Skip to main content

View Diary: Study Findings Show That Austerity Leads to Riots - But Why Riot? It's Better to ORGANIZE (17 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  a false binary, I fear (3+ / 0-)
    Greed is a human behavior, but not human nature. Human history through the eons demonstrates that human nature is actually cooperation, not competition and domination.
    That right there.
    Think of the overpowering welling up one feels inside when watching an act of compassion. That is built into us.
    Yes, it is, and that is important -- but it isn't the whole story.
    Experiences with aboriginal/native/indigenous peoples have demonstrated this over recent centuries. Virtually all are cooperative societies and which goods are shared, not hoarded individually.
    Bluntly, societies that produce little surplus don't have much to hoard or to fight over; that probably helps to keep the greed in check. To dismiss greed, competition, and domination (which are distinct, incidentally) as aberrations seems to write off most of recorded history -- which isn't everything, but is far from nothing.
    When Ivan Boesky declared that "greed is good" ("we have a greed, to which we have agreed" - Eddie Vedder), repeated by Michael Douglas in Wall Street, the relatively new human behavior of greed, developing and spreading over the past few millenia, was codified in our society, embraced by Republicans and Third Way, corporatist Democrats alike.
    That's most nearly upside down. Boesky (who didn't say quite what Gekko did, but never mind) got thrown in prison, and the whole point of Gordon Gekko was to critique insatiable greed, not to codify it. The super-rich are doing fabulously well, but no thanks to Boesky.
    In the natural world, something that takes more than it needs does not survive.
    In the natural world, nothing survives. And there is no clear criterion of "more than it needs."

    If we think of greed as a "cancer" that we can eradicate, we'll probably end up disappointed or downright appalled.

    "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

    by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 06:09:39 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  bit of a romantic view of the natives (4+ / 0-)

      who lived here too in that post.

      the book 1491 opened my eyes a great deal. They built huge cities, had huge civilizations that traded and warred with each other, and in some cases caused quite a bit of environmental degredation that partially helped lead to their collapses.

      Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility (not an original but rather apt)

      by terrypinder on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 06:37:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think so, although... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        terrypinder, 6412093

        I really wasn't sure what the idyllic referents were. The cultures that modern anthropologists confront as  "aboriginal/native/indigenous" don't have huge cities. I really can't tell what WIA thinks about Americans prior to European settlement, although it does sound idealized.

        "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

        by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 07:23:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site