Commodity fetishism

[jupiterswoon]

Why do we teach fairness when the world is inherently unfair? I was thinking about the term by Marx "commidity fetishism" and how the world has different commodities only available in certain areas, and that this inherently creates an unfair set up. The Native Americans did not have metals available to them and so when the Europeans came, they had an unfair advantage. Why do we teach children about fairness and equality when the reality is that fairness is an imaginary concept?

 

[Skarekrow]

Why do we teach fairness when the world is inherently unfair? I was thinking about the term by Marx "commidity fetishism" and how the world has different commodities only available in certain areas, and that this inherently creates an unfair set up. The Native Americans did not have metals available to them and so when the Europeans came, they had an unfair advantage. Why do we teach children about fairness and equality when the reality is that fairness is an imaginary concept?

I teach my son to treat others fairly and equally, but I do not teach him that the world is fair...sometimes you have to lose. Losing is something that has been taken from the youth of this country...now everyone get a trophy even if their sports team is in last place...it's for participation...umhmm. This has set up the youth of the US in particular to view and expect a "trophy" for every situation. You don't get a trophy for participating in life. Yes, the world is unfair...yes, there rarely is no justice. Why are movies about superheros so popular? Because they have the power to enact the justice that is severely lacking in this life and more particularly this time. People yearn for it.
We teach fairness as an attempt to idealize this world. We teach equality as an attempt to create the equality that should exist. Yes, the Native Americans were devastated by the Europeans...and before that the Europeans were devastated by the Romans....and before that it was Persia...the Mongols...etc...etc.
It doesn't make it fair...because it isn't...
As globalism spreads and we move across boarders, the commodities that only certain areas have will diminish...but it is still doubtful that it will level the playing field.
Those with the money will still call the shots, those without will still do the best they can just to survive.
Fairness is not imaginary...it is just rare.

 

[jupiterswoon]

It's funny because sometimes I don't think I appreciate the advantages that I was given, and that I have a tendency to focus on how it's a "dog eat dog" world, sometimes I wish that instead of being taught that everything should be fair, I wish that I had been taught to have more tenacity and more of a Spartan attitude, but it's always been in my nature to want to take care of others, and occasionally I will make sacrifices when I shouldn't.

 

[Kanamori]

Being fair to others is one of the biggest things one can do to be on good terms with them. There is always more to be gained from cooperation, although you may not be the king of the hill, or live to see the fruits. Knowing that I contributed towards uplifting us is what I want.

 

[Skarekrow]

Being fair to others is one of the biggest things one can do to be on good terms with them. There is always more to be gained from cooperation, although you may not be the king of the hill, or live to see the fruits. Knowing that I contributed towards uplifting us is what I want.

I have to disagree based on the history of the world so far...maybe someday I will be proven wrong (I hope so)....but history shows us that wherever a cooperative community comes into being there are always those who take control of said community and either become a crazed leader (Jim Jones, Stalin, Rome, Bush, etc.) or a dictator.
And more often than not they lead that community/country into war/conquering of other peaceful communities/countries, imposing their own will and views.
So yes, as a cooperative group they can do great feats when they work together, but more often those feats are at someone else's expense.
It doesn't mean that I agree that that is how it should be...because I don't...it would be wonderful if everyone could work together and cooperate in a fair manner, but how do you eliminate those that always strive to be on top? I believe that trait to be top dog per say goes back to us as a lesser evolved creature when we had Alpha males and Females...that type "A" personality that once was probably a necessary thing to have in a tribe when we still had to hunt and defend against animals and other tribes.
How do you turn that personality type away from wanting to lead, and instead have them work together without them striving to be on top?
I don't think we are that evolved yet...this mentality goes from the very heights of political power all the way down to parents fighting at children's t-ball games. Look at the world of sales...they are all working together toward a goal, but in their mind, the ultimate goal is to be top salesperson. When we can live in a society where no one goes hungry, and has no want or need for anything....then perhaps, we can all work together in a non-selfish manner. It is doubtful that I will live to see that day.
Although I agree with you on the values and the morality of your statement, I just think we as humans have a long way to go...where is the justice?

 

[JGirl]

i used to tell my children that 'fair' is a word that a kid made up.
they were raised to understand fairness as a subjective concept - after all, fair is only relevant when there is more than one person involved right? and who decides who is right? where is the ultimate impartial judge?

 

[Skarekrow]

i used to tell my children that 'fair' is a word that a kid made up.
they were raised to understand fairness as a subjective concept - after all, fair is only relevant when there is more than one person involved right? and who decides who is right? where is the ultimate impartial judge?

