If the Devil himself had thought up a vision of hell on earth, then Capitalism may well be one version of it. Capitalists may well reply that Communism is a version of hell as well, and that may well be true. But what these two ideologies represent are merely two opposing visions of hell.
The Devil, from looking at the pronouncements made in his name in Holy Scripture, was not a Communist. In fact, if anyone in Holy Scripture were Communists, it was the early Christians and ancient Jews. Early Christianity was mainly about selflessness and charity; the very things that Capitalists are philosophically opposed to.
The main purpose of the Devil, paraphrasing from Holy Scripture, was to test man and prove his irrationality and lack of virtue. Lucifer, in the Old Testament, refused to kneel before the image of man, as, being one of the archangels, he knew he was better than him. He was cast out of Heaven for his pride and disdain towards man. The story of Lucifer in the Holy Scripture is a history of repeated attempts to demonstrate man’s inherent psychological weaknesses.
If the Devil was against the Christian virtues of selflessness and charity we can logically assume that his principal drives were selfishness and indifference to human suffering. As we have seen, these two attributes are also shared with psychopaths and Capitalists.
Another strategy of the Devil in the Holy Scripture was to deceive and trick the pious into doing evil deeds, in order to prove man’s unworthiness and “irrationality”.
If we look at the principles of Capitalism, they are formulated to give the appearance of promoting freedom, rationalism and human progress. As we have seen, the reality easily creates something entirely opposite. When Capitalists’ behaviour is put under the microscope, we see the behaviour of a psychopath. Capitalism creates a state in nature close to chaos, albeit with the sham of human “civilisation” due to a minimal jurisdiction of law and order. It is this chaotic sham of human “civilisation” that Capitalists claim is the height of human rationalism.
If the Devil wished to create the conditions on Earth in order to bring about the downfall of human “civilisation” he could perhaps not go far wrong in implementing the philosophy of Objectivism and the economic ideology of Capitalism.
For the beauty of Capitalism is its mass appeal to the human desire, by intellectually turning all human conventions on their head. It is a philosophy that says that we can all have our cake and eat it. It is able to intellectualise psychopathic behaviour as virtue. The socially liberal and conscientious intellectual is demonised for his selfless behaviour, while encouraged to see those less fortunate than him as less worthy than him and to be ignored for the sake of his, and their, best interests. The hard-working middle-class craftsman is encouraged to discard any pretence of social niceties to his peers and see them as commodities to be used and exploited where possible in order to advance his career further, while at the same time encouraged to work his subordinates harder to further his own purse and, through his underlings’ hardships, encourage their motivation for self-advancement. While the impoverished outcast is encouraged by his own misfortune and the successes of others to do as much as he can to find a place for himself in the world, in whatever way he can.
What may well be the most appealing aspect of Objectivism to the Devil, therefore, is its plausible intellectual argument for encouraging evil behaviour. There is perhaps nothing more dangerously persuasive than a person being told what appears a clearly evil act is perfectly rational in the circumstances. The Nazis used similar thinking in carrying out the Holocaust; Stalin did the same when justifying the deaths of millions of his own people.
As said before, while a Capitalist is not directly or openly violent in the way that the Nazis were or Stalin was, millions may still die under a Capitalist’s watch. The only difference is that they would die through omission rather than commission. They would die because of indifference rather than intent.
But, if the Devil had learnt anything over the ensuing millennia, it may be than humanity is not as easily tricked as in the ancient or medieval past. Lucifer would have to get smarter in order to bring out the end of human civilisation, and finally prove man’s barbarity to man. He would not be able to be evil openly; it would have to subtly, indirectly. Cloaking evil in an intellectual veil of virtue would be the way Lucifer would have to do it these days, in the days of such human cynicism. Becoming a Capitalist would be an excellent way to go about it.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Putting the Capitalist Experiment into Practice
If Capitalism as a thought experiment sounds like a society populated by psychopaths, you shouldn’t be surprised.
Thus far, such a society does not exist, but Monetarists (inspired by the philosophy of Objectivism, founded by Ayn Rand), who became highly influential after the 1970s, in particular in the Anglo-Saxon world, had a chance to get closer to it.
After implementing these principles into the financial and industrial sectors of the Anglo-Saxon civilisations (as much as they dared), and exporting them to other developing nations (as much as they could get away with), the end result, after almost thirty years, was a near-total collapse of the financial and industrial sectors of the Anglo-Saxon civilisations and their dependent economies in the developing world. The only thing that prevented a total, catastrophic collapse was that the Monetarists convinced governments around the world to pay for their irresponsibility. They could convince them because the governments knew the alternative was likely to be the eventual collapse of human (or, at least, Anglo-Saxon) civilisation.
There is another word for this: extortion. This is the “do-what-I-say-or-else” line of thinking. It is also how criminal gangs cultivate protection rackets; by fear. By Capitalist standards, even a protection racket can be called a legitimate business as it offers a service in exchange for money: the service of safety. The difference is that a security company offers a consensual form of security (payment against the risk of crime), whereas a racket is a coerced form of security (payment against crime).
When the governments bailed-out the banks, this was, in effect, the largest example of coercion in financial history. They were rewarding criminal behaviour because the alternative was the death of Anglo-Saxon civilisation. In this way, the actions of the Monetarists during the Financial Crisis display all the hallmarks of psychopathology: Financial Irresponsibility; Impulsive behaviour and failing to plan for the future; recklessness; lack of guilt for the harm caused to others; deceiving and conning others.
