artificial demand. What benefit does the collective have in engaging in psychological warfare with itself?

11 minutes ago, zurew said:

I don't think there is any economic system today, where there is a goal to have 0% gpd growth. 

Thats because almost every economic system is capitalist. You have just proved my point. The capitalist system demands continuous growth no matter the cost to the wellbeing of the people or the environment. 0% growth is unnacceptable to every capitalist society. 

16 minutes ago, zurew said:

In a system where there is no market, I think it could be argued that artificialness is much more there, because everything is artificially moderated but by who? 

There is still a market in a socialist society, its just that the means of production are collectively owned by the workers.

[zurew]

5 hours ago, spiritual memes said:

How would you regulate it?

Probably with higher taxes, but would have to think about it more. It seems that you say, that there is still a market under the socialist system ,that you are talking about, so if there is a market, there will be artificial demand, so it doesn't solve that problem and it seems that problem is not exclusive to capitalism, but that problem is exclusive to having a market.

5 hours ago, spiritual memes said:

That being said, in a socialist society, collective ownership and central planning would result in decisions that benefit the collective stakeholders instead of purely maximizing the profit of shareholders in a capitalist system.

There is still a market in a socialist society

 You say there is central planning and then you say there is still a market. I assume that when you say central planning you mean something like people voting collectively on who should get and how much profit and voting on what to do with the collectively owned business in general.

5 hours ago, spiritual memes said:

This would naturally result in less artificial demand. What benefit does the collective have in engaging in psychological warfare with itself?

Not necessarily, you can still get fucked if we are talking about people who has big networks. People with big networks at a workplace could make it more central and fuck up other people who works there, so how would you make sure that doesn't happen? If there is still a market then there is still demand and competition. Workplaces that have more skilled and smarter people with big networks , those would naturally dominate the whole market, 

Also how and when would a new business get created? like how would it go down in the real world?

5 hours ago, spiritual memes said:

Thats because almost every economic system is capitalist.

Almost every, but again not just the capitalist systems aiming for growth, so to only relate capitalism to gpd growth is misleading, imo. GPD growth would have been a must under any economic system. Imagine if the whole world would have been stuck in the early 20st century. We wouldn't enjoy the comfort and the benefits of anything right now. Every science, The whole medical field (We wouldn't have nowhere near the same capability to deal with diseases and illnesses), no internet etc. Under a system where there is 0% GDP growth, how do you adapt to a growing population? How do you provide a business and jobs for those people? How do you make sure that everyone will have a good enough livelihood?

Under a socialist system where there is a market, there would still be a want and aim for GPD growth, because if you want to participate in a market, you have competition and of course you don't want to lose in a competition, especially if your livelihood depend on it.  So again, this problem is not exclusive to capitalism either, this is probably exclusive to systems that has a market and an underdeveloped culture.

GPD growth is not necessarily bad, because although that metric is not perfect to measure collective wellbeing , but it does create the possibility to make people's lifes better (if we assume a developed culture). 

 

 

So it seems to me, that if I didn't misinterpreted most of your stuff, then that system wouldn't solve the core problems of capitalism, at the very best it would probably mitigate it, but that doesn't necessarily true either. We would probably need empirical data to prove these theories.

Edited October 6, 2022 by zurew

[spiritual memes]

13 hours ago, zurew said:

Probably with higher taxes, but would have to think about it more. It seems that you say, that there is still a market under the socialist system ,that you are talking about, so if there is a market, there will be artificial demand, so it doesn't solve that problem and it seems that problem is not exclusive to capitalism, but that problem is exclusive to having a market.

Artificial demand exists in capitalism because privately owned companies must maximize profit for its shareholders. It can do this by creating a supply which meets the demand. However more profit could be made if they created artificial demand through what basically amounts to psychological warfare on consumers. Why would there be the same amount of artificial demand in a centrally planned and collectively owned economy?

14 hours ago, zurew said:

 You say there is central planning and then you say there is still a market. I assume that when you say central planning you mean something like people voting collectively on who should get and how much profit and voting on what to do with the collectively owned business in general.

Yes, a market is just a place where people buy and sell stuff. There would still be a market in a socialist society.

14 hours ago, zurew said:

Not necessarily, you can still get fucked if we are talking about people who has big networks. People with big networks at a workplace could make it more central and fuck up other people who works there, so how would you make sure that doesn't happen?

