The Cult of Loving and Touch is nothing new. There are Snuggle Parties. In high school there was the Drama club. Nothing new. People need affection. I would say we'd grow quite mad without it.
Gentle embraces, moments of connection.
Capitalism lacks this essential because it is about efficiency. Using economy to reduce all friction.
It's biggest flaw is its ability to forget its essentially run by, on, and for human beings. Because human beings are temperamental creatures, we exhibit greed, love, competition, jealousy, and territorialism. We use resources disproportionately.
And some of my VERY intelligent acquaintances tell me that's the way it works. It's the most efficient system we have. The best lottery, essentially. Other financial systems don't work as well as this one.
No? I argue based on intuition that Capitalism works best for those with a significant amount of capital, the kind of capital that has had 3+ generations of growth and can sustain extended family. Property is owned. Trusts distribute resources from a financial font.
If you're trying to build wealth, however, it's a crap shoot. It's not build on a standard were all have the basic minimum, nor where work is equally valued or even scaled based on effort. It's reverse-scaled for the most part, where building the capacity of citizenry is LEAST valued (ex. child development, education, care for the elderly or disabled, injured, or hospitalized.) If you create food (a basic necessity of survival), you're probably undervalued as well.
But if you own means of production or don't work with your body, if you talk for a living and advise, you're probably worth more, earning more, or even in the spotlight more. People notice you and you'll go places.
It's not fair to speak in generalities. Let's talk about PEOPLE. I would say every human system has a hierarchy. There are those who are icons, leaders, supporters, followers, and outsiders.
When I speak of PEOPLE noticing you, I speak of these ICONS and LEADERS. Their charisma, knowledge, connections and resources make them important. The rest of those in the system are influenced by what these ICONS and leaders do or say, through EMULATION or other means.
So capital, as I have seen, is used to put leaders' vision in motion. Icons are used and compensated to create buss and drum up supporters. Those not adopting the vision or products are outsiders.
Now, we may say, as a nation of choice that there are many choices of visions and products, so supporters can pick and choose in the marketplace and no one is an outsider, but the system of a democratic marketplace breaks down when we think of each potential supporter as an equal consumer. Not every potential supporter (or consumer) has equal capital.
Just because you work or study or have a family or intelligence, does not entitle one to equal capital. Potential supporters may have to choose among their resources carefully before putting their support behind a vision or product. The reason for choosing a product or vision may have to do with quality, perceived need, sense of lack of choice, compromise, or emergency circumstance -- fantastical or reality-based.
For many adopting a product or vision may merely have to be moved by whim:
"I want to go to Europe." "I want to eat lunch." "I want to go to the club." "I want some new kicks." "I want a new house." "I want to get my hair done." "I want a new shirt." "I want a dog."
"I want to try a new therapy." "I want a new car." "I want a piece of chocolate." "I want that magazine." "I want a drink." "I need to have that video game." "I must get oranges from the farmer's market."
The examples are endless. For some, whim is the only barrier to connecting them to a vision or a product. They obtain it and that's the end of the thought process.
For others, supporting a product or vision involves budgeting. A product or vision is deemed worthy of support or perceived as a necessity, but current resources do not allow for immediate support of it. These individuals may choose to compromise on the actual vision or product and choose one comparable within their resource range or hoard resources until such time they can support their original choice of product or vision.
Still others may borrow against their perceived worth to support their chosen vision or product. Leaders place a value on the time for which the temporary loan or credit is allowed. Interest rate may vary. By the time the item is paid for, the supporter may have paid many times the original value of the vision or product. For some this is the only way to gain access to those products or visions they deem worthy of supporting.
Finally, there are those whose choices of products or visions are decided for them due to their limited access to media explaining various options of visions or products. They may also have limited resources, knowledge, and networks that do not offer them options to consider budgeting or borrowing against their perceived worth. They may not be perceived as "worth anything."
Some would argue this is not personal and should have no bearing on an individual's self-esteem, but if an individual's value is judged on their participation in supporting vision and products and they simply cannot participate in supporting these things -- not by lack of desire, but by lack of resources or access to resources, there is disenfranchisement, intentional or no.
That's friction on the system. Waste, excess stress, causality.
Theory may tolerate causalities as normal to the process. Families may find it a lot harder to actualize theorists' hypotheses. People are affected by these theories. Leaders make decisions based on theories. They are not often present for the body count. Certainly there's a sense of unpleasantness. Thankfully leaders and icons may simply need to invoke whim to make a choice of what vision or product to support to stave off any sense of disappointment or regret. Or perhaps there's no connection to the supporters and outsiders. Perhaps it's simple not PERSONAL.
Since the systems or rating visions and products with a value and creating interest around visions and products are for human consumption, humans are the only creatures targeted and affected by this messaging. The products are merely manipulation of people: icons, leaders, and supporters as workforce. Nature places no value in the concepts of products or visions. Nature is, however, impacted by humans who harvest resources to create products and visions.
If icons and leaders an supporters and outsiders agree that resources are finite, then there is an inevitable competition for resources. Nature is being tapped by humans as leaders and supporters to harvest resources for messaging around visions or creating products.
Sustainability, affordability, or repercussions of the harvest or waste from transformation from one product to another apparently is not a major consideration among icons, leaders, or supporters. Productivity is key.
The placement of waste CANNOT be ignored for it effects the ability to harvest resources effectively and eventually effects icons, leaders, supporters, outsiders, and NATURE.
No comments:
Post a Comment