The bailout was a typical example of Capitalist passive-aggressive behaviour; there was no direct use of force involved in the bailout on the part of the Monetarists, but it was clear to the government that in this “transaction”, there was no option on the government side.
The government agreement with the Monetarists just over thirty years ago was, in effect, like a Faustian pact. Like Mephistopheles, who sold his soul to the Devil, the governments of the Anglo-Saxon world surrendered financial responsibility to the Objectivist psychopaths.
Put another way, when put into practice, Capitalism is like nuclear energy: it creates enormous amounts of energy (profit), but is highly unstable if left unregulated and has potentially unimaginable destructive power. So why would “rational” governments, and people, take the risk? The reason is because, like Mephistopheles, they can become seduced by greed.
Because the Monetarists/Objectivists/Capitalists knew that all governments are, by nature, “irrational”, they also knew that they would be able to convince governments that “greed is good”: because this precisely coincided with the Capitalist world view. What is more intellectually puzzling is how Capitalists view government’s greed as “irrational”, but Capitalist greed as “rational”. The Capitalists exploited governments’ greed for their own ends: the Monetarists, who routinely accuse “government” as acting as a parasite on the individual, acted like a parasite on the government itself.
At the risk of tiring the metaphors, the philosophy of Objectivism is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Under the cloak of promoting freedom and individual rights, society is destroyed and the individual wakes up discovering that, in fact, he has NO rights. The only “right” he has (in terms of being guaranteed from birth) is the right to breathe and the minimum of law and order. Everything else in the world is up to his own efforts. Everyone is competing to survive. Everything is up for grabs. Everyone is out for what they can get from everyone else. True, you are free to speak your mind, but what is the point of having an opinion if you can do nothing with it? What is the point of “freedom” if you have no money?
Thus far, such a society does not exist, but Monetarists (inspired by the philosophy of Objectivism, founded by Ayn Rand), who became highly influential after the 1970s, in particular in the Anglo-Saxon world, had a chance to get closer to it.
After implementing these principles into the financial and industrial sectors of the Anglo-Saxon civilisations (as much as they dared), and exporting them to other developing nations (as much as they could get away with), the end result, after almost thirty years, was a near-total collapse of the financial and industrial sectors of the Anglo-Saxon civilisations and their dependent economies in the developing world. The only thing that prevented a total, catastrophic collapse was that the Monetarists convinced governments around the world to pay for their irresponsibility. They could convince them because the governments knew the alternative was likely to be the eventual collapse of human (or, at least, Anglo-Saxon) civilisation.
There is another word for this: extortion. This is the “do-what-I-say-or-else” line of thinking. It is also how criminal gangs cultivate protection rackets; by fear. By Capitalist standards, even a protection racket can be called a legitimate business as it offers a service in exchange for money: the service of safety. The difference is that a security company offers a consensual form of security (payment against the risk of crime), whereas a racket is a coerced form of security (payment against crime).
When the governments bailed-out the banks, this was, in effect, the largest example of coercion in financial history. They were rewarding criminal behaviour because the alternative was the death of Anglo-Saxon civilisation. In this way, the actions of the Monetarists during the Financial Crisis display all the hallmarks of psychopathology: Financial Irresponsibility; Impulsive behaviour and failing to plan for the future; recklessness; lack of guilt for the harm caused to others; deceiving and conning others.
The bailout was a typical example of Capitalist passive-aggressive behaviour; there was no direct use of force involved in the bailout on the part of the Monetarists, but it was clear to the government that in this “transaction”, there was no option on the government side.
The government agreement with the Monetarists just over thirty years ago was, in effect, like a Faustian pact. Like Mephistopheles, who sold his soul to the Devil, the governments of the Anglo-Saxon world surrendered financial responsibility to the Objectivist psychopaths.
Put another way, when put into practice, Capitalism is like nuclear energy: it creates enormous amounts of energy (profit), but is highly unstable if left unregulated and has potentially unimaginable destructive power. So why would “rational” governments, and people, take the risk? The reason is because, like Mephistopheles, they can become seduced by greed.
Because the Monetarists/Objectivists/Capitalists knew that all governments are, by nature, “irrational”, they also knew that they would be able to convince governments that “greed is good”: because this precisely coincided with the Capitalist world view. What is more intellectually puzzling is how Capitalists view government’s greed as “irrational”, but Capitalist greed as “rational”. The Capitalists exploited governments’ greed for their own ends: the Monetarists, who routinely accuse “government” as acting as a parasite on the individual, acted like a parasite on the government itself.
At the risk of tiring the metaphors, the philosophy of Objectivism is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Under the cloak of promoting freedom and individual rights, society is destroyed and the individual wakes up discovering that, in fact, he has NO rights. The only “right” he has (in terms of being guaranteed from birth) is the right to breathe and the minimum of law and order. Everything else in the world is up to his own efforts. Everyone is competing to survive. Everything is up for grabs. Everyone is out for what they can get from everyone else. True, you are free to speak your mind, but what is the point of having an opinion if you can do nothing with it? What is the point of “freedom” if you have no money?
Capitalism as a Thought Experiment
A “society” of Capitalists could quickly resemble a psychological race to the bottom.
