CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Keynes on Capitalism
"When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease ... But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight."
This passage aptly captures my feelings on capitalism. It is an ugly thing that encourages greed and selfishness, yet at the same time it works better overall than any system we've ever come up with. I think we will come up with a better system someday; but until that day comes, being a greedy bastard is probably the best thing you can do for society. Look at Bill Gates, for example. Microsoft has employed some shady business tactics to get where they are today, but as a result of Microsoft's power, everybody has access to (somewhat) easy to use computers.
"Microsoft has employed some shady business tactics to get where they are today, but as a result of Microsoft's power, everybody has access to (somewhat) easy to use computers."
As an open source developer, I thought you of all people would understand just how much innovation has been stifled by Microsoft's monopoly.
I'm not exclusively an open source developer. I'm still trying to figure out whether or not I should be.
I think people demonize Microsoft more than they should. By ruthlessly pursuing profit, Microsoft has accumulated the financial resources necessary to allow legions of computer programmers to work full time on developing software.
I'm typing this argument on the Ubuntu Linux OS. It's solid and easy to use. I feel comfortable in saying it's slightly better than Windows. Why is it so good? Because Mark Shuttleworth has spent millions of dollars to make it that way. How can he afford to be so generous? Because earlier in his life he spent time relentlessly pursuing profit through his broadband company in South Africa.
"If something's expensive to develop, and somebody's not going to get paid, it won't get developed. So you decide: Do you want software to be written, or not?"
If ever there was a writing on Capitalism that encapsulated all my feelings about it this is it! Thank you, Jess, for sharing it with us. One has to wonder if it must take that long to turn around to what it ought to have been.
Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight.
Every once in a while you find a quotation that says the same things you want to say, but in a better way than you could ever find. Thanks for posting this. :)
"Our goal should be a society like Star Trek, where machines do all the crap work, and people do cool stuff like explore space."
Somebodies gotta work hard to build those machines.
The way I see it, if you start working hard and making money at a young age, eventually you can do whatever you want with your life. That even includes exploring space, in a more realistic way. I do 'crap work' now to save money for collage so that I can make a living doing whatever I want.
"Capitalism could never lead to this in a million years."
In Star Trek people don't work for money, they work for the betterment of society...
and only a society that works for the betterment of society and not for money will ever be all cool like that.
Money's just a necessary evil Jake, because people are still too dumb for the most part to do stuff for any other reason.
Instead of working hard to save money for college, the necessities should eventually be provided through technology, and people instead of having to work hard to go to college, can simply work hard in college. This equals smarter people who can make even better technology, or devote themselves to arts or whatever, instead of devoting themselves to flipping burgers. I realize even imagining a world where greed is not the cornerstone of society is akin to blasphemy in the church of capitalism, but eventually capitalism needs to be done away with... as the quote said, we just can't yet.
"and only a society that works for the betterment of society and not for money will ever be all cool like that."
I see what you are saying but isn't everyone who goes to work, working for the betterment of society? Because that is how our economy is set up. See in capitalism you can make money and work the betterment of society. You can even specialize in the betterment of society.
And just for the record the cast of startreck are nothing but payed actors.
And the people of the U.S. are way cooler than the imaginary characters of star trek.
"Money's just a necessary evil Jake, because people are still too dumb for the most part to do stuff for any other reason."
What about all of those non-profit organizations? What about the boy scouts of America, their sole purpose is to work for the betterment of society, and not for money. And not to prove a point. I'm part of that organization, as an Eagle scout I have done a lot to help society.
The thing is, you have the freedom to do whatever you want. If you want to volunteer to help society, you can. Just don't expect to get around without money because that is just unrealistic.
Well sure Jake, some people work for the betterment of society.
But take away money, and see how many people want to do something to "better society."
And take away the money part of the equation, things like housing crisises and Bernie Madoffs don't exist, there's no reason to rip people off, and there's no way for money to influence policies in government.
But it just doesn't work. It has to be based on greed or people won't go along with it.
