5 ms·
"Consumed by greed, rendered numb to human suffering by a life of hedonism and extravagance, devoid of empathy, incapable of self-criticism or self-sacrifice, s
by api 9y ago
"Consumed by greed, rendered numb to human suffering by a life of hedonism and extravagance, devoid of empathy, incapable of self-criticism or self-sacrifice, surrounded by sycophants and leeches who cater to their wishes, appetites and demands, able to use their wealth to ignore the law and destroy critics and opponents, they are among the most repugnant of the human species."
This psychological shift toward delusional megalomania seems to happen to many if not most human beings when given incredibly high status and rendered largely immune to consequences. In authoritarian socialist systems it happens to the ruling party elite and bureaucrats.
- bbddg 9y agoIf that's true shouldn't we try to create an economy that doesn't actively reward those behaviors?
- api 9y agoThat's harder than just shifting the economic system. The problem is that human beings (or at least a lot of them) willingly and almost instinctively follow psychopaths and narcissists. As long as that's the case then these behaviors will be rewarded in any and all economic systems. The rules for how money moves around do not change human psychology.
- bbddg 9y agoYou don't think the constant drive for profit encourages people to indulge their worst qualities? I'm not saying that people can't be naturally selfish and narcissistic, but people can also naturally be kind, generous, and compassionate. If there was an economic system that didn't put profit above all else I think you would see more of the latter qualities.
- api 9y agoAll major experiments in full blown socialism have turned into mafia states. The drive for profit exists regardless of political system.
- bbddg 9y agoI'm not advocating for turning the US into the USSR. There are lessons to be learned, good and bad, from experiments in socialism. The US is turning into an Oligarchy and we can't even get socialized healthcare because people have such a knee-jerk reaction to anything that dares challenge any free market.
- reading-at-work 9y agoSure, but in the context of this article it's just embellishment to whip up the reader's anger at the supposed injustice of Uber and Lyft. It doesn't contribute to any fact-based arguments and it shows the author as incredibly biased against big business in general.
- grasshopperpurp 9y agoWell, which parts do you disagree with? Or, do you just disagree with the sensationalist language?
- reading-at-work 9y agoI agree that humans in general with unchecked power can become dictatorial maniacs. I disagree that the CEOs of ride-hailing companies specifically will become dictatorial maniacs. I think that kind of sensationalist language discredits the article to a large degree, and doesn't contribute to the author's argument in a concrete way. It's an appeal to emotion, not a rational and defensible argument.
- grasshopperpurp 9y agoAppreciate you breaking that down, and I agree that the sensationalist language is not helpful (preaching to the choir, etc.), but I think discredits goes too far. I can say something completely true in the most obnoxious way possible, and it can turn off a lot of people, but it doesn't alter the truth. I believe that he's harping on CEOs of ride-hailing companies, because they're the obvious example that everyone is familiar with. His overall statement, as I read it, is closer to: >humans in general with unchecked power can become dictatorial maniacs. And, I think that's the salient point. Others have hit on it, but if a society is too Capitalistic or too Socialistic, the power-hungry people (who always have and, presumably, always will exist) will take advantage of the imbalance, and the people (general population) will suffer as a result. On a large scale, it shouldn't matter how evil/greedy any CEO or politician is, because their power should be limited. The problem, of course, is finding the right balance.
- 9y ago
- icebraining 9y agoFor a further exploration of this topic, I recommend the film Can Dialectics Break Bricks.
- deft 9y agoI think everyone is well aware of that. In a successful socialist state neither party elites or bureaucrats should exist. In a capitalist state or authoritarian system those are designed and necessary groups. Most people's objections to socialism are exactly what socialism is attempting to remove. Lenin, Stalin etc. did a terrible job.
- Fins 9y agoBut isn't it at least a little bit curious that any and everyone trying to implement it did an equally terrible job?
- Method-X 9y agoExactly. Almost like it's a problem with the fundamentals of the system itself.
- Fins 9y agoInterestingly, it is always assumed that problems with capitalism are systemic, but communism... they just didn't try quite right.
- bbddg 9y agoBack when people were trying to overthrow monarchies to introduce democracy and capitalism it didn't exactly go smoothly either. Capitalism in America might not have even been possible without the extensive use of slave labor and the genocide of an entire continent of people. There is such an ahistorical bend to anti-socialist rhetoric that is so pervasive in our society it's nearly impossible to see.
- reading-at-work 9y ago"Capitalism in America might not have even been possible without the extensive use of slave labor and the genocide of an entire continent of people" Rolling my eyes pretty hard at that one. Can you elaborate? Do you really think the whole system would have failed without slave labor? How was the capitalist economy different back then, such that free labor was absolutely necessary for it to be sustained? "There is such an ahistorical bend to anti-socialist rhetoric" I would say the same about pro-socialist rhetoric. The whole "let's ignore what happened the last dozen times a country tried full socialism, and try it again" rhetoric is pretty selectively ignorant of history, wouldn't you say?