Capitalists say that the most productive times in human history were, apart from the last two hundred years of the industrial revolution, the period of Renaissance Italy. This is because, they say, people were (for medieval times) free to earn money and experiment with ideas. Capitalism encourages human progress because people are encouraged to improve themselves; and, by extension, human society as a whole. On the face of things, this may well be true.
But this misses some basic points. If everyone is only ever rationally interested in their own fate, why would people reproduce, raise families, live communally? What would the point be, if selflessness is the highest evil? If these things were also true, “humanity” as a species would never see the point in surrendering control to another human being. “Humanity” could easily die out in a matter of a few generations as fewer and fewer “rational” Capitalists see the point of human families.
Even if you consider this an indulgent exaggeration, in any case, people would become quickly distrustful of people’s motives in any human relationship. People’s relationships would be seen in the same way as commodities and resources to be used. There would be no such thing as “genuine” friendships; or people would no longer believe that such a thing were possible or rationally desirable. All human connections would be reduced to the status of some form of transaction. By extension, people’s influence could be “bought”; companies’ loyalty could be “bought”.
Furthermore, distrust could easily breed further distrust. If a person, as a Capitalist, believes that people are only interested in them for what they can get out of them, then there would be a natural temptation (even rationalisation) to exploit that person before they exploit you.
As said earlier, Capitalists believe that “social norms” are an artificial construct of a medievalist, irrational and selfless mind. There would be no such thing as “established behaviour”; in a true Capitalist society, so long as they followed the few laws necessary to prevent lawless anarchy, people were free to behave as they liked. In other words, there would be no incentive towards “good behaviour”. For example, if a person A insulted person B in a public place, and person B beat them up, person B would be punished for the beating; person A’s behaviour would be of no concern to a Capitalist legal system, as it was person B who imposed force on person A. (However, if person A had insulted person B on B’s property, person B could be within his rights to respond as he liked; as a Capitalist legal system may well have less, or no, jurisdiction on a person’s private property)
“Social responsibility” would cease to exist: in a Capitalist society, there is only “Individual responsibility”. Who would take care of the environmental status of public areas (such as refuse collection and disposal, to think of just one example)? In theory, these services would be carried out by private companies, though if public areas are not, by definition, “private property”, why would a company or “rational” individual care about them? If an individual or company decided to care about public areas, then they would, by definition, be acting selflessly i.e. irrationally. Even if a group of individuals came together to pay a company to collect their refuse and dispose of it safely and cleanly, this seem close to breaking the most basic Capitalist principle of not depending on others. But even forgetting this point for a moment, how would having a “free market” in refuse collection actually work in practice? Would private companies be willing to pay for the extra fuel and time costs of driving to each individual customer’s house to collect their rubbish? And then there is the issue of industrial waste disposal.
Apart from these potential social and legal absurdities, there is the effect that Capitalism has on the general livelihood of the population. As the state does not, in a real sense, exist (except to provide and implement law and order and security), the Capitalist population survives, thrives or dies by their own hand. Capitalists are free to do as they please; they are as free as every other animal on the planet is free in nature. As Capitalists are rationally unable to justify intruding into or caring about the fate of others, those that are the least successful Capitalists will eventually die. There would be a number of stages before this eventual outcome that could be witnessed by the general population: sickness, malnutrition, homelessness, substance abuse and so on. All these will be openly on view in a Capitalist society, as the government has no role to regulate these matters; the less successful Capitalists may well see these victims as an incentive to work harder, and they may seek to emulate the more successful members of society. Alternatively, fuelled by natural fear of failure, they may do their most within the law (as they are not constrained by social rules) to take the place of their superiors through deception and fraud. It would depend on the individual.
Of course, not all people in human society are bound to be successful, but that is not the concern of the government or individuals. In nature, there is always success and failure. What matters in a Capitalist society is success, as that is what spurs the society forward. Using the term “society”, though, is misleading: a “sea of individuals” would be a more appropriate phrase.
The next part of this article can be found here
Capitalists say that the most productive times in human history were, apart from the last two hundred years of the industrial revolution, the period of Renaissance Italy. This is because, they say, people were (for medieval times) free to earn money and experiment with ideas. Capitalism encourages human progress because people are encouraged to improve themselves; and, by extension, human society as a whole. On the face of things, this may well be true.
But this misses some basic points. If everyone is only ever rationally interested in their own fate, why would people reproduce, raise families, live communally? What would the point be, if selflessness is the highest evil? If these things were also true, “humanity” as a species would never see the point in surrendering control to another human being. “Humanity” could easily die out in a matter of a few generations as fewer and fewer “rational” Capitalists see the point of human families.
Even if you consider this an indulgent exaggeration, in any case, people would become quickly distrustful of people’s motives in any human relationship. People’s relationships would be seen in the same way as commodities and resources to be used. There would be no such thing as “genuine” friendships; or people would no longer believe that such a thing were possible or rationally desirable. All human connections would be reduced to the status of some form of transaction. By extension, people’s influence could be “bought”; companies’ loyalty could be “bought”.
Furthermore, distrust could easily breed further distrust. If a person, as a Capitalist, believes that people are only interested in them for what they can get out of them, then there would be a natural temptation (even rationalisation) to exploit that person before they exploit you.
As said earlier, Capitalists believe that “social norms” are an artificial construct of a medievalist, irrational and selfless mind. There would be no such thing as “established behaviour”; in a true Capitalist society, so long as they followed the few laws necessary to prevent lawless anarchy, people were free to behave as they liked. In other words, there would be no incentive towards “good behaviour”. For example, if a person A insulted person B in a public place, and person B beat them up, person B would be punished for the beating; person A’s behaviour would be of no concern to a Capitalist legal system, as it was person B who imposed force on person A. (However, if person A had insulted person B on B’s property, person B could be within his rights to respond as he liked; as a Capitalist legal system may well have less, or no, jurisdiction on a person’s private property)
“Social responsibility” would cease to exist: in a Capitalist society, there is only “Individual responsibility”. Who would take care of the environmental status of public areas (such as refuse collection and disposal, to think of just one example)? In theory, these services would be carried out by private companies, though if public areas are not, by definition, “private property”, why would a company or “rational” individual care about them? If an individual or company decided to care about public areas, then they would, by definition, be acting selflessly i.e. irrationally. Even if a group of individuals came together to pay a company to collect their refuse and dispose of it safely and cleanly, this seem close to breaking the most basic Capitalist principle of not depending on others. But even forgetting this point for a moment, how would having a “free market” in refuse collection actually work in practice? Would private companies be willing to pay for the extra fuel and time costs of driving to each individual customer’s house to collect their rubbish? And then there is the issue of industrial waste disposal.
Apart from these potential social and legal absurdities, there is the effect that Capitalism has on the general livelihood of the population. As the state does not, in a real sense, exist (except to provide and implement law and order and security), the Capitalist population survives, thrives or dies by their own hand. Capitalists are free to do as they please; they are as free as every other animal on the planet is free in nature. As Capitalists are rationally unable to justify intruding into or caring about the fate of others, those that are the least successful Capitalists will eventually die. There would be a number of stages before this eventual outcome that could be witnessed by the general population: sickness, malnutrition, homelessness, substance abuse and so on. All these will be openly on view in a Capitalist society, as the government has no role to regulate these matters; the less successful Capitalists may well see these victims as an incentive to work harder, and they may seek to emulate the more successful members of society. Alternatively, fuelled by natural fear of failure, they may do their most within the law (as they are not constrained by social rules) to take the place of their superiors through deception and fraud. It would depend on the individual.
Of course, not all people in human society are bound to be successful, but that is not the concern of the government or individuals. In nature, there is always success and failure. What matters in a Capitalist society is success, as that is what spurs the society forward. Using the term “society”, though, is misleading: a “sea of individuals” would be a more appropriate phrase.
The next part of this article can be found here
Notes on Capitalism and Psychopathology
To paraphrase the American Psychiatric Association, there are seven characteristics that identify psychopaths. However, in order to considered a real “psychopath”, only three of these characteristics needs to be in evidence. They are:
Repeated anti-social or socially unacceptable behaviour (that would normally be thought of as inconsiderate or openly rude).
Repeated lying or deceit; conning others for personal gain or pleasure.
Impulsive or thoughtless behaviour; failing to plan or think ahead.
Recklessness towards the safety or yourself or others.
Consistent irresponsibility; not fulfilling social, work or financial obligations.
Lack of guilt towards the harm you have caused or may cause others.
Aggressive or easily turned violent (i.e. with an explosive and short temper).
In other words, psychopaths tend to be aggressive and violent; find excuses for causing evil actions; have no sense of responsibility to others; are reckless; are impulsive and have little sense of the future; lie, cheat, conspire and trick others for their own ends; and have no concept of social rules.
To paraphrase the ideas of Capitalism as explained by Ayn Rand of the “Objectivist” school of thought, the key principles of Objectivism are:
To be against all forms of control (either by governments or other people) except for those necessary for maintaining “law and order”
Believe that people are by nature rational (though some may not be; see below).
Mankind progresses through each individual using the mind independently and not depending on others for their survival.
Those that depend on others are therefore, by definition, irrational; those that do not use their minds are morons.
Selfishness is therefore the highest virtue. Selflessness and altruism are the highest forms of evil as they disrupt a person’s ability to think for themselves and impose controls of people’s decisions.
Society functions through the value of exchange in a “free market”; all actions are carried out for the sake of what can be got in return.
There can be no such thing as “social rights”, as “society” is an artificial construct; the only rights are “individual rights”.
There can be no such thing as “democracy”; this is the rule of the mob, and therefore philosophically no different from tyranny.
To paraphrase George Orwell, every liberal is always a few steps away from being a fascist. Comparing the principles of Capitalism and the behavioural characteristics, it doesn’t take long for a pure Capitalist to turn into a psychopath.
Let’s compare the characteristics of both.
In order to be a Capitalist, one, by definition, has to have a negative (cynical) view of governments and society as a whole. A psychopath also has a cynical view of humanity; this is how they justify exploiting and using people for their own benefit.
A Capitalist believes that people are usually rational; the caveat is that those who are not must therefore be “lesser” human beings – irrational animals rather than rational humans. Believing that some people may be “lower” than others is also a mentality that can be held by psychopaths; this is how they would give a second justification to guiltless behaviour.