I suppose fair would be when all parties get equal treatment/amounts be it good or bad...but that would also imply that all parties involved are equal as people...should a child get an adult amount of food when it will not all be eaten? Should the drug addict be given money and food stamps when they will not spend it wisely? And like you said, who judges? Fair could exist but only as a theoretical scenario. It still shouldn't stop us from teaching our children though...we try to teach them what would be ideal and hope for the best I think.

 

[Nixie]

I tend to say "when you were born, the words Life Will Be Fair were not stamped on your ass" to the whinners. The truth, the bald truth is pretty evident, life isn't fair. However, the flip side of that coin is not to strive to be less than the person you can be in the face of a difficult life. As a Native American, I am keenly aware of the past and the boundless atrocities done to the People with the advent of the Europeans on this continent. I have been taught about, and firmly believe in, the connection I have with all my People (past, present and future). However, those People who endured the pain of the coming of the white man did so, so that I could be here, that my People could still be here. I can do no less. I say it over and over again, only you know how much your honor is worth. You either live up to the ideals you set for yourself or you don't, nobody is really keeping score but you.

 

[barbad0s]

Perhaps the distinction could be made between teaching fairness as a value, and the indoctrination of the imagined value of material and fleeting gains in our society. Do you think this would help your premise?

I think people are inherently aware of "fairness" even if it isn't taught. I could be wrong but I'm sure I've heard of studies where animals get pissed off when their friend gets more of something than they do. I do believe I've read about monkeys being aware of fairness. You can observe an awareness of fairness even among very young children.

 

[LifesWonderer]

Perhaps the distinction could be made between teaching fairness as a value, and the indoctrination of the imagined value of material and fleeting gains in our society. Do you think this would help your premise?

I think people are inherently aware of "fairness" even if it isn't taught. I could be wrong but I'm sure I've heard of studies where animals get pissed off when their friend gets more of something than they do. I do believe I've read about monkeys being aware of fairness. You can observe an awareness of fairness even among very young children.

Often I have wondered when is 'fairness' really fairness for all; as an empath I have often seen so much 'people as a means to an end' behaviour from individuals then the look of aghast when the favour is returned, rapidly becoming the age old 'that is not fair' notion...irrespective of whatever cultural standard people choose to live by it often seems like the interplay between aggrieved parties, the perpetrators and people seeking to instil more positivity is tentative at best or prone to superiority-inferiority power struggles on the basal level.

Mutual respect and basic courtesy, in my mind should be the cornerstones of commodity exchange as the marker of true societal development, especially in this age when commodity advantages seem to be shrinking as international relations begin to become easier with the advent of advancing technologies and trade market expansions.

 

[SoulPatcher]

Why do we teach fairness when the world is inherently unfair? I was thinking about the term by Marx "commidity fetishism" and how the world has different commodities only available in certain areas, and that this inherently creates an unfair set up. The Native Americans did not have metals available to them and so when the Europeans came, they had an unfair advantage. Why do we teach children about fairness and equality when the reality is that fairness is an imaginary concept?

Most social concepts are abstract and imaginary, but they influence our lives. Somewhat like math .

Fairness, however, as well as so-called "honour", are dangerous concepts because they can be interpreted in any possible way.

A XIX century ethnographer, studying the culture of Papua New Guinea aborigines, asked a local, what is evil and what is good. The answer was, "Evil is when someone takes away my cattle, my wife, burns my hut.
Good is when I do this to someone else."

Sure, it got a bit better in the modern society, but only because we have more leeway. We no longer depend on weather to put food on the table, people don't die from common cold.

But when desperately needed, the standards are often bent to make sure that "fairness" and "honour" work the same way as the moral values of that PNG aborigine.

 

[Cornerstone]

Why do we teach fairness when the world is inherently unfair? I was thinking about the term by Marx "commidity fetishism" and how the world has different commodities only available in certain areas, and that this inherently creates an unfair set up. The Native Americans did not have metals available to them and so when the Europeans came, they had an unfair advantage. Why do we teach children about fairness and equality when the reality is that fairness is an imaginary concept?

I'm not so sure the Native Americans were trying to achieve the same thing as the Europeans.
These wiped out societies held far more than the land desired by the conquerors, they had a totally different way of life and it centered not being separate from all else.

 

[this is only temporary]

But... Native Americans (a term that includes many, many cultures) did have metals? Plenty of them. I was just in a museum and saw an very large exhibit on art and culture from the americas (north and south) which contained numerous very ancient metal objects from the Americas. Gold, silver, other metals...

