Can Free Market Capitalism Exist Without Violence? Highlighting Flaws In Capitalism Means I 'Just Want Free Stuff'?
I have worked in a wide variety of industries at many levels - from the bottom to the top. I have also trained as a professional system architect for business - so I have a clue about business, money and the world in general (from an academic and practical perspective). Sometimes, when I criticise capitalism's flaws, the capitalist fanboys will throw stock accusations at me that aren't based on evidence.. Here's one of my new favourites 'You obviously just want free stuff' (meant in a derisory way)..
There is an association being made in the mind of some who have not truly considered a wide range of alternative ways to live, that says that if you aren't pro-capitalism, then you must be pro-socialism or something similar that involves taking everyone else's stuff. I have found that even when explaining why my position is not that way at all and having gone to great lengths to explain the founding principles behind what I understand to be a balanced and helpful way for humans to proceed as a group, mostly my words are denied and skipped over - with the same old tired and nonsensical retorts being put forward.
Why 'Free' Cannot Be 'bad'
Capitalism may offer some benefits as compared to other systems of organisation, such as applying a form of 'order' to things that can be worked with - that attempts to bypass the ebbs and flows of life to some extent and in an a way that allegedly rewards those who 'deserve it'. In reality, we see over and over - even proven in scientific studies - that the results of capitalism so far have actually been that most people get almost nothing and a tiny percentage get almost everything. Some state that this is not the fault of the design of capitalism, but is the fault of 'the state'. While it is true that state intervention does cause major problems in so many ways, it does not mean that true free market capitalism would be perfect or even likely to be more balanced than our current version. You only need to view my recent post that demonstrates how modern media advertising uses mind control that works in the same way as cult indoctrination to understand some of why a large part of the problem has nothing at all to do with governments and plenty to do with heartless exploitation that uses capitalism as a vehicle.
My point here is that the control that is being exerted right through society to limit the expansion and growth of most people, in favour of a tiny minority absolutely relies on the ability to remove freedom and free will. 'Free' as a concept is a polar opposite to 'limited', 'caged', 'denied', 'controlled', 'blocked', 'held back' - so how can 'free' be a 'bad' thing? People love free stuff.. People love to be free.. Wars are even fought alleging to be in the name of 'freedom' - yet when it comes to challenging economic balance, suddently 'free' becomes evil! lol
The Natural State is Free
Think of dolphins swimming in the ocean. They move mostly unhindered and in unlimited ways within the water (unless humans mess with them) - they go where they will themselves to go. Our modern human world is really not like this much at all. If people really ask themselves how they feel about their world, most will feel that they do not like it much. How can we feel good and at peace when we are fenced and caged in at almost every turn? How sad an irony it is that capitalist fans will try desperately to claim that all these fences and controls somehow have something to do with freedom!
1984?
Think for a moment about the image above - the tribes have known for a long time that to live in balance and harmony means to accept the gifts of the nature of Earth - a naturally giving Mother. Just as with a human Mother, what is needed in return is to accept her and maybe protect her when needed.
Those who have disconnected their thoughts from their real roots will drone on all day about this theory and that theory, but they deny the origins of everything, they deny the origins of their body and their soul - they deny the Earth and the needed balance.
Sustainable living is about balance with all things - do you think it is possible to live without money and heavily organised databases of property rights and the violent enforcement that goes with it? Do you think that property rights can be useful without violence? If not, then how can property rights be in alignment with living peacefully?
If you do think that property rights can be useful without violence as the ultimate enforcer of those rights - then how are they to be enforced?
I simply desire and need peace and balance. This means non violence, an increase in love/compassion and an increase in acceptance and allowance of free will. I see that capitalism is deeply flawed in this regard and so far I have only met a combination of ad hominem attacks, denial and avoidance when it really comes to the deep issues involved from those who claim I am wrong here.
If anyone can explain exactly how free market capitalism is not ultimately underpinned by violence, I would love to hear it!
Wishing you well,
Ura Soul
Vote @ura-soul for Steem Witness!
View My Witness Application Here
(Witnesses are the computer servers that run the Steem Blockchain.
Without witnesses there is no Steem, Steemit, DTube, Utopian or
Busy... You can really help Steem by making your 30 witness votes count!)
These ideas of anti-capitalism sound very parallel to communism and the way it is 'sold'.
After listening to more details of your model i think it is something like 'no-death minimalism', which is a interesting idea.
I have been thinking about how it would work, and have a problem with the math. How do seven billion people live off the no-death model?
It's not about the effort picking the apple off the tree, it's about all the apple trees next to people being stripped bare.