Just as a Capitalist believes that all actions by a “rational” human being are done for what they can get out of them, so would a psychopath. A psychopath is not interested in other person’s feelings and attitudes; neither is a Capitalist. Capitalists consider “feelings” and “emotions” to be sentimental leftovers of an animalistic and irrational mind, and get in the way of the exchange of goods and services.
For this reason, friendships and human relationships, to a Capitalist, are purely for the purpose of benefit to the self. To have a human relationship for the purpose of “helping others” is an anathema to a Capitalist. The same could be said of a psychopath.
As there is no such thing as society, Capitalists see the world as a state of informal “war of exchange” between a mass of individuals. While a “light touch” government maintains the minimum of law of order, a state of nature close to chaos exists in reality, allowing the strong and mentally adept to take the most advantage of the situation. A psychopath would feel well at home in such an environment.
As Capitalists do not believe in artificially imposed “social norms” (as they are leftovers of an irrational, medievalist mind), people therefore would have no need to worry about their social behaviour. If people are free to act as they please, provided they do not actively control other people’s actions, then naturally there would no need to respect “old-fashioned” social norms. This fits neatly with the thinking of a psychopath, who also has no need to respect social norms.
When a “rational” Capitalist encounters a person in a much direr situation than them, what would the result be? A Capitalist, by definition, would refuse to help those in a much direr situation than them; so the outcast will eventually die without help. The Capitalist, logically, would know this to be the case also, all things being equal. This would make the Capitalist an indirect party to the death of the outcast. From an intellectual point of view, because the Capitalist is “rational”, he is of greater consciousness of his actions than the “irrational” outcast; therefore, the Capitalist would legally take the greater responsibility for failing to prevent a previously knowable death. The “irrational” outcast cannot be equally to blame for his own death for he knows no better than to ask for help; in this way, the Capitalist therefore acts with the same rationale as a psychopath: by being knowingly reckless and irresponsible towards the safety of others. He literally does not care if the outcast lives or dies – worse, he intellectually would be able to rationalise the death to himself.
To the Capitalist, the death of the outcast would be the fault of the outcast. The Capitalist has no right to interfere in the actions of another individual. To the psychopath, the death of another person is no concern of his. The effect is the same; only the rationale is subtly different. The psychopath is mentally deranged, so has no obvious rational faculty; but the Capitalist is, as we have seen, a “rational” human being. Which, then, is more evil: death through the indifference of a mentally disturbed psychopath; or death through the “rational” omission of the Capitalist?
These things being the case, we can see that a Capitalist easily matches most of the behaviour perpetrated by psychopaths; certainly the majority of these characteristics. In fact, in some ways, Capitalism, after this intellectual and psychological analysis, seems even more inhumane than the madness of psychopathology: at least psychopaths have the excuse of mental illness for their behaviour. But Capitalists are capable of almost the exact same behaviour, yet still able to claim a “rational” mind.
How is this intellectually possible?
A psychopath is generally considered as someone who is by nature violent. This perception is a stereotype: violent behaviour, as we can see from the list of most common behavioural traits of psychopathology, is merely one symptom. Psychopaths are not always violent. Violence is just a side-effect of a syndrome that is indifferent to other’s fate, and a possible behavioural outcome. In this way, violence is an option to a psychopath that a rational person would not normally consider.
Capitalists are, by nature, non-violent. The principles of Capitalism forbid violence as they are a form of control on others, breaking the fundamental principle of free-will. However, Capitalists are, by nature, also indifferent to others’ fate (like psychopaths). Moreover, they are able to rationally justify such behaviour into their belief system. Although a Capitalist may be non-violent, they would also be indifferent to violence committed onto others, provided it does not affect them directly. There is a psychological term for this behavioural trait: passive-aggressive.
This is the difference between the direct violence of psychopaths (who have no sense of right or wrong), and the indirect violence of Capitalists (who are indifferent to the fate of others): as said earlier, the effect is the same, only the method and rationale is different.
Here is a typical example in point: a psychopath as a national leader can justify the killing of a segment of the population as a necessary act to “maintain order”. A Capitalist as a single person can rationally justify deaths of millions through starvation and neglect because those people chose to neglect themselves and starve. There is no sense of “morality” to either the psychopath or the Capitalist because these questions are not his concern and “morality” is a considered a socially-artificial concept. The only concern to the psychopath and the Capitalist is the self. Society and “social responsibility” is an alien concept; therefore, they are both indifferent to it.
A Capitalist does not need to be a psychopath in order to be successful, but psychopaths can make very successful Capitalists.
A discussion of this issue continues here
Repeated anti-social or socially unacceptable behaviour (that would normally be thought of as inconsiderate or openly rude).
Repeated lying or deceit; conning others for personal gain or pleasure.
Impulsive or thoughtless behaviour; failing to plan or think ahead.
Recklessness towards the safety or yourself or others.
Consistent irresponsibility; not fulfilling social, work or financial obligations.
Lack of guilt towards the harm you have caused or may cause others.
Aggressive or easily turned violent (i.e. with an explosive and short temper).
In other words, psychopaths tend to be aggressive and violent; find excuses for causing evil actions; have no sense of responsibility to others; are reckless; are impulsive and have little sense of the future; lie, cheat, conspire and trick others for their own ends; and have no concept of social rules.
