Human nature and human economy
One thing I like about liberal philosophy and Marxism is that they dont attempt to control outcomes with moralizing (although individuals in both camps may). Instead, they claim we can look to the natural unfolding of events to know how to behave. They point out the folly of resisting nature instead of working in line with it. The punishment for thwarting nature is to be diminished and to ultimately perish, not because some divinity is offended by a broken law, but just because nature blindly selects winners.
However these two outlooks vary in how they assess nature's ways and how humans fit in. I think Marxism expects a human transformation. We will somehow become better. We'll leave behind our tendency to oppress and exploit and walk into an emancipated new world. States will no longer be needed to protect the rich from the poor, and so will dissolve naturally.
What is liberal philosophy in contrast?
However these two outlooks vary in how they assess nature's ways and how humans fit in. I think Marxism expects a human transformation. We will somehow become better. We'll leave behind our tendency to oppress and exploit and walk into an emancipated new world. States will no longer be needed to protect the rich from the poor, and so will dissolve naturally.
What is liberal philosophy in contrast?
Comments (61)
It starts with recognition of the presence of conflict in the realm of religious views and the chaos and bloodshed that ensues when one religious entity proposes to have the final answers and seeks domination.
On the topic of religion, liberalism says that societies that put a priority on peace and stability will insulate the government from religion.
From the liberal's point of view, Marxists are proposing to provide the same kind of final answers religions try to offer. Though a monument of rational justifications may exist to support Marxism, it remains as unproven as the existence of the average god.
Therefore, a society is more likely to flourish if it rejects utopian visions and faces the world as it is.
Locke believed each person has a natural right to life, liberty, and property. So, yes.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Do Marxists hold that human nature should be molded?
I think it's more that as Marxist projects emerged in the early 20th Century, established power bases threatened to destroy them before they were even out of the revolutionary stage. Purging in Russia and cultural revolution in China were aimed at mangling the systems that had evolved naturally.
I wonder if Marx would agree with Locke: every human is born free. Freedom is the natural state. Those who advocate control carry the burden of justifying.
1700s when the guy was around- 682 million people. Throughout the entire planet. Not even double the current US pop.
The quote is correct. What is left out is those who do not advocate control, because they already do so by other means, carry no burden regarding justification.
Who are you referring to?
I imagine that people on the left generally question attributing features of social systems to human nature to begin with. Let's grant that there is a human nature that's been the same since homo sapiens came about; it's a constant, how can it be used to explain the variations (including historical ones) associated with culture and society, versus nature acting more as a constraint on what is possible for us.
For me (and I'm probably some shoddy flavour of Marxist), human nature is stuff like: we have knees, we have language, we can solve problems, we use tools, we live in communities, we have social rituals associated with sex. Which tools, which communities, which language, which social rituals associated with sex? That's culture. Our propensity to organise ourselves in those ways? That might be nature; we all talk, but we don't all talk in English, even if there is a strong propensity to talk in English the world over. Our capacity to do those things? In some sense, it must be compatible with human nature since we do those things.
I think the leftist suspicion is to resist reading commonalities in social organisation into some underlying human nature as part of our nature's content; eg, like reading the propensity to speak English into human nature due to the world's current propensity to speak it.
To me: what is human nature? The constants associated with humanity. And explaining huge variation in social forms by appealing to something which is the stipulated to be the same on those historical timescales is a fool's game.
So in that regard; it's not so much that "human nature" needs to be "molded" to fit more communitarian, democratic and egalitarian ideas, it's that the social form needs to be changed to be more like that. Hence all that harping on about politics; politics/community organising is how our social forms change, brick by brick.
Anyone who meets stated criteria. I'm saying the quote is presented as if someone who likes law and order, justice, or civilized society and explains it rationally is not listened to all that remains is an ideal freedom. As if a civil society is some obstacle to happiness or something.
The left abandoned structuralism because it seemed to say that we can't reinvent ourselves. Post WW2 and during the Civil Rights movement, reinvention was a necessity.
You would think that post Cold War, the same would be true, but I don't see it. Typical contemporary American political skepticism says that the elites allow progress to pacify the people. Rally all you want, it's only superficial.
Quoting fdrake
With Hegel it was some sort of cosmic consciousness evolving, right? Why do you take up the label "Marxist" if you arent expecting a global revolution? What part of it do you want to carry forward?
