Greed isn't the problem, it's capitalism

Post Reply New Topic

Hello everyone,

I often hear certain people on this forum blame the woes of the current economic system on greed.

But I don't think greed is the problem. I don't think greed is inherently bad. I view greed similarly to way I view fire. Fire can be used to put food in our bellies. Fire isn't only used for destruction. When most people think about greed, they only tend think about they way it manifests itself in bureaucracies and market economies. I'm making this thread because I think this is a mistake.

How about greed as lust for self-betterment? How about greed as a lust for competency in ones own work?

If greed is inherent in our nature, and greed manifests itself in different ways in different contexts. Why then should we talk down to all who criticize the current system?

I think you may have it backwards. Capitalism, in its purest form, involves investment and profit. Greed takes investment and twists it into usury, bribery, graft, and other forms of corruption. Greed takes profit and hoards it away where the cash will rot and the coins will rust and the only people who benefit are the wealthy person's offspring.

At least, that's how I think it goes.

I don't agree with blaming these actions on greed. Capitalism has an economic framework and legal structure that shapes the way greed will manifest itself.

Lets go back to fire. If a fireplace can't be lit without the house burning down, it has a design problem. I just happen to think our economic system; like that fireplace, also has a design problem.

What you refer to as 'greed' is best referred to as self-interest. Greed almost always implies a desire to possess more than one needs, or unfair hoarding of scarce resources. Self-interest is simply the desire to sustain oneself.

This is true, but then there's the question of where to draw the line between what one needs and deserves and what wants and tries to get without deserving.

Greed is an inherent part of capitalism, when taken to excess it becomes a problem. I differ from some of fellow leftists by thinking that capitalism is worth only criticism, but I think it has to be balanced by socialism, charity (a virtue against a sin). That the basic needs of people be met, while letting the market decide on pleasure.

Let capitalism run a muck and you see those in power treading on those without it. As if socialism go too far you can risk stagnation, but I think most western countries are far away from that being a risk.

Indeed. I should qualify self-interest as rational self-interest. This qualification is important because rational self-interest implies that it is motivated by a need to sustain oneself. Self-interest by itself could also include greed in the relevant sense, or a desire to sustain oneself in opposition to or without regard for the needs of others. I also think the word "lust" is too strong. Both "greed" and "lust" are strong words and imply something more than necessity.

We should all agree on the proper use of terms here. My point above is that "greed" implies "excess". Linguistic matters aside, I concur that greed will necessarily emerge within a capitalist system, because human nature. And yes, if left unchecked by a social safety net, capitalism would no longer serve the greater good that Adam Smith envisioned.

As opposed to other economic/political systems where those with power haven't tread on those without it?

I'm certain the Russian Cossacks will be glad to hear of it.

On the one hand, Capitalism is nothing more than an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Socialism, on the other hand, is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management.  Social ownership can be public, governmental, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity (e.g., a commune).

On the gripping hand, under Capitalism, man exploits man; while under Socialism, it's the other way around.

Yep.

Critics of capitalism:

- is your issue with capitalism as a whole, or with aspects of a certain existent system?
- If it is with capitalism as a whole - what makes you think your proposed alternative would work?

My personal problem is an overreliance on capitalism in certain areas, where there lacks certain social nets to catch people who can end up homeless, malnourished, and all sorts of other things. People with my same opinion think that capitalism should be kept out of certain things and instead met by socialist programs, while keeping capitalism and its markets to meet the needs or demands of the people, while also driving innovation. When only relying on capitalist systems, you are naturally incentivising those with the power, money, to continue to hoard as much wealth as possible, draining the resources of the people down the bottom.

Exact answers can be complicated, but you are looking at ways to take wealth from the hoarders and pass it on to those at the bottom through social programs that meet their needs. Such methods can be through taxation or just a biproduct of inflation and introducing new money at the bottom. While these answer sometimes get called anti-capitalist, they can be deadly important for creating a healthy capitalist market, otherwise the people down the bottom continue to have to spend what money they have on bare necessities (or maybe not even enough for that), and you see a collapse of the market from drops in demand.

This is how I see it, too

Real world examples of anarchist methods of action and organization like The Common Ground Collective, who fended off racist cops and white militias during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.



https://youtu.be/froH7etWyMs