Yāknow, I have read all the way through this, er, thread* reminds me of something I recently read somewhere, about how sharing is actually more robust a survival trait than selfishness for species. The anecdotal example of how one type of canine decided to cooperate with humans instead of competing, and now look at how well dogs are doing in comparison to wolves. Or humans to chimpanzees. Things like that.
It also is pretty telling that society as a whole does better when its individual members cooperate. I mean, if they didnāt, there wouldnāt be a society to begin with, right? And yet, some competition is healthy, as it encourages improvements. And so a healthy society strikes a balance between rewarding those who move things forward, and spreading the gains around to all members.
And thatās what the problem is here. Karl Marx was actually a big fan of capitalism as a step-stone to a more fair society, as it did sweep away the much less fair systems of aristocracy and theocracy, where power was claimed to come from an unseen god, or because Great Grandpa was a murderous bully who took over. Itās just that as a system, Capitalism lacks a way to keep itself in check, to tell someone āokay, thatās enough, now let the others play alongā.
I am more of a fan of Socialism, which Marx himself hated, because it keeps capitalism from destroying itself. Socialism basically tries to use elected governments to put caps on capitalism, to keep the munchkin players of Monopoly in check, because the worst thing that can happen in real life is for someone to win, to sit on their pile of goodies and stop everyone else from even entering the game. Or using their winnings to make sure the rules never apply to them any more.
So yeah, distribute the wealth. This isnāt some Prisonerās Dilemma game, because those games are one-offs, cases of grab the winnings and not deal with the consequences.
*I wonāt call it a discussion, and it isnāt really that much of an argument either. Itās aā¦ thread.