I think what they didn't have were gunpowder and immunity to smallpox.

Also, based on the exhibit I saw, they created works of art and entire cultures based on warriors and battles and things like that.

 

[sprinkles]

Fairness arises conceptually in consciousness. The world isn't fair, and it also isn't unfair, it has no concept of being either.

We as conscious beings can be fair or unfair when we know that there is an inequity and either rectify it or abuse it. Having a forest grow in this place instead of that place has nothing to do with fairness, but fighting people so they cannot use the forest so that your people have an advantage does.

 

[sprinkles]

I suppose fair would be when all parties get equal treatment/amounts be it good or bad...but that would also imply that all parties involved are equal as people...should a child get an adult amount of food when it will not all be eaten? Should the drug addict be given money and food stamps when they will not spend it wisely? And like you said, who judges? Fair could exist but only as a theoretical scenario. It still shouldn't stop us from teaching our children though...we try to teach them what would be ideal and hope for the best I think.

Like anything else, equality of status requires sense, rather than blind rule following for the sake of rule following, which is just empty and devoid of meaning or purpose.

Symphony for a seabird

You cannot put a big load in a small bag,
nor can you with a short rope,
draw water from a deep well.

Have you not heard how a bird
from the sea was blown inshore
and landed outside the capital of Lu?

The prince ordered a solemn reception,
offered wine to the seabird
in the Sacred precinct,
called for musicians to play
the compositions of Shun,
slaughtered cattle to nourish it.
Dazed with symphonies,
the unhappy seabird died of despair.

How should you treat a bird?
As yourself or as a bird?
Ought not a bird to nest in deep woodland
or fly over meadow and marsh?
Ought it not to swim on river and pond,
feed on eels and fish,
fly in formation with other waterfowl,
and rest in the reeds?

Bad enough for a seabird to be surrounded by men
and frightened by their voices!
That was not enough!
They killed it with music!

Water is for fish, and air for man.
Natures differ, and needs with them.
Hence the wise men of old
did not lay down
one measure for all.

 

[Kanamori]

I have to disagree based on the history of the world so far...maybe someday I will be proven wrong (I hope so)....but history shows us that wherever a cooperative community comes into being there are always those who take control of said community and either become a crazed leader (Jim Jones, Stalin, Rome, Bush, etc.) or a dictator.
And more often than not they lead that community/country into war/conquering of other peaceful communities/countries, imposing their own will and views.
So yes, as a cooperative group they can do great feats when they work together, but more often those feats are at someone else's expense.
It doesn't mean that I agree that that is how it should be...because I don't...it would be wonderful if everyone could work together and cooperate in a fair manner, but how do you eliminate those that always strive to be on top? I believe that trait to be top dog per say goes back to us as a lesser evolved creature when we had Alpha males and Females...that type "A" personality that once was probably a necessary thing to have in a tribe when we still had to hunt and defend against animals and other tribes.
How do you turn that personality type away from wanting to lead, and instead have them work together without them striving to be on top?
I don't think we are that evolved yet...this mentality goes from the very heights of political power all the way down to parents fighting at children's t-ball games. Look at the world of sales...they are all working together toward a goal, but in their mind, the ultimate goal is to be top salesperson. When we can live in a society where no one goes hungry, and has no want or need for anything....then perhaps, we can all work together in a non-selfish manner. It is doubtful that I will live to see that day.
Although I agree with you on the values and the morality of your statement, I just think we as humans have a long way to go...where is the justice?

I wasn't referring to co-operative communities, but to combined effort, rather than effort raiding each other to have more than the next guy. Sharing resources for research, etc. And by collectively further ahead I mean that in the Medieval times, a King would live in what would be pretty terrible conditions by western standards now. There is more to be gained, on the whole, by using resources towards common ends than using those resources fighting each other so they can be the king of the hill. This isn't to say that one should roll over, play dead, or otherwise be totally pacifistic, but rather that conflict should be avoided when possible.

To me, here in the states, the search for material wealth now is really about prestige, as all class systems are. There are countries, even today, where personal material wealth isn't what puts one into higher status in society. The UK is one, although their alternative isn't very nice either. India has the religious/spiritual caste as the highest. In China, one would be looked down upon for being a billionaire. If a society can make the prestige about how much one has helped towards the common good, they would be leaps and bounds ahead of selfish societies that spend resources fighting each other to be the king of the hill. One cannot change that people may try to abuse the gains, but having better medicine is preferable to not having it, and is something that will probably continue to be valuable for many generations in the future. In that way, how much further would we be if people focused on contributing rather than having the most or being the most powerful? (I think the idea that material wealth needs to be totally equal is strange, as long as people are able to lead happy and healthy lives, and reflects those societies' obsessions with material wealth.)

