Is capitalism really such a good system?

[vinteuil]

Just for a start, we have, almost all of us, had an "ownership" principle drummed into us, by forces all around us, from day 1.
That is going to be pretty hard to break out of.
Perhaps it is not so much an instinct as a very deeply ingrained habit?
.

... any ideas as to how to wean humanity off this wide-spread "instinct" or "deeply ingrained habit"?

[ahinton]

Just for a start, we have, almost all of us, had an "ownership" principle drummed into us, by forces all around us, from day 1.
That is going to be pretty hard to break out of.
Perhaps it is not so much an instinct as a very deeply ingrained habit?

But to what extent do you believe that we've almost all had that principle drummed into us from the outset? I don't think that very many people, whatever they might have had drummed into them at any time, would likely regard ownership as superior to renting/leasing in every circumstance. Surely we've had both ownership and non-ownership "drummed" into us and some feel that certain things are preferable to own and others to use but not to own. I want to have access to NHS, not to be told tht I "own" a share in it as part of some collective ownership deal. If I fly from London to New York I obviously don't - and don't want to - "own" the plane, the airports, the airline et al.

There seems to me to be not only a potentially divisive argument between "ownersip" and "non-ownership" but also an inescapable fact that not everyone is likely - or indeed could be expected - to espouse identical hopes, aspirations, principles or desires in relation to "ownership" or otherwise of this, that and the other in any case.

[ahinton]

... any ideas as to how to wean humanity off this wide-spread "instinct" or "deeply ingrained habit"?

No - and not least because neither applies globally and universally in any case.

[teamsaint]

... any ideas as to how to wean humanity off this wide-spread "instinct" or "deeply ingrained habit"?

Bloody hell. I wish. Especially after a days work !!

No, not really, I am afraid. But perhaps we could look around for examples to encourage us in the collective direction?

For instance, public transport, (where we effectively rent and don't own) works best when it is clearly in our personal interest to use it, for instance in London, where car ownership is relatively onerous.
Also, RBs example of people choosing to rent housing in Berlin, because it just made economic sense .

Of course , those two examples might be seen as selfish, or being based in a selfish motives, but if it works,people will surely start to change behaviours.

(For avoidance of doubt, I am pretty much in the ownership camp at present, not claiming any moral high ground here !!)

[Serial_Apologist]

Isn't it more likely that most people did not believe that, but in fact put up with the situation, as to do otherwise could have been dangerous? Perhaps some kings really did believe that they had a divine right to rule, but even if they didn't - it would be good for them to put that thought about.

This raises a very basic point. Belief is based around concepts transmitted generation to generation, with language as the vehicle. Life always proceeds faster than thoughts about it are able to catch up: there is always a time-lapse. Marx pointed out (if I've understood him correctly) that coping with change takes time to be translated into individual understanding and collective agreement expressed in political initiative and response to that understanding. Stuff happens - later the clumsy web of words is brought into play to explain it.

This, by the way, in "another context" is why religion is wrong to posit The Word as being at the beginning of all creation - without words there are no beginnings, or at least only those deducible by provable evidence: so many factors led into "the beginning of" the First World War (just to cite a well-known "historical event" - one could choose any other) that citing one as separate from other disputable factors to include as of definable influence on that "event" is tantamount to chasing a non-existent tail.

[vinteuil]

(For avoidance of doubt, I am pretty much in the ownership camp at present, not claiming any moral high ground here !!)

... same here. It seems to me that some things are better done collectively and others privately. I am very happy to contribute to and benefit from public health, education, infrastructure, the BBC, defence, etc - and wd be happy with public utilities, rail, etc - but on the other hand I like owning my books, my CDs, my wine, my house, my sticks of furniture ....

[ahinton]

For instance, public transport, (where we effectively rent and don't own) works best when it is clearly in our personal interest to use it, for instance in London, where car ownership is relatively onerous.

True, of course, although "public transport" does include services provided both by the local bus (if you have one, which I don't) and by first class with Singapore Airlines...

Also, RBs example of people choosing to rent housing in Berlin, because it just made economic sense

Indeed - or my similar one with the photocopier (albeit that was a matter of necessity rather than choice).

[Serial_Apologist]

... people like owning things. A failure to understand this basic truth of human nature undermines any attempt to create a communist utopia.

The "permanency" of ones ownership of things one is especially attached to is a substitute of a kind, I think - a desire to hang onto things that symbolise meaningful connection in a world in which experience of connection beyond the one-to-one is either subjective to the point of communcability only through literature or arts whose practice encourages it, or made transitory by change for change's sake or the pressure of events. Used rationally instead of for rationalisation, technology could enable time spent on making obsolescently planned product so as to connect with the wellsprings of an unstressed, simplified living: other people, the great outdoors, the here and now.

