Working Hard, or Hardly Working?

There is a vast divide between those who do the work and those who profit off work done by others. While obvious, it has been this way for so long that it seems natural or inevitable, neither of which is true. To clarify and begin again: we live in one of two ways, either we work for a living or we make others work for us. Some people may not see this as a problem, some may not agree with my description, and some may say that there is no viable alternative. I hope to demonstrate to these people what I mean and disabuse them of any illusions.

The problem inherent in this system is the differentiation between these two groups. Why are there two groups, why should there exist this inequality? When did one group become one way and the other not? Who decided which people belonged in each group? I say it is a problem because every differentiation between people is artificial. Throughout history every time one group has claimed supremacy over or distinction from another, it has been for self-advancement either great or small. I want to address the aspect of these groups, which is another problem with the system. This is not the difference between "types of work", but between work and ownership. Many are made to toil so the few can leisure, or at least be immune to working. The origin is force-subtle or gross-it is one person or group claiming and enforcing the right to get others to do what they want. This has taken different forms: outright physical intimidation and brutality, spiritual claims either about the nature of life (and thus behaviour while alive) or the right to rule, and-our concern here-economic force. The question then becomes: is a system with these attributes one which is desirable or moral?

Is This Thing Working?

This will be the first in a series of posts about capitalism; something which is on everyone's mind, no doubt. I mean that with everything that has happened recently in the U.S. economy and elsewhere, there are few more pressing issues in the minds of most. There isn't a grand outline although I do have a few ideas and, of course, they have been bumping around in my head for a while, so I'm hoping for something akin to coherence.

The question asked of any system or device is whether or not it works, the same must hold true for capitalism. We must remember first what capitalism is and is not. It is simply an economic system; that is, a way for everyone to make a living and have what they need. It is not the basis for freedom, does not create equality and harmony, nor does it act as a creative force-those are all the responsibility and province of humanity itself. When something has been around for as long as something like capitalism has, it's like water for fish-you simply stop recognising its existence. The problem with that analogy is that fish need water; they have adapted to that environment and cannot live outside of it. Can the same be said of humans and capitalism? Hardly. At best, we can say that it fills the need to be able to produce and distribute goods and services at a barely-tolerable, minimally-acceptable level. I describe it in this way because by its own standards, there are gross inadequacies and rampant misallocation. The claim capitalists make about this system is that it will produce goods at levels people need without outside intervention. They claim that surplus will be minimised and efficiency maximised. The problems with these claims are widespread and obvious when looked for. One may not recognise these as it is common practice to blame such problems on individuals, "human nature", and artificial manipulation of the economy. It becomes clear that the system itself results in these conditions, so I don't feel the need to repeat the arguments from others here. This means that shortages and concentration of goods are inherent, stemming from the guidelines of capitalism. Thus, returning to our original question, we must conclude that it is not effective for those who cannot get what they need within this system.

Show Me the Trust

There is a basic question everyone needs to answer for themselves, whether they are aware of it or not: is the world a basically good or bad place? In other words, "can I trust others?" The answer to this determines what sort of individual you are and how you interact with everyone around you. If you are constantly on-guard or scared of being exploited then you won't be the same person as if you were confident that you are safe and secure. If every situation is seen as another possibility to be humiliated, hurt, bested or broken then everyone around is a source of one of these possibilities. When you worry everyone is against you, it means you are using energy for that-not looking for the opportunities to cooperate-as you feel you need to outdo the other person before they do you in. This is not alleviated by being rich or powerful, it is pervasive and can only be dealt with in terms of the question presented at the start of this post. The stakes only rise the higher one climbs; it means those same enemies who would throw you only a few meters before can now send you plummeting kilometers. One will not find that suddenly-upon completing a marathon, receiving an award or standing ovation, having the person of your dreams agree to wed, or getting a dream job-that this problem resolves itself. These things can all be undercut by the feeling that your accomplishments can be stolen by a competitor, or that someone else could do the same or better.

What I Couldn't Say to My Coworkers Over Lunch.

Talking about the "housing crisis" and how people need to live within their means or they should lose their houses. You are about to read my opinion, I don't actually have a disclaimer for this, like on a talk show or television program, other than you may not like it-but I do hope you read and think about it.

In this complex situation, where greedy people raised in a society that allows them to bend the rules if money is "made" and the goal is always-always-to better one's own situation; here the people doing the lending were greedy and the money made was at the expense of the borrowers. Certainly some of the people who borrowed the money were greedy and looking to improve their situation, but the burden lies on a broader swath of the population than just "those stupid, grabby poor people." The investment banks played their part, the lending institutions had a say, the brokers could have stopped it, and the actual, everyday people-who have lost the most-certainly wouldn't have signed up if they could have believed they were going to lose the place they live and a substantial amount of their time and capital. It's absurd to believe that anyone would have wanted to become homeless or bankrupt, or that they should be further punished for it! What about the brokers who pushed for the larger loans, who assured the people putting their lives and credit (because as much as financial institutions would like it, those are still two separate things) on the line that "it'll be okay"? Why blame the borrower who has been kept in the dark about the entire lending cycle, and in most cases poorly educated about money matters in general? Can you really say that these people, who were merely trusting the so-called 'experts' about what they should buy, were to blame? What happened is another example of capitalism gone wild: unregulated and self-perpetuating. This is something that could only happened in a country that does not put its citizens first, which values commodities over lives. This is a terrible and preventable catastrophe, much like the effects of Hurricane Katrina in the South U.S. That we continue to be bombarded by such terrors indicates that we are not valued beyond our ability to provide more for those who already have too much. Such has been the case for too long; despite all our advances, we are still subjects or serfs being forced to bow down to some self-proclaimed master. Just because we can change jobs makes us no less indentured, we are still kept insecure (and often desperate) within a system that is not designed to benefit the majority.

Insecurity and Anger

Being insecure means that one feels less confident in doing things, in all things that one does. Which inevitably leads to questioning ones decisions, actions, eventually everything is suspect as one cannot trust anything one does. Since everything is so uncertain, so unreliable, it creates a self-perpetuating system that other people will sense or even see. This will in turn lead to feeling angry, as not feeling confident leads to feeling threatened beyond a normal, reasonable amount or even by generally acceptable things. Which in turn leads to a greater level of anger in response to each perceived threat, as one can get upset about becoming unreasonably angry and irascible. This then reinforces the original insecurity, since one will feel it was right to suspect oneself in the first place.

Why do I bring this subject up, and why am I wasting space on an exploration or explanation of this simple process? The answer is equally basic: I suffer from this thinking, from feeling inadequate and ineffective. I, too, am human; it's true, believe what you will. Which would be part of why I write such things in the first place: to feel as though I am being productive, or even profound, and impacting others. But even as I write, it feels meaningless and trivial. The desire and goal is not necessarily to succeed, but even more: to not surrender. That I continue to write and try to become better and improve the world somehow is reward and success enough.