The problems you describe are social, cultural, and not universal across them.

 

[SoulPatcher]

I have to disagree based on the history of the world so far...maybe someday I will be proven wrong (I hope so)....but history shows us that wherever a cooperative community comes into being there are always those who take control of said community and either become a crazed leader (Jim Jones, Stalin, Rome, Bush, etc.) or a dictator.
And more often than not they lead that community/country into war/conquering of other peaceful communities/countries, imposing their own will and views.
So yes, as a cooperative group they can do great feats when they work together, but more often those feats are at someone else's expense.
It doesn't mean that I agree that that is how it should be...because I don't...it would be wonderful if everyone could work together and cooperate in a fair manner, but how do you eliminate those that always strive to be on top? I believe that trait to be top dog per say goes back to us as a lesser evolved creature when we had Alpha males and Females...that type "A" personality that once was probably a necessary thing to have in a tribe when we still had to hunt and defend against animals and other tribes.
How do you turn that personality type away from wanting to lead, and instead have them work together without them striving to be on top?
I don't think we are that evolved yet...this mentality goes from the very heights of political power all the way down to parents fighting at children's t-ball games. Look at the world of sales...they are all working together toward a goal, but in their mind, the ultimate goal is to be top salesperson. When we can live in a society where no one goes hungry, and has no want or need for anything....then perhaps, we can all work together in a non-selfish manner. It is doubtful that I will live to see that day.
Although I agree with you on the values and the morality of your statement, I just think we as humans have a long way to go...where is the justice?

I think I'm going to engage my INTJish side on that one.

You seem to be perceiving this is as a struggle between "good" and "evil". The perspective changes when / if you see things from the top (even if it's a small social group). It's not like there is a well-oiled, perfectly functioning machine that these tyrants want to take over. Normally it's a bunch of rusty cogs and levers, some of which work adequately, some worse. Then the leader is trying to steer it all according to his/her vision, via a huge pyramid of subordinates.

Think about it. How did these people make it to the top? With the help of the others. Today, it's more difficult to rely on military power, so they have to please the majority. By definition, it means they are more capable / intelligent or at least in the upper layer.

So the masses promote their (perceived) best representatives to make important decisions, and in most cases get disappointed. Why is that? Are all these choices done in poor judgement?

 

[Skarekrow]

[MENTION=3224]Kanamori[/MENTION]
I got what you were saying, and I do agree with the general idea of what you wrote...I just don't think mankind has evolved it's society enough yet to honestly work together without some sort of incentive based purely on the good of all. That would be wonderful if that moment comes in my lifetime. Some of the European countries are close to it...like Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, etc., where they have a working Socialized Democracy. [MENTION=9237]SoulPatcher[/MENTION]
I do see it as a struggle between good/evil...that is just how my mind works....I have a huge problem accepting something that I personally do not perceive as "Fair".
That overlaps every part of my life, personal or not...it's something I know shouldn't affect me as it does and yet it is welded into my brain firmly, I just don't know how to look at it without that "fairness" judgement.
And yes, I know many people DID indeed make it to the top with the help of others...but many more made it to the top on the backs of others, and even if they do good once they have made it to the top I still cannot accept the fact that they stepped on others to get there. And then there are those that come from "old money" and feel they are superior to those "below" them in society...this absolutely disgusts me...especially when they get into politics and begin dictating policy.

"So the masses promote their (perceived) best representatives to make important decisions, and in most cases get disappointed. Why is that? Are all these choices done in poor judgement?"​

It seems in this day and age, at least in the US (I see you are in Australia) that the system for picking our representatives is very much broken...it is no longer a Democracy run by the people...when we have a system that truly goes by the counted votes of the people and not the election of other representatives in city and county lines drawn up by those in power to ensure their votes overrule others...then they system could work...but that isn't how it's been for a long long time.


On a strange side-note...you know in 5-6 years time, computers will reach the point to where they will surpass our intelligence...I'm not worried that they will take over the world and kill/enslave mankind, but I do believe that it will spark a new renaissance as they can help mankind solve some of the truly awful problems/issues/illnesses that we haven't been able to solve on our own. If the computing power of a computer supposedly doubles each year, then the next year after it is twice as smart then it will be four times and so on and so forth. Cancer could be cured, quantum mechanics/physics questions could be solved, the possibilities are endless. I honestly believe that we will see something amazing happen to this world.
That's the end of my crazy-talk rant....lol.

