1) Anti-Capitalism doesn't exist. If someone described me as an anti-Nazi I'd attack the term because obv. they were trying to frame the discussion in Nazi terms. Anti-Nazism doesn't exist precisiely because we reject Nazism. No one supports "anti-unicorn believers" because we think there aren't any unicorns! 1st up: rejection of anti-Capitalism and all debate surrounding it (including the illegally biased news coverage). The correct thinking is: there is Capitalism AND everything else. Once the debate is allowed to start "anti-Capitalism" becomes a vast array of "other" views. Science and God-religions offer two huge subsets of "anti-Capitalism"... most "anti-Capitalists" are primarily attacking this fascism that refuses any debate whatsoever on the subject.
2) The problem with Capitalism for me is not itself, but how a society adopts it. Our society is making it the model of all human organisation. That is why scientists should be anti-Capitalist: because it is being adopted by prejudice and not research or knowledge. This is the main criticism of Capitalism. Final 2 points are why it is unsuitable.
3) Capitalism uses "exchange" in a market to value things. It has no other model of value. In a society where value is determined by exchange there can be no friendship, no family and no love. The reason is that when anyone interacts in such a society they keep an account book open of debt and credit. I help a "friend" only because I expect them to help me back. I have a child only because I think they will be useful to me. This does happen--and so does murder--but it is important it is not the only basis for human relationship. This is exacty what religions are teaching against in fact and why religions are "anti-Capitalism". "Real" wealth cannot be counted in account books they argue and the opposite behaviour of deleting account books is recommended (as the EU is being forced to discuss now ironically).
4) Who owns the wealth? This is the most famous "anti-Capitalist" issue. Mr Wheel and Mr Plough (the respective inventors of their namesakes) have brought humans literally untold riches. The human population rose on the invention of the latter alone from 1million to 100s of millions. If they somehow owned the rights to that then 1 family would literally own the world. Likewise if someone invented a single machine that could do all human labour more cheaply (a day that is approaching fast) would they really own everything, and more importantly how can an economy function when all humans are finally put out of work? It is clear to me that Capitalism isn't a complete, or even very well thought out system, all the time old problems remain to be solved... and the elite who are happy with the status quo will do everything to stop them being solved (like ever lasting light bulbs, and cancer cures, and DVD players that work longer than the warranty etc)... which is the greatest truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment