Certain tribes – more than I can list here – in Africa still have no real concept of private ownership, although, due to European/American encroachment, that is fading, with regrets.
There are even several societies dedicated to the study and promulgation of non-currency communal societies.
In his article, Mr. Steinsvold takes the general premise that doing away with the profit motive will create a happier, more just society. He begins this argument with the idea that so many Americans – and I would add, Europeans, but possibly to a lesser extent – are unhappy with their jobs, even though wages and benefits, as well as overall "affluence" are higher than they have been in modern history, and, perhaps, in all of civilization. He points to this unhappiness as a reason why our economy is in the present condition it is in, pointing to the need for profit – in order to accumulate Johnny Rocco's "More" -- as one of the prime factors in the decline.
He states, "The profit motive will no longer be a hindrance to our society. There will be no need to sacrifice safety and quality in our products for the sake of profit. We will, like in the olden days, take pride on our work."
The question is, in my mind, not whether this would be a more beneficial society, but how to create it in the first place.
With a fair regularity, we hear of studies that demonstrate the fallacies of consumerism and that illustrate the lack of connection between accumulation of what George Carlin called "stuff" and happiness – or even contentment, for that matter. And, yet, we all continue to do it.
Yes, I said all. Even those of us who pat ourselves on the back and insist we are free of the marketer's brainwashing indulge ourselves in consumerism far beyond any point necessary to lead a sustainable life. The sheer fact that you are here, on the Internet, reading this, proves that, for just how necessary is this electronic river of distractions?
Note: I am not confronting the issue of benefit – all things, regardless of their necessity, may be beneficial and detrimental, depending on their use and their acquisition – but I am dealing with the necessity of the thing. What we know as civilization existed for thousands of years without even general access to writing, let alone the Internet, and was quite healthy, thank you. But I will not deny the overall advantage of the dissemination of ideas and knowledge. In fact, were it not for such dissemination, the very idea of egalitarianism may never have caught hold, and so, I support the concept and make abundant use of this electronic world.
My point is, though, that, if we are to crate this New World Order, it will take a New World Perspective. We must break the whole idea of accumulation equaling . . . where do I begin? To such an extent, our entire being is built around accumulation – our ideas of self-worth, self-esteem, status, position in community and society, power in politics, access to power, concepts of education and profession. Even our ideas of pleasure and desire are controlled by it. Who does not look longingly at a new big-screen, digital television and think how nice it would be to watch our favorite (commercial) programs on such a device? Who does not carry a cellphone so we can be contantly "connected?"
I work at a charter school that has excellent credentials and does a marvelous job in educating a segment of the student population that is rejected by even the failing public school district in my area. But who, given that all things are equal and provided they had a choice, would send their children to this school, filled with volatile, foul-talking, in-your-face street kids rather than to a erudite, placid "upscale" institute? Which would be our choice for home? Would we choose the modest, plain Cape Cod in a lackluster neighborhood, or the stylish semiMcmansion in the well-sculptured, manicured "development?"
There are, none of us, so immune to the consumerist germ that we do not succumb to it in at least some ways, and in telling ourselves that we do not, we defeat any possibility of ever curing that ill – if, indeed, we see it as an illness in the first place.
As a fervent "anticapitalist," I believe it is an illness. It is my goal to live in a similar way to a man I read about years ago, when I was in high school. He tired of the insanity of our world and, in rebellious response, he sold everything he had, bought some climate-appropriate clothing and some equipment, and moved to Alaska where he lived entirely without money.
Yes, entirely without money.
He spent his days trapping and skinning and in other "mountaineer" pursuits and traded the bounty he collected at a local trading post in the wilds of that wild state and lived for several years without ever having a single penny in his pockets or a bank account in any institution.
Was it a hard life? That's a matter of opinion. Physically hard, it was, but the interviewer who wrote the story commented several times on how the man, then in his 40s, was in such excellent heath and, even though he was constantly in the harsh elements, he never seemed to get sick. Also, the author mentioend the perfect peacefulness of the man and how he appeared so completely content. There were, the article said, no "Joneses" to keep up with, and no one to know they weren't there.
Not all of us – indeed, very few of us – could physically survive a life such as that, and, while it would be a sort of paradise for me, personally, I do not advocate reverting to a frontier or a "Tarzanesque" lifestyle.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