 

[SoulPatcher]

I do see it as a struggle between good/evil...that is just how my mind works....I have a huge problem accepting something that I personally do not perceive as "Fair".
That overlaps every part of my life, personal or not...it's something I know shouldn't affect me as it does and yet it is welded into my brain firmly, I just don't know how to look at it without that "fairness" judgement.

I understand. That's why I like you, guys.

But I myself see it as a part of a bigger picture. Maybe I just got older (hopefully not "more cynical"), because in my 20s I was also thinking in terms of good and evil.

It seems in this day and age, at least in the US (I see you are in Australia) that the system for picking our representatives is very much broken...it is no longer a Democracy run by the people...when we have a system that truly goes by the counted votes of the people and not the election of other representatives in city and county lines drawn up by those in power to ensure their votes overrule others...then they system could work...but that isn't how it's been for a long long time.

Well, that's the thing. People have never been satisfied with the government, there are just different levels of dissatisfaction (I think the Aussie government is doing OK but mostly due to the fact that it has less power). BTW, democracy by itself is not a panacea either: when the majority gets its way, there is still minority to be suppressed.

Like any other system: the bigger the country is, the more difficult it is to run.

On a strange side-note...you know in 5-6 years time, computers will reach the point to where they will surpass our intelligence...I'm not worried that they will take over the world and kill/enslave mankind, but I do believe that it will spark a new renaissance as they can help mankind solve some of the truly awful problems/issues/illnesses that we haven't been able to solve on our own. If the computing power of a computer supposedly doubles each year, then the next year after it is twice as smart then it will be four times and so on and so forth. Cancer could be cured, quantum mechanics/physics questions could be solved, the possibilities are endless. I honestly believe that we will see something amazing happen to this world.
That's the end of my crazy-talk rant....lol.

Well, as someone who works in this area (AI specifically), I may have to disappoint you (or the other way around, dunno): even if the computing power grows, the software capable of independent research is still decades away (forget Watson, it's something else). I do agree, however, that an impartial decision maker with an ability to think billions of thoughts in one second would be a huge gift.

Can managerial decisions be delegated to computers? Possibly, but no one will allow that to happen within at least 50 years, even if the technical capabilities will be there. What they can do, however, is run simulations and what-if's based on historic precedents. Like this one: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-microsoft-technion-effort-news.html

 

[Skarekrow]

I understand. That's why I like you, guys.

But I myself see it as a part of a bigger picture. Maybe I just got older (hopefully not "more cynical"), because in my 20s I was also thinking in terms of good and evil.

Well, that's the thing. People have never been satisfied with the government, there are just different levels of dissatisfaction (I think the Aussie government is doing OK but mostly due to the fact that it has less power). BTW, democracy by itself is not a panacea either: when the majority gets its way, there is still minority to be suppressed.

Like any other system: the bigger the country is, the more difficult it is to run.



Well, as someone who works in this area (AI specifically), I may have to disappoint you (or the other way around, dunno): even if the computing power grows, the software capable of independent research is still decades away (forget Watson, it's something else). I do agree, however, that an impartial decision maker with an ability to think billions of thoughts in one second would be a huge gift.

Can managerial decisions be delegated to computers? Possibly, but no one will allow that to happen within at least 50 years, even if the technical capabilities will be there. What they can do, however, is run simulations and what-if's based on historic precedents. Like this one: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-microsoft-technion-effort-news.html

Believe it or not, I have calmed down since my twenties in terms of vocalizing and letting my fairness level effect me...perhaps I have grown apathetic...certainly have been more realistic about my power to change anything as one person. IDK, life has beat me down somewhat...I know I am more cynical.
And yes, I am very aware of the minority being stepped on...what to do?
You just have to except that it is shit...and try to work with the power you have, which isn't much.
And IDK, I feel somehow that as the computing power grows, the problems with software will work itself out...will the computers reach a point to write it's own software? Will there be a Zero point where self-awareness is reached? I know that is a bit sci-fi-ish, but why not? We still to this day do not understand how the neurons in the human mind work...is our consciousness because of our wiring or is it because we have a "soul"? I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens in the next decade or so. Anyhow, I don't know what would happen if we had at our disposal a computer that was able to tell you how to solve world hunger ( step one...), or what would happen to the population if the major diseases of the world were cured? That is why I say it will be a "renaissance", because we as humans are going to either blatantly ignore the recommendations given to us and continue to destroy ourselves and our planet or the way we think will have to drastically change, and then, maybe, perhaps, we will reach a point to where mankind CAN actually work together as one species without trying to gain the most power via the destruction of his neighbor.