4 ms·
Interesting piece, but there seems to me to be contradiction in its thesis: If people have become so devoted to monetary success alone, how can all these indust
by stupidcar 7y ago
Interesting piece, but there seems to me to be contradiction in its thesis: If people have become so devoted to monetary success alone, how can all these industries that rely on vice exist? Indulging a vice is inherently wasteful. It costs time that could be spent working, and money that could be better spent on self-improvement, or invested or saved.
And while we may have accepted greed to the point that there is nothing distasteful about saying one desires a better car or house, or a better paid job, in practice most people do not work day and night, spurning all other opportunities, to make it happen. In practice, most people make decisions every day that place other desires, both traditionally "good" and "bad", above the simple pursuit of more money. So to say that people have internalised capitalism to the exclusion of all else seems incorrect.
I have a different take: The development of capitalism and commodification had a mutually reinforcing relationship with the fluidity of labor and the fungibility of goods. Many "traditional" bonds between individuals and communities were really a consequence of local monopolies: There was only one local doctor, shopkeeper, school, etc., and a small pool of potential employers. As such, relationships were inevitably more personal.
As technology, law and institutions allowed civilisation to become more mobile, it allowed the possibility of markets in many areas of life where it was previously impossible. This is unavoidable. Even if you personally choose to stand still, the people around you move, meaning your relationships and interactions are nonetheless more transitory and impersonal. In such a world, commodification emerges not as the consequence of internalised capitalist ideology, but because it is the only way to manage constant interactions with strangers.
So it is commodification itself that has become internalised, not capitalism. Indeed, most modern society isn't arranged around acquiring capital and leveraging it or maximising its value, it's about the consumption of things and experiences—driven by materialist, emotional and spiritual instincts—using money as a points system used to ration them out. Most people approach their work in a simple way: they want to earn enough points to meet their basic needs, and indulge their desires to a point of equilibrium between effort and general satisfaction, after which they don't work any harder or longer.
- faitswulff 7y ago> If people have become so devoted to monetary success alone, how can all these industries that rely on vice exist? Indulging a vice is inherently wasteful. It costs time that could be spent working, and money that could be better spent on self-improvement, or invested or saved. Simple: people are not perfectly rational economic actors. I believe the study of irrational economics is called "behavioral economics."
- jyrkesh 7y agoI think this is a great way of putting it. Dating apps very often feel this way to me: no one is perfect, so it's very difficult to know if you're making the right set of tradeoffs, and then you feel very impersonal for looking at dating through that lens. Currently reading The Paradox of Choice, hoping it gives me more clarity on navigating problems like this, but I'd be curious if others here have thoughts or additional reading on that topic as well. With regards to the "one local doctor" point: I think the question is whether we lost something when we lost that mutual dependence on someone, forcing us to all get along. I'd argue the benefits we gained from more choice were better, but we didn't exactly acknowledge what it was that we lost.