Of course some people volunteer their time, and are genuinely interested in the betterment of society, but even non-profits have a payroll. Non-profit just means the goal isn't making money, it's providing some service.
To me, technology is the only way to come up with a better system. When we find means for certain things once though impossible, it'll be a lot easier to create a better system.
I love capitalism because it gives citizens the freedom of choice and is a lot more productive than any other system. The middle ground between socialism and capitalism is becoming popular again. Hasn't been popular since the Rise of Adolf Hitler. I guess History will eventually kick in and people will gain some sense.
"The middle ground between socialism and capitalism is becoming popular again. Hasn't been popular since the Rise of Adolf Hitler. I guess History will eventually kick in and people will gain some sense."
Part socialist/capitalist systems have been popular all over Europe for ages now, and extremely successful. Anyone would think that you're obsessed with Hitler, you way you go on about him.
By the way, Godwin's law:
"Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an informal adage created by Mike Godwin in 1990. The adage states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3]
Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form.
The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases in direct proportion to the length of the discussion. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages."
Also, just noticed this on the Wiki entry:
"On October 20, 2008, Rachel Maddow, on The Rachel Maddow Show, proposed a corollary to Godwin's law that as the time a liberal candidate is believed to be winning an election or argument increases, the probability that they will be labeled communist or socialist approaches one.[19]"
you're right. ever since the rise of Fascism and it's belief in the third way (middle ground between socialism and capitalism) it has just been popular.
it's not Hitler's ideal. it's just the basic ideal of Fascism. Hitler should be compared more with Nazism. Fascism is different.
The "third way" wasn't a middle ground between socialism and capitalism. It was meant to be a different way to communism and capitalism.
A lot of European countries have both capitalist and socialist policies, and would be considered the middle ground; understanding and taking guidance from both principles. Integrating a mixture of socialist and capitalist policy isn't fascism in any way, shape or form.
I guess back then Europe was extremely socialist so socialism wasn't seen as an extreme. Maybe that's why you're using the term Communism.
But let me explain what Fascist economics were:
Government control of the banks
Government control of health care
Strict wage regulations
Private property rights
Government control over what businesses could do such as:
Worker's rights
Worker's comp
What businesses can and can't sell (where the Communism part comes into play)
They applied the ideal of private property and ability to progress that came from Capitalism and mixed in strict government regulations to ensure that businesses didn't become too powerful and didn't exploit the workers. Also, to make sure that banks and health care wouldn't fail.
yeah, i see where Communism came in, but that was more under the idea of totalitarian rule, not economics. They're economic system was the middle ground between Socialism and Capitalism.
Fascism is pretty much the opposite (It is an extremist conservative movement) from Communism (which is an extremist liberal movement). There ain't an inkling of Communism in Fascism. Mussolini would be turning in his grave if he heard that. If you read his treatise on Fascism (he was the one who invented it and everything), you'll quickly realize how much he hates Communists and Communism. The idea of him or any Fascist utilizing Communist principles is kind of comical.
hmm, you seem to have rebutted without providing any examples on how Fascism is different from Communism.
On the other hand, I've presented why it IS pretty much the same as Communism.
this seems to be a patter in your argument. seriously, you pulled what a troll would have done: Fascism isn't Communism cause it's Conservative and Communism is Liberal.
I would ask why, and you would say: Mussolini hated Communism.
The hatred came from private property rights. seriously, that's it... (it would make sense since that was the ONLY difference in the two styles of government).
Fascism allowed private property, but highly regulated EVERYTHING. Communism, on the other hand, had government control over all property. Fascism was more of a liberation movement from Communism. Unfortunately, it consisted of the same Totalitarian style and still had strict regulations over private property.
My first criticism is simply that Communism has never been practiced. Totalitarian regimes under the name of Communism (Russian and Chinese Communism, for example) are not Communist, any more than modern Democracy is Democracy as it was conceived. The founding fathers of America were fundamentally against Democracies and were Republicans.
But to get to your points one by one.
Fascism isn't Communism cause it's Conservative and Communism is Liberal.