Do you see people as a prime mover in agricultural work, or do you expect equipment, and crop production.
If not, what is the natural carrying capacity of the world when it is left to naturally produce?
In my understanding, 'Communism' was/is sold with a loose objective of 'replacing capitalism and causing human evolution' - so in that sense it will sound similar to anything that aims to bring balance since human evolution and (imo) replacing capitalism are both going to increase balance.. However, that does not mean that I support communism or that communism is a good idea.
What has been missing right through human evolution is real and felt balance. I do not see/think/feel that communism and it's supporters have understood balance deeply enough to be able to cause it.
I have never heard of 'no death minimalism' before - so I can't comment.. I didn't see much in the way of pages when I searched for it online.
This is an interesting question if you really think about it. Why would death make it easier for 7 billion people to live when it is life itself that brings the abundance of food needed to continue its own expansion and death is the opposite of life.
From my perspective, at least in all the parts of the world that I have visited, there is a big hole in people's understanding of how to work with the planet to produce large yields of food in a clean and balanced way. There are still people who think that growing organic food at home, for example, is too hard and produces too little to make it worthwhile - however, there are important techniques that drastically change this which if the world all used, I feel would make the situation a lot different.
Remineralisation of the soil using 'rock dust' and the use of various forms of 'compost tea' - plus the adoption of permaculture principles such as food forests will transform the Earth into something closer to it's true, free, abundant form if used well. Are you aware of these?
To put this another way - in answering your questions - efficiency is hugely increased when understanding is increased about the soil, micro-life and planet in general.. Industrial farming methods tend to lack these.
I think the 'no-death minimalism' may be something new. Minimalism is relatively common, but the coupling of the no-death concept sets it apart from general minimalism.
In communism the collective production has to be distributed. In nature the products occur distributed in the matching geology. In this way nature is more efficient in distribution.
Yes I am aware of soil amendment. The part i don't understand in the balance concept, is why attempt to amend the soil? Just because a soil is deficient to produce according to the needs of man, doesn't mean that it is out of balance, or in need of modification. Regional conditions are reflected in the soil.
(Amending the soil could be seen as a type of violence against the life that has adapted to those areas, and would perish from modifications)
If it is shown that both plant and human health is increased with the presence of many nutrients that are missing from the soils, then surely it makes sense to take steps to heal that soil and increase it's productivity and health giving benefits. My understanding is that ice ages distribute such minerals around the world and we are a bit late for one currently, so the soils are depleted.. plus due to human mis-management of the soils.
The currents of the oceans, and the long term movements in the jet streams have a lot to do with regional conditions (even producing ice ages, or solar ages).
Amounts of rainfall, solar intensity and temperature, have a considerable, first order affect.
There is no healing a soil that is low in moisture content without artificial irrigation. Is artificial irrigation in balance with nature?
Soils are 'depleted' in places where no man has farmed. 'Depleted' is a relative term to the condition of life. I have learned that some plants do better in 'depleted' soils than amended ones.
They have adapted to local conditions over thousands of years. At some point i think the diversity of life and diverse conditions should be included in the concept of what balance is.
Attempting to make the carrying capacity of the world more than what it is could be a problem. Specifically if the human population grows near peak carrying capacity, and conditions in the jet stream or ocean currents reduce the capacity.
There is a moral problem that eventually leads to a discussion of population numbers, but that isn't a particularly useful discussion as no one will own social objectivity enough to make a decision of it.
These are somewhat macro problems i see going forward.
I don't see irrigation as being necessarily a problem but some might disagree.. Diverting water sources and having rain catchers for that purpose is not wrong. I am not sure why people want to live in deserts anyway ;)
My point is that humans need nutrition from plants so it makes sense to grow the ones that do that and to care for them optimally. This planet is old, so it is not surprising that areas have lost vitality, regardless of human presence.
I am not talking about increasing the number of humans, I am talking about making life more viable and 'higher quality'.
Deserts typically lead to sparse population densities which is nice in its own way.
;)
I don't have a particular argument for or against irrigation, other than there can be a dependence established, and a failure of irrigation could lead to die-off.
As Sagan said: Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.
The difficult thing about humans is that in one case more resources may make one set of people lead a 'higher quality' of life in fewer numbers while a different set of people may use the same resource pool and lead a 'lower quality' of life with higher numbers. That is yet another problem in social objectivity.
nice blog...and yes i agree with you the only thing nature want from us is to protect it 👍👍👍
Minus the exploitation, political agendas, environmental destruction, monopolisations, disparity etc. Capitalism is a great!