Not sure what you mean by networks. If someone decides to fuck other people, the collective will vote them out. 

14 hours ago, zurew said:

If there is still a market then there is still demand and competition. Workplaces that have more skilled and smarter people with big networks , those would naturally dominate the whole market, 

Yes, but demand and competition isn't necessarily bad. Only when it gets out of hand, which would be mitigated by central planning.

14 hours ago, zurew said:

Also how and when would a new business get created? like how would it go down in the real world?

Depends on the extent of socialism as it is a scale rather than a fixed system. That being said in a purely socialist economy, you would pitch your idea to the community rather than private shareholders.

In a weakly socialist society, starting a small business would be pretty much the same as it is now. Large corporations would be heavily regulated and collectively owned.

14 hours ago, zurew said:

Almost every, but again not just the capitalist systems aiming for growth, so to only relate capitalism to gpd growth is misleading, imo. GPD growth would have been a must under any economic system. Imagine if the whole world would have been stuck in the early 20st century. We wouldn't enjoy the comfort and the benefits of anything right now. Every science, The whole medical field (We wouldn't have nowhere near the same capability to deal with diseases and illnesses), no internet etc.

This is an example of linear thinking. I never said GDP growth was bad. If a country is poor then GDP growth will improve the lives of most of its citizens. However this correlation is not linear. Once a country is significantly rich, GDP growth no longer improves peoples lives. The us economy grew by approx 40% over the last 10 years yet life for most people is worse. Capitalist countries proritize gdp growth over human wellbeing which causes all the problems you see today. 

14 hours ago, zurew said:

Under a system where there is 0% GDP growth, how do you adapt to a growing population? How do you provide a business and jobs for those people? How do you make sure that everyone will have a good enough livelihood?

These problems have nothing to do with gdp growth. For the US the solution would be more wealth distribution. 

14 hours ago, zurew said:

Under a socialist system where there is a market, there would still be a want and aim for GPD growth, because if you want to participate in a market, you have competition and of course you don't want to lose in a competition, especially if your livelihood depend on it.  So again, this problem is not exclusive to capitalism either, this is probably exclusive to systems that has a market and an underdeveloped culture.

Yes but a socialist society would not prioritize GDP growth over human wellbeing. (Unless it was very poor in which case gdp growth is correlated with human wellbeing).

14 hours ago, zurew said:

GPD growth is not necessarily bad, because although that metric is not perfect to measure collective wellbeing , but it does create the possibility to make people's lifes better (if we assume a developed culture). 

I never said it was... In first world countries, GDP growth means nothing if all the money lands in the hands of ultra rich people.

14 hours ago, zurew said:

So it seems to me, that if I didn't misinterpreted most of your stuff, then that system wouldn't solve the core problems of capitalism, at the very best it would probably mitigate it, but that doesn't necessarily true either. We would probably need empirical data to prove these theories.

See all my other points.

Keep in minds that I'm not even a socialist. My main point is that the problems of overconsumption and artificial demand are caused mainly by capitalism.

[zurew]

3 hours ago, spiritual memes said:

Why would there be the same amount of artificial demand in a centrally planned and collectively owned economy?

I didn't say there would be the same amount, i just wanted to point out, that the problem wouldn't be solved - just mitigated. The reason why I wanted to point that out, to show you , that that particular problem is not exclusive to capitalism, because earlier you made it sound like, these problems are only related to a capitalist structure and not to the content within that structure. I think its very important to distinguish between structural and not structural problems.

3 hours ago, spiritual memes said:

If someone decides to fuck other people, the collective will vote them out. 

Lets say there is a small company where there is 100 people. These people will collectively decide on stuff. Lets say there is a person who know 55 people there and this person has a good relationship with those people. They can do whatever the fuck they want there, because they can vote whatever they want.

Different example:

This person wouldn't even need to know 50% of the people, he just need to offer some money and basically buy votes and power.

3 hours ago, spiritual memes said:

For the US the solution would be more wealth distribution. 

Based on what plan would you distribute the money?  Lets say there is a business and the profit is 100 million dollars, and lets say there is 10 thousand workers working in that business.

3 hours ago, spiritual memes said:

My main point is that the problems of overconsumption and artificial demand are caused mainly by capitalism.

I would switch the word capitalism with unregulated markets and competition.