This is in fact not what I said. I stated quite specifically that they are extremist positions. During the rise of nationalist movements of the late 19th century, socialist movements acted as their primary sociopolitical opposition. You can look at the socialist criticisms of nationalism leading up to World War I, as examples. The point is that it means that they are direct political opposition.
Mussolini's dislike of Communism wasn't simply relegated to the issue of private property. In fact, all you have to do is read his treatise on Fascism (which I mentioned earlier) and you would know this. In his criticism of Communism (and his development of Fascist doctrine), Mussolini writes (What is Fascism (19832)):
Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment (Communism), believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism
The first consideration of Fascism is militarism, which is diametrically opposed to Communism.
He goes on:
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State
The second consideration of Fascism is Nationalism. Again, diametrically opposed to Communism which sees the state as relative to the group, as it functions to serve to the benefit of the group, to its eventual dissolution.
Again:
the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone . . . . For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality.
The third consideration of Fascism is the perpetual growth of the nationhood as its primary means of survival. That is, the expansion is both the goal and the means.
More importantly:
Such a conception of Life makes Fascism the complete opposite of that doctrine, the base of so-called scientific and Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production
The fourth and primary consideration of Fascism is anti-Communism. Mussolini believed that Communism did not represent the aspirations of the people, and was counterproductive to the vitality of the nation. Private property wasn't that big of a deal to him, it was the entirety of socialist thought.
And the only reason I will cut it short is because 1) the treatise is readily available on the internet and 2) Fascism is politically and economically opposed to Communist philosophies and economics, and to be quite frank, it would take a paper to more appropriately explain why (using Mazzini, Marx, Mussolini and so forth). It shouldn't be surprising if you look at the German political struggles of the early 20th century as an example: the NSDAP (NAZI party) was entirely opposed to the politics of the KDP (Communist).
The only coinciding characteristic shared by Communism and Fascism as they have been practiced is that they are both totalitarian. And the only thing we can say, then, is that totalitarian regimes are similar. But not that Communism and Fascism are the same or even that Fascism has elements of Communism in it, because it doesn't and they aren't.
Thanks for actually providing examples, now for the proper rebuttal:
1. Marx believed that Communism could only be possible from a violent uprising. The idea of pacifism was not an ideal of Marx. He believed that death was the only way to prevent ideological turmoil. Stalin practiced this. Mussolini accidentally pointed to the skewed vision of Communist revolutionaries and not the actual Communist belief.
2. Nationalism is an up in the air idea. Communist believe that the government needs to keep the people protected from everything, while Fascist believe that the people must protect the government from everything. What they didn't know is that both required the same thing. Under Communism, everyone worked for the government in order to make sure that it was strong enough to protect them, and under Fascism everyone worked for the government because it was their duty.
3. The USSR (which is closest to true Communism) was all about expansion. Marx himself saw Capitalism and Democracy around the world as a threat to Communism in one country. The USSR wanted to spread Communism around the world, which it was doing.
4. And on Socialism. Fascism has always been about the "Third Way". They hated Capitalism for its "exploitation" of workers but hated Socialism for its "counter productivity" and insufficient means of progressing technology. So they believed in the "third way", which was a middle ground between Socialism and Capitalism. They ensured private property rights for citizens in order to progress research and technology but enacted strict government regulations in order to make sure that corporations held no power.
Anyone who says "nationalism is an up in the air idea" doesn't know much about the class consciousness and national philosophies that sparked the 1848 revolutions in places like Budapest and Milan, and the notions of citizenship of Prussian Germans.
Anyone who argues that Marx believed that Communism could only be possible from a violent revolution or that Marx saw democracy as a threat to Communism hasn't read Marx. Anyone who proposes that the Soviet Union is the closest reflection of Communism doesn't know what Communism is.
You accuse me of doing as the troll does, but turn around and do the same, as if your claims have any factual basis without supporting evidence. Why are you the only one who is exempt from the criticism of ipse dixit? Where is your supporting evidence, do you have available any primary sources or am I to conclude that your opinion is fact?