To paraphrase the ideas of Capitalism as explained by Ayn Rand of the “Objectivist” school of thought, the key principles of Objectivism are:
To be against all forms of control (either by governments or other people) except for those necessary for maintaining “law and order”
Believe that people are by nature rational (though some may not be; see below).
Mankind progresses through each individual using the mind independently and not depending on others for their survival.
Those that depend on others are therefore, by definition, irrational; those that do not use their minds are morons.
Selfishness is therefore the highest virtue. Selflessness and altruism are the highest forms of evil as they disrupt a person’s ability to think for themselves and impose controls of people’s decisions.
Society functions through the value of exchange in a “free market”; all actions are carried out for the sake of what can be got in return.
There can be no such thing as “social rights”, as “society” is an artificial construct; the only rights are “individual rights”.
There can be no such thing as “democracy”; this is the rule of the mob, and therefore philosophically no different from tyranny.
To paraphrase George Orwell, every liberal is always a few steps away from being a fascist. Comparing the principles of Capitalism and the behavioural characteristics, it doesn’t take long for a pure Capitalist to turn into a psychopath.
Let’s compare the characteristics of both.
In order to be a Capitalist, one, by definition, has to have a negative (cynical) view of governments and society as a whole. A psychopath also has a cynical view of humanity; this is how they justify exploiting and using people for their own benefit.
A Capitalist believes that people are usually rational; the caveat is that those who are not must therefore be “lesser” human beings – irrational animals rather than rational humans. Believing that some people may be “lower” than others is also a mentality that can be held by psychopaths; this is how they would give a second justification to guiltless behaviour.
Just as a Capitalist believes that all actions by a “rational” human being are done for what they can get out of them, so would a psychopath. A psychopath is not interested in other person’s feelings and attitudes; neither is a Capitalist. Capitalists consider “feelings” and “emotions” to be sentimental leftovers of an animalistic and irrational mind, and get in the way of the exchange of goods and services.
For this reason, friendships and human relationships, to a Capitalist, are purely for the purpose of benefit to the self. To have a human relationship for the purpose of “helping others” is an anathema to a Capitalist. The same could be said of a psychopath.
As there is no such thing as society, Capitalists see the world as a state of informal “war of exchange” between a mass of individuals. While a “light touch” government maintains the minimum of law of order, a state of nature close to chaos exists in reality, allowing the strong and mentally adept to take the most advantage of the situation. A psychopath would feel well at home in such an environment.
As Capitalists do not believe in artificially imposed “social norms” (as they are leftovers of an irrational, medievalist mind), people therefore would have no need to worry about their social behaviour. If people are free to act as they please, provided they do not actively control other people’s actions, then naturally there would no need to respect “old-fashioned” social norms. This fits neatly with the thinking of a psychopath, who also has no need to respect social norms.
When a “rational” Capitalist encounters a person in a much direr situation than them, what would the result be? A Capitalist, by definition, would refuse to help those in a much direr situation than them; so the outcast will eventually die without help. The Capitalist, logically, would know this to be the case also, all things being equal. This would make the Capitalist an indirect party to the death of the outcast. From an intellectual point of view, because the Capitalist is “rational”, he is of greater consciousness of his actions than the “irrational” outcast; therefore, the Capitalist would legally take the greater responsibility for failing to prevent a previously knowable death. The “irrational” outcast cannot be equally to blame for his own death for he knows no better than to ask for help; in this way, the Capitalist therefore acts with the same rationale as a psychopath: by being knowingly reckless and irresponsible towards the safety of others. He literally does not care if the outcast lives or dies – worse, he intellectually would be able to rationalise the death to himself.
To the Capitalist, the death of the outcast would be the fault of the outcast. The Capitalist has no right to interfere in the actions of another individual. To the psychopath, the death of another person is no concern of his. The effect is the same; only the rationale is subtly different. The psychopath is mentally deranged, so has no obvious rational faculty; but the Capitalist is, as we have seen, a “rational” human being. Which, then, is more evil: death through the indifference of a mentally disturbed psychopath; or death through the “rational” omission of the Capitalist?
These things being the case, we can see that a Capitalist easily matches most of the behaviour perpetrated by psychopaths; certainly the majority of these characteristics. In fact, in some ways, Capitalism, after this intellectual and psychological analysis, seems even more inhumane than the madness of psychopathology: at least psychopaths have the excuse of mental illness for their behaviour. But Capitalists are capable of almost the exact same behaviour, yet still able to claim a “rational” mind.
How is this intellectually possible?
A psychopath is generally considered as someone who is by nature violent. This perception is a stereotype: violent behaviour, as we can see from the list of most common behavioural traits of psychopathology, is merely one symptom. Psychopaths are not always violent. Violence is just a side-effect of a syndrome that is indifferent to other’s fate, and a possible behavioural outcome. In this way, violence is an option to a psychopath that a rational person would not normally consider.
Capitalists are, by nature, non-violent. The principles of Capitalism forbid violence as they are a form of control on others, breaking the fundamental principle of free-will. However, Capitalists are, by nature, also indifferent to others’ fate (like psychopaths). Moreover, they are able to rationally justify such behaviour into their belief system. Although a Capitalist may be non-violent, they would also be indifferent to violence committed onto others, provided it does not affect them directly. There is a psychological term for this behavioural trait: passive-aggressive.