3 hours ago, spiritual memes said:

Once a country is significantly rich, GDP growth no longer improves peoples lives.

Generally speaking I agree with this, but I think there still a lot of room to grow but I agree that it need to be slowed the fuck down and prioritized under human wellbeing and under environmental damage.

Also I want to add this here: GDP would still be a good variable to measure improvement with,  if it would only measure consciously created goods and services.

3 hours ago, spiritual memes said:

Yes but a socialist society would not prioritize GDP growth over human wellbeing

Looking at it from the big picture, it might, but if we zoom in and get into specific parts, then this wouldn't be true.

To be more specific: Lets say there is 2 shoemaking business in a socialist country. 100 people working in business 1 and 100 people working in business 2. People who are working at business 1, I assume they would only have a say and vote that is related to business 1. These people have an interest to collectively be better compared to business 2. So  In the big picture, most business 1 people  wouldn't give a fuck about business 2 people. They would want to find a way, to outsource and to outsmart business 2 people, to dominate the market which would eventually result in business 2 people earning less money, and getting fucked over and being forced to switch jobs.

Edited October 7, 2022 by zurew

[spiritual memes]

20 minutes ago, zurew said:

I didn't say there would be the same amount, i just wanted to point out, that the problem wouldn't be solved - just mitigated. The reason why I wanted to point that out, to show you , that that particular problem is not exclusive to capitalism, because earlier you made it sound like, these problems are only related to a capitalist structure and not to the content within that structure. I think its very important to distinguish between structural and not structural problems.

What would a 'solved problem' look like? While artificial demand may exist in a socialist economy it would be significantly less than in capitalism. The capitalist structure greatly amplifies artificial demand which is the problem. That was my point. A tiny bit of artificial demand is not too problematic. But when an economic requires artificial demand to function, its a problem.

27 minutes ago, zurew said:

Lets say there is a small company where there is 100 people. These people will collectively decide on stuff. Lets say there is a person who know 55 people there and this person has a good relationship with those people. They can do whatever the fuck they want there, because they can vote whatever they want.

That is called democracy... Its 55 people making the choice, not 1. In capitalism the 55 people don't get a choice.

28 minutes ago, zurew said:

This person wouldn't even need to know 50% of the people, he just need to offer some money and basically buy votes and power.

Your example is considered corruption in a socialist society but its standard practice in a capitalist one. At least the people in your example have the choice to say no. Can you not see that your worst case scenarios in socialism are daily occurrences in capitalism?

35 minutes ago, zurew said:

Based on what plan would you distribute the money?  Lets say there is a business and the profit is 100 million dollars, and lets say there is 10 thousand workers working in that business.

Negative income tax or universal basic income.

36 minutes ago, zurew said:

I would switch the word capitalism with unregulated markets and competition.

How would regulations reduce artificial demand? As for competition, that's pretty much the whole point of capitalism.

38 minutes ago, zurew said:

Generally speaking I agree with this, but I think there still a lot of room to grow but I agree that it need to be slowed the fuck down and prioritized under human wellbeing and under environmental damage.

Fair play

39 minutes ago, zurew said:

Also I want to add this here: GDP would still be a good variable to measure improvement with,  if it would only measure consciously created goods and services.

But then it wouldn't be GDP, but some other metric. The whole point of GDP is that it entails all goods and services. I guess consciously created domestic product would be a better measure but the problem would be who decides whether a product is 'consciously created'

43 minutes ago, zurew said:

To be more specific: Lets say there is 2 shoemaking business in a socialist country. 100 people working in business 1 and 100 people working in business 2. People who are working at business 1, I assume they would only have a say and vote that is related to business 1. These people have an interest to collectively be better compared to business 2. So  In the big picture, most business 1 people  wouldn't give a fuck about business 2 people. They would want to find a way, to outsource and to outsmart business 2 people, to dominate the market which would eventually result in business 2 people earning less money, and getting fucked over and being forced to switch jobs.

You're talking about competition which isn't necessarily a problem as it healthy competition can lead to better products. Government can also intervene it competition gets of of hand. However, a hardcore socialist government wouldn't have 2 businesses making the same thing in the first place. There would only be 1 business with 200 employees which would be more efficient. Since the businesses are collectively owned, why would the community decide on making 2 competing shoe businesses in the first place when 1 is sufficient?