Let me help you along: between the writings in Grundrisse and Das Kapital, where does Marx propose that "death was the only way to prevent ideological turmoil"? According to Marx, how is the battle of Democracy won (This should give you a hint of the incorrectness of your point that Marx viewed democracy as a threat to communism)? What is the distinction between Lenin's understanding of ideology and Marx's understanding of ideology, and how do you think it affected and effected the later Soviet Russia? Which communist revolutionaries did Mussolini point to and where, and in what context? What does Nationalism mean to Garibaldi? Under whose Communist philosophy is the state supposed to be strong and not "wither away" (see the second question in this paragraph and the quotation marks in this question for a hint of the most accurate answer) and is that Communism?
I was going to present a more thorough rebuttal, but it seems clear that you're not really well read on the literature, nor do you know much of your history, and you seem to have an inadequate understanding of both fascism and communism at best. So it doesn't really make much sense to keep going in earnest.
Not at all. You pointed out that I did not substantiate my claims. I then supported my position with the evidence present in the Fascist treatise. I am merely suggesting that you do the same thing. You've made certain claims about the positions of various historical figures who have written and spoken at length about their various theories, their writing and speeches readily available for anyone who is interested to view them on the internet. You have not taken the opportunity to use any of the resources available to you to buttress your points. Instead, you have relied solely on ipse dixitisms - which is the very thing you accuse me of. I am not questioning or attacking your credibility, merely pointing out that you're being hypocritical. And that's on the one hand. On the other hand, the things you have said are wrong and a simple read of the various figures you're trying to account for would easily correct your misconstruction of their positions.
And on another hand, I've asked you very basic questions, and the answers you give to those questions can highlight whether or not you actually have read anything these people have produced and why, for instance in the case of Marx, your claims are wrong. Simple reading will solve those problems.
Between the writings in Grundrisse and Das Kapital, where does Marx propose that "death was the only way to prevent ideological turmoil"? According to Marx, how is the battle of Democracy won? What is the distinction between Lenin's understanding of ideology and Marx's understanding of ideology, and how do you think it affected and effected the later Soviet Russia? Which communist revolutionaries did Mussolini point to and where, and in what context? What does Nationalism mean to Garibaldi? Under whose Communist philosophy is the state supposed to be strong and not "wither away" and is that Communism?
These questions are completely relevant to the claims you have made. Please answer to them, and stop being a hypocrite.
actually, i said provide examples. i never ask people to cite material mainly because it's annoying to find material. In the post that i was criticizing, you didn't provide any examples on why one movement is Extremely Conservative and the other is extremely Liberal. All you said was that they were, and provided no examples.
1. You provided your examples, and i thank you for it.
2. You want me to cite references, but you haven't even done so yourself. all you've said was that I've never read Marx's works. I could easily say the same to you.
3. In Marx's Communist Manifesto, he describes how forcible overthrow will happen when placing in Communist rule. It was all about the labor class creating riots and revolting against the Ruling Class and the Capitalists:
In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
okay, now for your first question, Marx (from what i remember) doesn't say anything specific about killing all political prisoners. on the other hand, he believes in that people will only be truly Communist once any other idea is gone from their heads. You know, once they no longer think about how it could be: really, this would explain both the political turmoil and the hatred towards Capitalist Democracies.
Mussolini and Communist Revolutionaries. If he hated Pacifism so much, it couldn't be from Marx's and Engle's beliefs in Communism, for people who were fine with physical overthrow and riots surely were not pacifist. So it's only natural to believe that Mussolini was referring to other Communist Revolutionaries.
I never mentioned anything about Garibaldi. Nationalism was a thrown around term. Under Communist rule, you had to coincide with the country's system or else Communism wouldn't work, and under Fascism you had to coincide with the country's system because that was the way of Fascism naturally. Nationalism, supporting your country above all else, was technically a necessity for both rules. It's really a necessity for totalitarianism in general.
The state itself is supposed to not exist after time in Communism. How long it takes, nobody knows. Obviously totalitarianism is a necessity in order to make sure that the path is set, sure. But how long it takes before the idea of state can just disappear, that was left under interpretation.
