I often have a hard time speaking with radicals. From time to time, people have tried to convince me the the evils of modern Capitalist society and how one can get trapped within it. They told me that propaganda/advertisements always tell us that we need more stuff; society says you must be good looking, and smart, and have a good car, and have a good house, and have a good job; that education should not be forced upon children; that the things in a city (such as air pollution from cars) are bad for you and will kill you; that if people have good ideas they are killed; that capitalism as a system is inherently bad.
There are many different responses I had and still have to these, and other, statements. One of them is: “Yes, I understand what you are saying. In fact, I have understood these things for quite some time, ever since I started to read about anarchism, about Marxism, and about criticisms of the global culture which is currently dominant back when I first got interested in this stuff around the age of 16 or 17. It is not so simple as that, though.”
One issue I brought up during a debate like this on the WWOOF farm near Toledo was the option of choice. In response to the “society says you must be good looking, and smart, and have a good car, and have a good house, and have a good job” argument, I responded that yes, this is clearly true. However, a person is not a passive machine that does whatever it is told. As a human (a free agent, as a philosopher might say) I have the ability to decide which of these conditions I will accept. For instance, in my own future I plan to be smart, possibly good looking, without a good car (I certainly do not consider it to be a priority, although this may change, depending on my future lifestyle), with a good house (which by my personal definition should be quite different from that of U.S. society's definition), and possibly with a good job (defined as a job I enjoy, not a job that allows me to earn a lot of money). I consider myself to be more aware of the option of disobeying societies unwritten rules than most people, possibly due to influence of cultural/individualist anarchism that I received in my late youth. Indeed, like so many things, I suspect that a mere awareness of these 'societal demands' is a first step to anyone making a conscious decision to accept or reject them.
The in-between area isn't really recognized by some people, though, or at least it wasn't recognized when I debated this on the WWOOF farm. Perhaps the people I was talking to saw it as more of a black-or-white issue. When the evil of modern society was brought up, I mentioned that tools (or things in general) can be used for good ends or for bad ends; I can use a hammer to build a house or to kill a person. Remi told me that some things are just bad, and when I asked him for examples he didn't respond.1
As far as capitalism goes, although I have mellowed out a lot since my most radical stage around age 19 or 20, I am still not a huge fan of it. I find it to be especially entertaining when people attempt to educate me on the evils of capitalism, primarily because (in the cases that I have experiences of this anyway, I have felt that) I know more about the subject than my prospective educators do. I didn't major in Marxist philosophy in university or anything, nor do I have a degree in the history of labor/union organization. However, I did read a good number of books about anarchism, all of which contained strong critiques of capitalism, as well as some non-anarchist books which criticized other parts of modern global culture which had a large influence on my thought and opinions, such as No Logo and Fast Food Nation. Documentary films to as Micheal Moore's breakout movie, Food Inc, and Super Size Me were influences on my too. In fact, I recall seeing The Corporation at a young and tender age of maybe 14 or so, and it was a big influence on me.
However, I cannot deny the proven success of harnessing human self-interest as a means of achieving efficiency and goals. Is that a core part of capitalism? I think so. Perhaps I am thinking more about behavioral economics, but I see these as linked very tightly, as least in the type of capitalism that currently exists in the world. I am tempted to point out how millions were lifted from poverty after Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms allowed China to become a more capitalistic economy, which I immediately mentally counter by a Noam Chomsky lecture in which he declared that increased standard of living under capitalism (which has happened in many places) does not prove capitalism to be a good system any more than increased standards of living for slaves under slavery (which did happen) proves the worth of slavery as an economic practice.
Another things that has happened in the past, is that the people talking to be about these big and important issues (how the human society in the world should work, basically) people often get very emotional, sometimes even devolving into silly arguments, like in this example of foolishness and immaturity (present on both sides in this video). I recall reading in Feminism from the Perspective ofBuddhist Practice (by Rita Gross) that “In general, regarding all beliefs, the effect of practice (of Buddhism) is that one becomes less ideological, less tied to rigidly held fixed beliefs.” I wonder if this is a part of education in general, philosophy in general, or if it is just something particular that resonates with me. I am able to debate and discuss a number of issues without becoming too emotionally heated or involved, I consciously make an effort to keep a smile on my face (both to not appear antagonistic and to keep my ownbrain away from the anger that can easily arise when confronting differing viewpoints), and I am not hasty to form strong opinions (or so I think).
---------------------------------------
1 I will readily admit that some things are easier to use for good than for evil (now we are getting into the realm poorly defined terms!), or vice versa. For a trite example I propose automatic rifles, agent orange, and wild mobs. Any of these could hypothetically be used for a good purpose, but that would be much more challenging to the user than to use them for a bad purpose. An AK-47 isn't designed to do much more than kill people (Although I have to admit: I am not an expert on AK-47s). Still, one could use an AK-47 (or any of the things I listed above) to injure/kill a rapist about to attack a friend, or one could use it to injure/kill a crowd of random people on the street. I am not going to claim that one of those is 100% good while the other is 100% bad, but in a thought experiment I would be far more willing to kill/injure a single individual in order to prevent a rape rather than kill/injure a crowd of random people with no moral goal or purpose being achieved as a result. On the other end of the scale, although I could certainly imagine a micro-loan institution, a community center, or an organic garden being used for bad purposes, I would tentatively state that these tools are most commonly used with positive uses, although I certainly recognize the possibility that they could be used for ill as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment