Can Capitalism Be Altruistic?

view larger

This book, "Only the super-rich can save us," by Ralph Nader, came out last year.

I think Ralph Nader is a brilliant thinker. I credit Ralph with initiating my own political awakening, to the harmfulness that is intrinsic to this corporate power dominated political system. These corporations compete for market domination. They can do no less - or else they would not be wise investments. Dominate to succeed. It's an unnatural and inharmonious system. Human beings have too much control over the environment to have a system that promotes and encourages the dominator paradigm. Another way is possible. A better way. A way of altruism, respect, kindness, compassion, reciprocity, truth, and peace....

Here are some of my initial thoughts about this book, I posted these on the facebook website earlier today:

I'm reading this new book by Ralph Nader. I'm about a chapter into it, "Only the super-rich can save us."

I think Ralph is brilliant, and I enjoy what seems, so far, to be the sense of humor in this book. However, there are some questions I have about the vision Ralph presents in this book, and although I am curious ab...out whether my questions will be addressed in this nearly 800 page epic, I am also skeptical.

The book presents Ralph's fictional (though he thinks plausible) scenario in which some of the world's richest philanthropists suddenly wake-up and realize how fucked-up the world is. Because of this realization, and the realization of their potential ability to make change, they therefore dedicate themselves, under the leadership of one mega-billionaire Warren Buffet, to use their capital, and other influence, toward the creation of an "open society" -a society that is altruistic and benevolent.

My question relating to the plausibility of this scenario revolves mostly around the realism of an expectation for reform within the capitalist (corporate socialism/ fascist) economy that we have.

It seems to me that capitalism has always been abusive. It seems to me that capitalism has always been exploitative and violent (slavery, extinction of species, et al.). It seems to me that on at least some level capitalism has always involved the mentality of divide and conquer. It seems to me that capitalism has always been oppressive.

So, so far the book is interesting, and I really appreciate what I think is Nader's sense of humor. About 40 pages into it, and I think it's an entertaining and interesting, crafty literary work of prose, albeit with a narrative that is sometimes somewhat silly, (an aspect which I personally find to be charming.)

But the question remains... is capitalism reformable? Is it possible to practice an altruistic capitalism? Or is the tendency to pit people against each other a radical and undeniable basic feature of the capitalistic economic system?

Is the concept of altruism anathema to capitalism (especially one that thrives on materialism/commercialism/consumerism)?

Technology, Industrialization, and a Patterns of Harmful Human Behavior

I think we can have a lot of dreams, and make the world a better place, without space exploration.

I really appreciate, and like, some technologies. But I think we have to start questioning and increase our awareness of the effects of these technologies. I think we have to question whether many of these technologies are really making our lives better, and whether there are any harmful side-effects, and whether the side-effects are "worth it."

Instant communications for example. What exactly is the benefit of being able to communicate instantly? There are obvious implications in the financial sector, and in terms of efforts toward economic domination. But economic domination is wrong. It is bad.

Look at the effect of industrialization on the environment. Hundreds of thousands of species driven to extinction by human activities. Climate change, climate disruption, global warming, ocean acidification. You name it. The list is long.

The problem is that human beings have been doing harm for a long time. I believe it is wrong for human beings to hurt each other. I believe it is wrong for human beings to hurt the environment. When we hurt the environment we hurt each other.

When we add industrialization and technology into the mix of harmful/abusive/violent patterns of human behavior, then we get a dangerous and highly undesirable mix.

Does technology really make life better for all of us? Or does it only seem to make life better? Are there harmful consequences that we are unaware of?

Does technology make life considerably worse for some of us? Consider the effect of gun technology. Consider the effect of extractive technologies on miners around the world - and on the environment.

I think there is a very strong argument that technology actually has made life worse for all, or at least many, of us, in many ways!

I prefer a cooperative, caring, kind and compassionate social ethic, rather than one rooted in dominance and oppression, violence, cruelty, hate and fear.

Love and Harmony!

Cheers,
Berd

The Global Richlist

Check out this site to learn where you sit in regard to global wealth. You might be VERY surprised by HOW RICH YOU ARE in comparison to the rest of humanity. http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Do Ecosystems Have Rights?

Why do corporations have rights when living ecosystems do not?

Please watch this very important, interesting, and powerful speech by Mari Margil.

Mari Margil speaks to the 2009 Bioneers conference in the spirit of The Lorax:
Protecting Against Environmental Degradation by Recognizing the Rights of Nature

I am also reminded about another set of important videos that have powerful ideas to share.

The Story of Stuff. And also The Story of Cap and Trade.

There are also a couple other videos in the production queue.

This is really really awesome work by Annie Leonard. Please also take time to see these important videos. http://www.storyofstuff.com/

It's all good food for thought.

American Disillusion

I grew up with the idea that the USA was the greatest nation on Earth. That this is a land of equal opportunity, a land of altruism. It's easy to see why that story could get confusing in light of the historical realities of the enslavement of Africans and the virtual genocide of Native Peoples. It's hard to know what to believe, I suppose. But the reality on the ground is that America is a very violent place. Ranging from domestic violence to state violence against civilians. Ranging from harmful economic activities to colonialism and outright wars of aggression.

When Obama was elected, and inaugurated, it would have been hard not to feel hopeful. The rhetoric, if not completely correct, was in a pretty good place. But in what's now over a year since the Obama Administration assumed power, there has been a degeneration in the rhetoric, and certainly a widespread feeling of disappointment with the real politic. An example of degeneration of rhetoric is the difference between talking about opportunity and prosperity for all, to the more recent focus on propping up the "middle class." The degeneration has been gradual, like the flim-flam approach to Universal Health Care, and the Obama plan to increase military spending; and yet it has also been spiked with notable events, like the use of the Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance speech to advocate America's supposed need for war, and the dreadful showing at the Copenhagen Climate Conference.

The disillusion is driving home some simple and chilling truths. The socio-economic political system of the United States is broken. It is corrupt. I have been saying this for over 10 years. And articles like the following only make it more and more clear. So what to do...

The fact is that human activities - industrial activities - over the past 200+ years have done tremendous damage to the living systems of this planet Earth. Earth is our home. We would be wise to take care of it. After all it either belongs to all of us, or to none of us at all. The policies coming out of Washington D.C. and other locusts of political power in the USA (as well as other places in the world) make little to no sense. A drastic change in focus is needed. A change toward the direction of taking care of the planet, and taking care of each other. The adversarial, profit-oriented model of destructive competition endangers the future of humanity and most of the life on this planet. Change is due.

First, there needs to be a disruption of the two-party duopoly that represents the amoral corporate profit motive.

Then there is the need to remake the system anew - to make a system that is altruistic and grounded in the intention to serve life.

Yep. So, check out this article for more reason to challenge and oppose the unmanageable and amoral status quo:

February 9, 2010

Obama's "Change" Drops Its Mask

The Democrats are Coming After Social Security

By SHAMUS COOKE

It’s official: the Democrats are coming after Social Security and Medicare. All the backroom scheming and political conspiring is finally out in the open.

In an unusually long, 1,800 word editorial, entitled The Truth about the Deficit, published February 7, The New York Times -- cheerleader for neoliberalism -- gives its solution to the country’s debt problems. The main idea is summed up thus:

“To truly tame deficits will require serious health care reform [Obama’s plan slashes Medicare], the sooner the better. Other aspects of the long-term fiscal problem — raising taxes and retooling [reducing] Social Security — must take place in earnest as the economy recovers.”

read more: http://www.counterpunch.org/cooke02092010.html