I pointed to the KDP and NSDAP in Germany to highlight the fact that Fascism and Communism are extremist liberal and conservative systems diametrically opposed to one another. So when you write “In the post that i was criticizing, you didn't provide any examples on why one movement is Extremely Conservative and the other is extremely Liberal. All you said was that they were, and provided no examples.” you are wrong. I also briefly discussed the basic principles of Fascism: militarism, nationalism, and anti-communism, and provided the points presented in Mussolini's treatise to support those principles, which I did happen to cite mind you: “What is Fascism? 1932”. I, however, never required you to cite anything. I simply asked that you hold yourself to the same intellectual obligation (that you held me to) and also support your claims with sources other than your own claims.
It was all about the labor class creating riots and revolting against the Ruling Class and the Capitalists
You should re-read the manifesto, and then Marx's other works for an education in Communism. If this is your conclusion, then you really need to get up on your analytical game.
okay, now for your first question, Marx (from what i remember) doesn't say anything specific about killing all political prisoners. on the other hand, he believes in that people will only be truly Communist once any other idea is gone from their heads. You know, once they no longer think about how it could be: really, this would explain both the political turmoil and the hatred towards Capitalist Democracies. If this answered the question at all, I would surely accept it. But it doesn't. I asked, from what Marxist literature do you get the idea that he believed, quote: death was the only way to prevent ideological turmoil. If you can't point to any source, just admit that you're pulling out of your ass. It happens.
If he hated Pacifism so much, it couldn't be from Marx's and Engle's beliefs in Communism, for people who were fine with physical overthrow and riots surely were not pacifist
If and only if we accept your proposition that “physical overthrow” is the same thing as violence, violence being the issue you were addressing, then they are not. But all revolutions require “physical overthrow” - even non-violent ones. The velvet revolution of 1989 also resulted in the physical overthrow of Communists in eastern Europe, but it was non-violent. But the thing is, Communism doesn't propose any notion of “rioting”. That's something you've just made up. And the quote you use only talks about force, but even the pacifist Hippies used force. The question is what does that mean? Does it mean violence? No. Since, even in the Manifesto, Marx uses the term “revolution” in a variety of ways, but most normally within an ideological context. That is, the revolution overturns a historical ideology (the very perspective is called “end of history”, not beat people up). Mussolini's commentary on pacifism was a jab at the socialist criticisms of Nationalism - which played a major role in the military engagement(s) of World War I.
I never mentioned anything about Garibaldi. Nationalism was a thrown around term.
But I did. I mentioned Garibaldi to highlight how wrong you are when you state that “Nationalism is an up in the air idea”. It's not. It was a concrete philosophic system that evolved from the class consciousness, and the growing tension between classical conservatism and liberalism that developed in the middle 19th century. In fact, there were specific principles universal to Nationalism as highlighted by, again, the Prussian Germans, or Greeks before the Greek revolution in their attempt to overthrow Ottoman control in the 1820s (Oh look, another example). And it was a very basic concept, one that I will further reduce here: nationalism was the idea that the cultural makeup of a bordered people be reflected in the state politics. Hence a German nation is one in which cultural German traditions are represented by the government.
Nationalism, supporting your country above all else, was technically a necessity for both rules. It's really a necessity for totalitarianism in general.
Maybe now. But we're not talking about a contemporary “nationalism”. We're discussing classical discourse. And it's not necessary for totalitarianism in general since I can point to any number of classical monarchies that existed before the idea of “the nation” existed, and were totalitarian: the Hapsburgs, Tudors, or Hohenzollerns are examples I can think of off the top of my head.
The state itself is supposed to not exist after time in Communism. How long it takes, nobody knows
I know. Communist writers knew. It was supposed to be immediate, and necessarily so. Why? Because the successful revolution of the proletariat would make the people the government. Hence the dissolution of the state – as such - would be quick so as to permit a pure democracy. That's the whole point of Communism: raise the proletariat to the ruling class, class system is thus destroyed because everybody becomes a member of the proletariat, centralize capital as belonging to the state, which is defined as the organized proletariat and move onward in a true democracy.
