Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
as Marx saw it, people would always do what was in their best interest. The problem with these kinds of discussions is that capitalists make a false dichotomy between 'work' and 'leisure.' To Marx, if one could enjoys one's 'work' (actually everyday behavior), and live from that, we would have people doing what they do best--each in his or her own capacity.
So while it may be difficult for someone who believes humans are innately lazy and greedy to invision a world wherein people like to drive trains for 6 hours a day, and others who like to chat with their neighbors while collecting the garbage, the reality in my experience is that these people do exist. Such people would happily do what they already do as long as their future livlihood would be guaranteed. Contrary to your commentary, broad swaths of our population are perfectly content to stay in their current economic position. Relatively few people are trying to maximize their utility, as you put it. And even fewer still doing it in a 'greedy' (or socially undesirable) way.
|
But again, they are maximizing their utility by being content in their current position. It just so happens, that they value free time more than the monentary wealth they would accumulate by working more, or in higher stress jobs. They might not be trying to increase their wealth by the highest amount, but that doesn't mean they are not increasing their utility. And now I think you are trying to redefine greed as something that is innately socially undesireable. I don't see it that way-I see greed as something necessary for progression.
Quote:
your commentary on the efficiency and utility of 'pooling' resources is historically inaccurate. First of all, the most modern evidence suggests that ancients had a hell of a lot more free time than we do. gatherers worked on average 20 hours per week. pooling resources, as you put it, is not more efficient from an energy perspective. It actually takes a lot of energy to grow something in one state or country, and transport it elsewhere. People formed social groups not because they needed to pool resources, but because they started to run out of space. Now we build vertical.
|
If that were true, production would've been much higher then, but production is much higher now. Because of division of labor, people were able to increase production greatly. So there was more total wealth. And from what I remember from Weber, one of his claims about capitalism not being something natural to humanity was based upon the fact that ancient civilizations would pool resources.
Quote:
No, if you were correct, and people were primarily concerned with survival of themselves (we'll leave the greed label off), they would have just killed off the competition. So I think you're committing a few errors when you state we are more advanced in our utilitarian cognition than the ancients. It appears they did much or all of what was correct, for if not, we wouldn't be here according to evolution tenets. But the point remains, we didnt' get here by unbendable commitment to individualism.
|
Why would they kill off the competition if that very competition would give them a better chance of survival? If I can produce x amount of goods myself, but with my neighbor I can produce 2x+1, it's in my best interest not to kill him off, even if we are competing. Competition does not eliminate the opportunity for cooperation-not all games are zero-sum. And also, by agreeing to not kill your neighbors, you don't enter into situations where they are constantly trying to kill you. So, it increases stability (which is one of the things necessary for any sort of property ownership). Also, there were numerous times where they did indeed kill their competition. It depends on the situation, and what is best for the individual at the time.