This is the difference between the direct violence of psychopaths (who have no sense of right or wrong), and the indirect violence of Capitalists (who are indifferent to the fate of others): as said earlier, the effect is the same, only the method and rationale is different.
Here is a typical example in point: a psychopath as a national leader can justify the killing of a segment of the population as a necessary act to “maintain order”. A Capitalist as a single person can rationally justify deaths of millions through starvation and neglect because those people chose to neglect themselves and starve. There is no sense of “morality” to either the psychopath or the Capitalist because these questions are not his concern and “morality” is a considered a socially-artificial concept. The only concern to the psychopath and the Capitalist is the self. Society and “social responsibility” is an alien concept; therefore, they are both indifferent to it.
A Capitalist does not need to be a psychopath in order to be successful, but psychopaths can make very successful Capitalists.
A discussion of this issue continues here
Saturday, May 14, 2011
In Defence Of Capitalism. No, really...
First, a quick summary of what Capitalism actually means, to the purists (like Ayn Rand):
1. Freedom from control (by government, or other people)
2. People always know what's best (i.e. they are rational)
3. Government's only role is to implement the law (as agreed by the people)
4. Democracy therefore is a bad idea (because it is control of the many over the few; see rule 1)
5. When people are free to pursue lives free from interference, they flourish (see rules 1 and 2)
6. Altruism (helping people, in particular, the weak) therefore is morally wrong; because it is interference into another person's life, and denies them the opportunity of self-improvement
In Capitalism, people are free to do what they like, provided they do not interfere with other people's wishes or control them (eg. by theft).
In Capitalism, people are able to deal with problems logically; people always know what the best option is in any given situation. They always know how to plan ahead and deal with problems before they happen. Companies are therefore intellectually incapable of making mistakes. Everything is for the best.
In Capitalism, the only thing that prevents people from happiness is government, or a lack of their own personal desire or motivation. Government is the highest evil because their function is to control (i.e. deny people freedom).
In Capitalism, because government's only function is to dispense justice, people are open to pursue and exchange all goods and services freely. In this Utopia, because people always know best, prices would be as low as possible because everyone would be competing to attract attention from other people. Unemployment would only be a symptom of those mentally disturbed people who do not have the desire to work. The best motivator to look for work is desire for opportunity.
In Capitalism, "democracy" would be meaningless because there would be no real need for internal goverment; merely the maintainance of justice, the armed forces and foreign relations. In any case, Democracy is the control of the many over the few; the rule of the mob. But in Capitalism, everyone is free and has the equal chance to thrive because everyone knows best. Government only blocks people's natural chances to thrive on their own intellectual steam.
In Capitalism, selfishness is the highest virtue because helping others means to control others; all despots have begun with the highest motives of wanting to "help mankind"; all have ended by enslaving it. If someone tries to help you, in Capitalism, you are morally entitled to punish them for daring to stamp on your freedom. All things that happen in life are a result of people's individual decisions; free-will and all that.
In Capitalism, everyone is free and has the right to pursue happiness. If they are unhappy, don't blame yourself; blame them.
1. Freedom from control (by government, or other people)
2. People always know what's best (i.e. they are rational)
3. Government's only role is to implement the law (as agreed by the people)
4. Democracy therefore is a bad idea (because it is control of the many over the few; see rule 1)
5. When people are free to pursue lives free from interference, they flourish (see rules 1 and 2)
6. Altruism (helping people, in particular, the weak) therefore is morally wrong; because it is interference into another person's life, and denies them the opportunity of self-improvement
In Capitalism, people are free to do what they like, provided they do not interfere with other people's wishes or control them (eg. by theft).
In Capitalism, people are able to deal with problems logically; people always know what the best option is in any given situation. They always know how to plan ahead and deal with problems before they happen. Companies are therefore intellectually incapable of making mistakes. Everything is for the best.
In Capitalism, the only thing that prevents people from happiness is government, or a lack of their own personal desire or motivation. Government is the highest evil because their function is to control (i.e. deny people freedom).
In Capitalism, because government's only function is to dispense justice, people are open to pursue and exchange all goods and services freely. In this Utopia, because people always know best, prices would be as low as possible because everyone would be competing to attract attention from other people. Unemployment would only be a symptom of those mentally disturbed people who do not have the desire to work. The best motivator to look for work is desire for opportunity.
In Capitalism, "democracy" would be meaningless because there would be no real need for internal goverment; merely the maintainance of justice, the armed forces and foreign relations. In any case, Democracy is the control of the many over the few; the rule of the mob. But in Capitalism, everyone is free and has the equal chance to thrive because everyone knows best. Government only blocks people's natural chances to thrive on their own intellectual steam.
In Capitalism, selfishness is the highest virtue because helping others means to control others; all despots have begun with the highest motives of wanting to "help mankind"; all have ended by enslaving it. If someone tries to help you, in Capitalism, you are morally entitled to punish them for daring to stamp on your freedom. All things that happen in life are a result of people's individual decisions; free-will and all that.
In Capitalism, everyone is free and has the right to pursue happiness. If they are unhappy, don't blame yourself; blame them.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The Other Albania
Everyone knows about "Albania", the one in the Balkans, sandwiched between Greece and the former Yugoslavia.