But back to the original issue. Communism and Fascism are nothing alike. One is militaristic and expansionist. The other is not. One is classically nationalistic, the other is not. One is anti-communist, the other is "communist". One believes that the people are relative to the state, the other believes that the people are the state. What you have been comparing is the similarity of two totalitarian systems, Fascist Italy and Germany on the one hand and Communist Russia and China on the other (for example). The former followed the tenets of its philosophy, where the latter did not in any way follow the tenets of its philosophy. You're not comparing Communism with Fascism, but totalitarian states.
You are referring to a literal sense of Marx's vision. Marx and Engle were not specific on how all of this could actually be possible, and of course relied on something that was impossible.
I was referring more to the vision of Marx along with the actual make up of Communism. What Marx saw, and what actually happened. Under Communist rule, most of what Marx and Engle wanted happened. The only problem was that it would never last once government dissolved, so government stayed in control. The realistic view on Communism was Leninism and Stalinism.
So I see where you're coming from, but just as easily, we can say that Democracy has NEVER happened and that Capitalism has NEVER happened, mainly because they are impossible. We should instead look to the realistic point of view, what actually happened. The Manifesto is interpretable, i remember something about riots, but I guess I could be wrong. But what is true is that those who enacted Communism were not pacifist, were totalitarian, were not Democratic, and did their own version of Nationalism.
as for the up in the air thing, I meant how it was used. Not the ideal itself. Both Communist and Fascist Nations relied on the people working for the government. They just had different names for it.
Although many of those statements have been true for myself, like wanting to make money for the sake of having money, I find the whole thing a gross generalization.
None of my friends shares the same passion for money as I do. Most of them are happy with a wage and they are happy to use every penny on holidays, clothes, things they need and things that just make them happy. I on the other hand want to save it.
To say that we live in a society full of people that are power and money hungry would be a generalization of the bad kind.
The beauty of capitalism as that it allows people to do what they want and what makes them happy. It also allows the harmonic co-existence of driven money-hungry individuals and laid back people.
You mentioned Bill Gates, and I've heard many people slate the guy for making so much money. To me that is a travesty. I'm not saying that Bill Gates set out to do good or to help the public. I'm pretty sure that all he was interested in to begin with was the money. But in his quest to make that money, he has given the rest of us some of the most widely used technology, some very helpful applications that have enabled other businesses, and he has also employed thousands of people who are not interested in money but are happy with a wage that they can spend on enjoying life. So there you have it, Bill Gates got his money, and thousands of people got their pay checks.
Just because the media sometimes glorifies people that have made money, doesn't mean that everybody aspires to do the same.
A healthy level of the "wanting to make money" bug is not only helpful for the individual but for society as well. There would be less people on state benefits if they had that bug in them.
My reading of the quote is not that "we live in a society full of people that are power and money hungry", but rather that we give the most respect and admiration to that sort of person.
"A healthy level of the "wanting to make money" bug is not only helpful for the individual but for society as well"
Well we also give the most respect and admiration to people that excel in sports, sciences etc etc. This is not something exclusively granted to people that make money.
And it's not a modern phenomenon neither. It's happened since the beginning of civilization and it's part of our "evolution". It usually starts at childhood when your parents subtly infuse your brain with role models. It's not done to idolize these people, it's done in an effort to motivate you.
I'm standing on this side because I find the article a bit too gloomy. Most people posses healthy bugs of wanting to keep fit, do well at work, study more, make more money etc, precisely because of this attitude towards success.
Having said that, I am with you on the belief that soon there is going to be an "awakening" of some sort and people will examine what really matters.
There is nothing disgusting or morbid about wanting to be productive and keep the fruits of your labor. Gates is super rich because he is super talented (the shadiness he got sued for was outcompeting others by giving away stuff for free). The mark of capitalism is voluntary, mutual trade for mutual benefit. I can't think of a more moral system. One that has always been attacked and never fully embraced.
