Ufostrahlen said:
SnozzleBerry said:
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme...there's really no escaping that.
Well, as long as Capitalism is in play and you allegedly can't escape it, where are you placing yourself in the pyramid? Does it even matter to be at the top or the bottom? Personally, if your fatalistic viewpoint proves to be true and it doesn't matter, I'd place myself on the top. Would be interesting to hear from other ppl, who disagree with me and their reasons.
I would posit that yours sounds like the fatalistic viewpoint...wanting to get over on as many people as possible to secure the greatest possible value for yourself. I've posted about the need for dismantling capitalism and industrialization in numerous threads...I'm not looking for escape, I'm looking for ways to eliminate the inherent coercion/violence of industrial capitalism.
I don't think the best thing to do is place myself on the top...I don't want my existence to be predicated on the subjugation or control of others, that sounds terrible. The other thing is, very few (if any) people get to "place themselves" on this pyramid. Factors of wealth/privilege can be/are well out of the control of many (most?) people. If you start out with large amounts of capital, you are in a position that is markedly different from those without such luxuries.
This goes back to private property. If one person owns thousands of acres of land that they use solely for the purpose of generating more personal wealth, this denies access to the land for people who could actually use it to survive...and the person who "owns" the profit-generating land can only make such a claim of ownership because somewhere along the line, someone declared this particular section of the commons "theirs" for such production. Personally, I don't find that particularly legitimate. And this is, of course, without taking a biocentric look at things and questioning the use of nature as a "resource." I don't personally ascribe to the view that ecosystems were put here for humans to use as they see fit for the production of whatever knick knacks.
Ufostrahlen said:
Here's a good piece on business from an Aya standpoint:
Ron Wheelock said:
My teacher Don Augustin always told me to be a good shaman, he need to be a good healer, he need to be a good husband, he need to be a good father, a good businessman and help your community. @ 2:04
Good for him :lol: Everyone's entitled to their opinion, his certainly isn't authoritative for all ayahuasca users...being a good business person is a survival skill in this landscape. Being good at self-defense/eliminating people is a survival skill that could be of benefit in a number of landscapes (prison, war zones, etc). However, presenting the desire to be good at something, without examining the underpinnings that present being good at that thing as necessary for survival means that you completely miss the context of why it is good for your survival to be good at that thing.
In other words, saying "this person said being a good businessman helps him survive" misses the radical question of "Why?" It's a pretty easy question to answer within a capitalistic framework...being a good salesman means you can acquire resources, much as being a good hunter/forager might mean the same thing in a different framework. The issue is, in this framework, being a good salesman is frequently predicated on destructive processes. So, what might appear as "good" to the individual, may in fact be "bad" on a larger scale.
For example, if I work a job that pays me...it's "good" for my survival. It means that I'm able to secure the things I need to survive, in this paradigm. However, if my job entails facilitating the needs of tech execs and people involved in extractive resource acquisition, my personal "good" fortune of being able to provide for my material well-being is not actually "good" for plenty of other people. In fact, it could be tremendously "bad" for them, even though we have no actual contact.
Remember the question from before...what's the body count of a hospital? The greatest good provided by industrial capitalism is not an inherent/objective good...the question is not (imo) about good or bad, but about the real world consequences of these systems and capitalism is predicated on absurd amounts of death and destruction.
In case anyone forgot, the starting capital for capitalism was created through slavery and genocide...and things really haven't changed all that much. That fact doesn't simply go away because people don't like to hear it.