Philosophy Now Forum

Perhaps we could compare a society to a company:

If you sell a company you charge for "goodwill" too, in addition to the single parts.
If you liquidate a company you charge only for the single parts.

One of the underlying arguments I read from those who responded to PN's asking how society should be organized is that capitalism should be made more people friendly, that it shouldn't be so indifferent to society's needs and aspirations. The consensus seems to be that capitalism should be defanged and neutered.

Just to put it in a nutshell, I think that if capitalism were to be castrated and give far less of an edge than it has, the liberal, open society most of use enjoy would fall apart. Sure, capitalism makes things tough. But without the measure of toughness and drive capitalism adds our democratic societies would become lazy/complacent and eventually collapse, like happened to communism. Democracy itself needs competition to remain vital and legitimate. Capitalism supplies that competition.

Then in a capitalistic society those who don't try hard enough will suffer, and those who work hard or are lucky will succeed. Harsh, in a way, but true.

thedoc wrote:Then in a capitalistic society those who don't try hard enough will suffer, and those who work hard or are lucky will succeed. Harsh, in a way, but true.

Minor correction. Try hard and are lucky. As in most capatilistic societies don't see value when it's right in front of their faces (Dr. Suess was rejected by 26 different publishers before he got published.)

And most capatalistic societists continue to pump out the same crap, with very little effort, but with maximum profits. There often seems to be an inverse trend with quality, the higher the quality, the less profits. Unique places and honest businesses often fade away into the aether, leaving perpetual homogenized filth everywhere you see it. It's sad, but true.

hive mind
we swarm

more arguments than answers

There are basically four invariant needs humans have, the need for survival, individual recognition, order and security.

The way a society is organized should work to satisfy those invariant needs.

And entertainment.

That´s why in ancient Rome people demanded and were given: Bread and circus.

duszek wrote:And entertainment.

That´s why in ancient Rome people demanded and were given: Bread and circus.

Good one! And also a place to go to the bathroom.

duszek wrote:And entertainment.

That´s why in ancient Rome people demanded and were given: Bread and circus.

Invariant needs shape public policy. The ones I mentioned serve a mix of competing social and individual interests. Their pursue demands an open society, for to fulfill them an open society is necessary in order to find a balance between the opposing interests of society.

Entertainment is different. If entertainment is held as an invariant need one then must reside in a totalitarian state, not an open society with competing social interests. In an open society entertainment arises on its own through an entrepreneurial free spirit. In totalitarian societies entertainment is a tool used by the state for distracting attention from the harsh conditions of living in a closed state. In totalitarian states entertainment is used as a pacifier, and heavy handed propaganda.

Ancient Rome was basically a totalitarian society that used entertainment to quell disorder in the citizenry.