No need. There's literally no possible meaning of "don't say greed doesn't exist outside of capitalism" (when nobody has claimed anything of the sort) that is a good point rather than a ridiculous strawman, so best skip it.

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

No, but there's a big difference between a societal paradigm that overrides natural human compassion with, well, the exact opposite and then incentivizes the entire population to participate, or a society in which greed is greed rather than some overarching be-all end-all goal.

[–] kakes@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

I agree with this, that capitalism as a philosophy promotes greed as a virtue. No doubt this influences the people that don't stop to question it - which I'm sure is a larger portion of the population than I would like to admit.

However, I also think that greed is something that has always and will always exist in society. Consumerism is a modern invention, by virtue of industrialization allowing us to consume, but people have always wanted more money, more power, more things.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

But most people don't directly benefit from, and are directly involved in, the systems that encourage such behaviour, like the ones at the top are.
Most people are just grinding away selling their labour to survive while convinced by the wealthy-owned media and trillion dollar marketing industrial complex that they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires who just need to consume more to make their lives better.
*Insert "we are not the same" meme here*

[–] kakes@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't disagree, I've spent my whole life firmly in the working class. I'm just saying that there are a lot of people focused on having more, regardless of where they're at.

Like, obviously many people are struggling. I know that. I've been there. I'm not talking about that.

I guess my point is best illustrated by Buddhism's second "Noble Truth": that suffering is caused by desire. This is a pretty decently established philosophy, and didn't spring into existence after the advent of Adam Smith - is what I'm saying.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The point is that the "desire" is entirely artificial and enforced on us as society by those who profit from doing so (and their trillion dollar industries dedicated to this task), not that some people are struggling, because all of us but a tiny miniscule percent of humanity, are struggling (including the non-existent "middle class", another lie there to maintain division in the working class, and the illusion of "aspiration"), we're just made to believe it's normal and part of human nature, when it is anything but.

Whatever "truth" Buddhism has is honestly irrelevant, especially because it predates Adam Smith and the levels of unprecedented social engineering and indoctrination we're subjected to in the name of capitalism by so long, its idea of "desire" is completely detached from yours, but even if it wasn't, all that "truth" is is victim blaming, and shifting responsibility for systemic issues on to individuals, which is a classic tactic employed by those in charge (be it kings, feudal lords, "gods" prophets and whatever other religious figurehead, or capitalists) because it serves them and only them, for us to be pointing fingers at one another (while ignoring literally all of the environmental factors they impose on us) instead of at them.

[–] kakes@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I honestly disagree, I think Buddhism - while not perfect - holds just as much truth then as now.

I agree it's unethical for companies to push us to consume, but it feels like you're implying we have no agency in it. Rejecting consumerism is a great first step on the path to happiness, in my opinion - and isn't limited to the ultra-wealthy by any means.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I never said or even implied we have no agency, but I'm also not deluded enough to think we have free choice under capitalism. We are not only literally indoctrinated from birth and essentially brainwashed our entire lives from that point in to consumerism and "keeping up with the Joneses", but we are also entirely dependant on participation in the system for survival because it is designed that way. You wanting to think you're somehow above it (even if you have learned to identify some of the propaganda and try to avoid it, which is simply impossible to do), or wanting to blame those who aren't "above it" for the system instead of those actively implementing and profiting directly from it, doesn't change that.

Freedom, and specifically freedom of choice, is capitalism's biggest con.