But there was also an "Albania" in the Caucasus. No relation, by the way. This "Albania" roughly corresponded with the area where Azerbaijan and southern Dagestan in Russia now is. Its people were pagans, neighbours to the Armenians as the Azeris are today . This Albanian kingdom existed for around a thousand years; from around the times of Alexander the Great, until they were defeated and dispersed by the Arabs in the ninth century AD.
More interestingly, they were amongst the world's first nations to convert to Christianity (in the 2nd century AD), before the Armenians. Over the centuries, they built many churches; a lot of them are still standing or in states of ruin around Azerbaijan. Many of the names of famous towns in Azerbaijan are in fact Albanian: Gabala was the capital of ancient Albania; other cities included Sheki, Kish, Agdam, to name just a few.
The Albanian language no longer exists as such, As I said, after the Arab invasions of the Caucasus, the Albanian kingdom was defeated and its people dispersed. But that is not the end of the story. The "Albanians" did not disappear. Many of them chose to convert to Islam. Of those that didn't, they maintained their faith as part of the Armenian Orthodox church.
There are a number of ethnic minorities in Azerbaijan today.
One of them are the Lezgin; with a distinct language unrelated to Azeri or Russian, they also look very different from Azeris, often with round faces, large, oval eyes and round, healthy-looking cheeks. They are also Muslims. Some Azeris mistake them for ethnic Russians as Lezgins also exist in the mountains of southern Dagestan as well as across the north of Azerbaijan.
Another, much smaller and specific ethnic group in Azerbaiijan are the Udin. They speak a language related to Lezgin (though how similar, I can't say for sure). They live in a district between Gabala and Sheki (also where the ruins of ancient Albanian "Gabala" are), mainly in the towns of Nidj and Oguz. Unusually, they are Orthodox Christians.
These two groups are related because they are, in all likelyhood, the same people: the Albanians. The Udins were simply able to hold on to their faith somehow, while the Lezgin were those who chose to submit to Islam.
This story has an oddly poetic feel to it; the idea that these ancient people were able to survive as an ethnic group and maintain their identity after centuries of invasion after invasion. The idea that in this land between the Caspian and the Caucasus mountains, there was an ancient Christia kingdom, and the descendents of those people still exist in the land formerly known as "Albania" today.
The most famous of the Albanian churches is in the town of Kish (known as "Gis" in Albanian times), close to Sheki. It has been expertly restored. Excavations there discovered that the church's foundations dated back almost two thousand years. They also found pagan objects from the Bronze Age in the same location.
There is a personal touch to this story: my wife's paternal grandmother was a Lezgin. In fact, after seeing photos of Lala's grandmother, the resemblance is noticable. It's nice to think that you're married to a woman who can say her genes have been in this part of the world for two thousand years.
But there was also an "Albania" in the Caucasus. No relation, by the way. This "Albania" roughly corresponded with the area where Azerbaijan and southern Dagestan in Russia now is. Its people were pagans, neighbours to the Armenians as the Azeris are today . This Albanian kingdom existed for around a thousand years; from around the times of Alexander the Great, until they were defeated and dispersed by the Arabs in the ninth century AD.
More interestingly, they were amongst the world's first nations to convert to Christianity (in the 2nd century AD), before the Armenians. Over the centuries, they built many churches; a lot of them are still standing or in states of ruin around Azerbaijan. Many of the names of famous towns in Azerbaijan are in fact Albanian: Gabala was the capital of ancient Albania; other cities included Sheki, Kish, Agdam, to name just a few.
The Albanian language no longer exists as such, As I said, after the Arab invasions of the Caucasus, the Albanian kingdom was defeated and its people dispersed. But that is not the end of the story. The "Albanians" did not disappear. Many of them chose to convert to Islam. Of those that didn't, they maintained their faith as part of the Armenian Orthodox church.
There are a number of ethnic minorities in Azerbaijan today.
One of them are the Lezgin; with a distinct language unrelated to Azeri or Russian, they also look very different from Azeris, often with round faces, large, oval eyes and round, healthy-looking cheeks. They are also Muslims. Some Azeris mistake them for ethnic Russians as Lezgins also exist in the mountains of southern Dagestan as well as across the north of Azerbaijan.
Another, much smaller and specific ethnic group in Azerbaiijan are the Udin. They speak a language related to Lezgin (though how similar, I can't say for sure). They live in a district between Gabala and Sheki (also where the ruins of ancient Albanian "Gabala" are), mainly in the towns of Nidj and Oguz. Unusually, they are Orthodox Christians.
These two groups are related because they are, in all likelyhood, the same people: the Albanians. The Udins were simply able to hold on to their faith somehow, while the Lezgin were those who chose to submit to Islam.
This story has an oddly poetic feel to it; the idea that these ancient people were able to survive as an ethnic group and maintain their identity after centuries of invasion after invasion. The idea that in this land between the Caspian and the Caucasus mountains, there was an ancient Christia kingdom, and the descendents of those people still exist in the land formerly known as "Albania" today.
The most famous of the Albanian churches is in the town of Kish (known as "Gis" in Albanian times), close to Sheki. It has been expertly restored. Excavations there discovered that the church's foundations dated back almost two thousand years. They also found pagan objects from the Bronze Age in the same location.
There is a personal touch to this story: my wife's paternal grandmother was a Lezgin. In fact, after seeing photos of Lala's grandmother, the resemblance is noticable. It's nice to think that you're married to a woman who can say her genes have been in this part of the world for two thousand years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)