The Zen monk returns at night to the hut in the forest where he lives alone, to find that a burglar has taken the last of his few possessions. He positions himself in the Lotus position and gazes out at the moon, thinking, "If only I could have given him this moon"!

[Serial_Apologist]

... any ideas as to how to wean humanity off this wide-spread "instinct" or "deeply ingrained habit"?

A context that encourages maturation rather than prolonged infantilisation, along with the fullest possible development rather than waste of individual potential would be a start, on the principle of "mens sana in corpore sano".

It's always struck me as ironic that people say, "You try persuading the working classes that socialism would work, and they never listen; it's the middle classes who preach the romanticism of working class rebellion". The slogan on the corrugated iron in Lindsay Anderson's "O Lucky Man", "Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals", though very funny, sums that attitude up. Lenin and Trotsky realised it was imperative to get the middle classes on-side: they carried within themselves the learning that meant insight into the nature of things, which socialism would inculcate in all learning, not just for the privileged - the fulfillment of the Enlightenment.

[vinteuil]

T the wellsprings of an unstressed, simplified living: other people, the great outdoors, the here and now.

... so I'm not allowed to cherish the books I possess, to relish the wines I have been looking after? Your buddhist world view can lead to what seems like a pretty meagre existence. Why not also enjoy richness and complexity?

[Serial_Apologist]

Where would one stop about owning things anyway? S-A would apparently stop at "consumer goods", which presumably does not include one's home but would include its contents.

Correct. Envy is a function of capitalism's concept of success: kid yourself you can get to the position of earning sufficient to afford that jewel and you've bought into the system.

[ahinton]

Correct. Envy is a function of capitalism's concept of success: kid yourself you can get to the position of earning sufficient to afford that jewel and you've bought into the system.

But I don't see that as the only way to espouse that system; capitalism does not of itself have to presuppose greed or be dependent upon envy and, when these things do manifest themselves, it's a corrupted form of capitalism that's being followed. "That jewel" in the context in which you refer to it is one thing; some equipment necessary for the running of an SME, for example, is quite another.

Also, assumptions might be made about someone who lives in a million pound + home regardless of whether the resident has purchased it to live in - it could as easily be rented - so any envy on the part of the person maing such an assumption here might well find itself either misplaced altogether or unwittingly directed at a wealthier person because of what he/she rents rather than owns.

[teamsaint]

A context that encourages maturation rather than prolonged infantilisation, along with the fullest possible development rather than waste of individual potential would be a start, on the principle of "mens sana in corpore sano".

It's always struck me as ironic that people say, "You try persuading the working classes that socialism would work, and they never listen; it's the middle classes who preach the romanticism of working class rebellion". The slogan on the corrugated iron in Lindsay Anderson's "O Lucky Man", "Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals", though very funny, sums that attitude up. Lenin and Trotsky realised it was imperative to get the middle classes on-side: they carried within themselves the learning that meant insight into the nature of things, which socialism would inculcate in all learning, not just for the privileged - the fulfillment of the Enlightenment.

This (the bit in bold)should be a cornerstone of our education .

No wonder that it isn't. Very scary for those with power, Status and wealth to lose.

Speaking personally,and as a person who owns, (a fragile concept as SA has pointed out) the usual kind of stuff, I don't actually feel a very strong necessity to own much of the stuff that I do. Many things that we own can be something of a burden.

Except my Records, CDs and tapes, obviously !!

It occurs that photographs come into an interesting category here. Just for starters, people take many more than they used to, and print many fewer. How far do the own them?


Edit: much interesting food for thought S_A, as usual.

[P. G. Tipps]

Correct. Envy is a function of capitalism's concept of success: kid yourself you can get to the position of earning sufficient to afford that jewel and you've bought into the system.

Or you could describe it as opportunity and aspiration clearly denied by an alternative socialist/communist system which would only encourage mediocrity and drab uniformity.

My own feeling, FWIW, is that it's the latter which is truly guided by envy hence its hatred of the rich and successful in the capitalist system.

[teamsaint]

Or you could describe it as opportunity and aspiration clearly denied by an alternative socialist/communist system which would only encourage mediocrity and drab uniformity.

My own feeling, FWIW, is that it's the latter which is truly guided by envy hence its hatred of the rich and successful in the capitalist system.

Why would opportunity necessarily be denied under socialism or communism?It is provably denied to many under our current system.
The aspiration of which you speak is surely part of the current system. Under a more collective system there would be no need for financial aspiration, and its destructive qualities. Drab mediocrity?already Built into many peoples lives, along with debt and resentment.

As for the envy /hate argument, that is an odd one. Many less well off people dont hate the rich,they just want a piece of the action, or association with it. Check out the newspapers, and I dont mean just the tabloids.
Those with disproportionate shares of wealth will always tend use the envy argument...it is Mandy Rice Davis stuff. Take away the avoidable inequality, and you take away the envy.