How do the proponents of capitalism protect the system by which they seem so ardent to defend? As I've argued, by use of memes; memetically engineered memes who have undergone a certain level of natural memetic evolution along the way, but who now are being manipulated for the explicit defense of the system itself. Now, as I've discussed many of them before, I will now attempt to delve into other memes used by the system to manipulate the masses to act against themselves and further the goals of capitalism rather than that of the human condition.
The 'natural fallacy' is one of these lesser memes; a despicable and deplorable one at that. When one uses the 'natural fallacy' what one is arguing is that 'if it occurs in nature, it is thereby positive or inevitable' and so the persons make excuses for or say that 'to curb such natural behavior would be detrimental' as if it were the case that all 'natural' things cannot be constrained. This is an absurd assertion, firstly because anything and everything that occurs would fall under the definition of 'natural' as humans are creatures of the natural world and their inventions are extentions of themselves and thereby 'natural' in so much as they reflect the species who exists on the planet. Secondly, this would excuse any and every act as 'natural' and thereby not worth arbitrating or constraining. Rape and murder are natural occurrences, animals outside of the human sphere do these things at will; so long as they can do them and survive. We do not kowtow to the idea that these things, negative natural attributes, must be defended and therefore allowed; we curb them through law and force. Greed may indeed be natural, this however in no way entails that we must allow for such an irrational desire for grievous excess at the expense of others to be given credence over the lives of others. Saying that 'greed is natural' is in no way a good way to argue against the concept of creating a socialist system to create and maintain a floor that upholds a basic standard of living and opportunity for all. What is 'natural' is not always good.
The 'self made man fallacy' or the idea that a person's success is entirely self generated. This is one of the more obvious problematic statements; as no man is an island and humans require things in order to acquire more things, one gets one's first 'things' most often by way of parents or society, one cannot generate 'things' without others. This fallacy appeals to human ego and the human delusion that 'you alone' are the maker of your own destiny; a childish fantasy. We are forever prisoners of the systems we live in, the rules reflect the outcomes, if we do well we must assume that certain rules favor us; what every they may be.
The 'appeal to human decency fallacy' is an argument by which a proponent of capitalism will make, usually for more privatization and abolition of government social programs that 'charity will take care of the poor' or ;do you really think that people would rip other people off, it would be a bad business practice' these appeals are meant to stir the natural human capacity for 'I would care for the poor, others must want to either' or 'I wouldn't rip someone off, so others would not do so either' both these statements forgoing the obvious reality that it would not be those people who think like that who would be the problem in the equation. The 'appeal to human decency fallacy' parasites off of the already present decency that exists in those whom hear it; those without could care less and see it as an opportunity to practice vulture capitalism.
These memes appeal to the individuals of the system as a whole, they are meant to either divide us or confuse us into not understanding what is going on; as they play on our egos and appealing to our own natural indwelling presuppositions. These things are great assistance to the capitalist system as a whole, for if it can keep us thinking on individual terms, which always oversimplifies arguments, it can manipulate us with ease. In understanding these things we reveal the man behind the curtain and forgo these over simplified non-arguments and move into much deeper waters; the waters that question 'how should we live?' and await our response.
No comments:
Post a Comment