Quoting fdrake
I went looking for Marx's view of human nature one time and gave up. It shouldn't be that hard to nail down. That's why I just recently gave up on trying to discover if he was a determinist. I think I need someone a little more forthright to represent the view I'm trying to contrast with liberalism.
Hmm. :grin:
How about the general human tendency to value one's family and community above the rest of humanity? Marxist or socialist societies - whatever you'd want to call it have aimed at deconstructing the family unit in order to move humanity towards a more global, universal outside stripped from family or old cultural ties.
Yes. We are to control our own evolution by molding the systems that shape it. Capitalism is relic of history and should be thrown in the dustbin ASAP according to Marxists. Any honest Marxist will believe in trying to shape human nature away from what it has been.
Why do you think that?
So what is the self-consistent view in opposition? Leftist usually are social liberals if only in word. The contemporary enemy of civil rights is monarchical societies that have been targets of attack by western nations for over a century.
That leaves the economic field as a possible source of opposition, but liberal states have systematically gobbled up the agendas of those who point out that a liberal economy us ultimately at odds with social liberalism.
That leaves a bare shadow of resistance to occupy wall street. I think I just answered my question.
"Reality" is always a good starting point, whether one sets out to remake the bathroom or remake the world.
Ah, but "reality" is a tricky word. Who will enforce the definition?
Like @fdrake I'm probably some sort of shoddy Marxist. Societies are always trying to shape "[I]"human nature"[/I], and to some extent they are successful, for better and for worse, of which there are many examples.
I've found that a reasonably tolerant, reasonably stable, reasonably affluent society produces reasonably good results, for me, at least. An intolerant, unstable, and poor society is likely to produce more of the same. Virtuous cycles and vicious cycles beget more virtuous and vicious cycles.
Billions of people have grown up in societies of both kinds, and unfortunately goodness doesn't always last because competing interests sort out winners and losers. The Post WWII Boom, 1946 to 1973, roughly, was a reasonably good time had by quite a bit of the American society--certainly not all, and not all at the same time. Competing policies brought the boom to an end, and since we have had a less equitable society, over all, which is now quite inequitable. The European Community project has produced very good results for a widening circle of people. How all of that work will pan out in the longer run remains to be seen.
Marxists will also quarrel with the notion that there is such a thing as "human nature". Clearly, and irrefutably, we are a species which manifests various characteristics -- just like Canadian geese, grey wolves, and porpoises do. In that way there is certainly "human nature". We use very complex language, for instance, and we use it a lot. We have a central nervous system with certain characteristics -- emotional, cognitive, and sensory capabilities. More "human nature".
The difficulty arises when statements like "war is inevitable" or "people are naturally selfish" are made. Even "people are naturally good" and "everyone wants peace" are problematic statements. Certainly, war is decidedly more likely when societies devote a great deal of treasure, time, and talent toward preparation for war. If the economy is organized as a free-for-all fight, selfishness makes sense.
People have better experiences, behave better, behave more peacefully, in a society which meets basic human requirements and affords available rich cultural experiences (like food, clothing, shelter, care, and the opportunity and means for self expression).
That "environment strongly influences outcomes" isn't exactly a new revelation.
There was Karl Marx and then there are marxists.
Like their was Jesus and then there are Christians?
Is there something philosophical about your fondness for Marxism? Could you explain what it is?
Isn't it true that marxists start by rejecting the world as it is?
Don't the greatest philosophers?
What I know about the history of cultural criticism (structuralism, et al) would fit on a 3x5 card. I should do better, but...
F. Scott Fitzgerald (died 1940) said: “there are no second acts in American lives.”
Not sure what exactly he was thinking of, but American history is replete with people managing second, third, fourth... acts. Riff raff rising to the top, blue bloods ending up in the gutter, and back again. If structuralism was an itchy pinchy intellectual corset, post structuralism has resulted in worse.
Yeah I guess. But society would not have improved since the days of cavemen if someone didn't. And perhaps. It took a philosopher to adequately explain its follies.
Yes.
Quoting frank
Such demanding questions you ask, and it's a holiday to boot.
Probably more social than philosophical. Above I confessed to being some sort of shoddy marxist. I'm a shoddier philosopher.
Jesus and Karl are both seminal characters; of course we know vastly more about Karl than Jesus, and Jesus has been a thing vastly longer than Karl has. In a way, they both are "eschatologists" in a way -- more Jesus than Karl on that point. But for somebody steeped in Christianity (I was), it's natural to taste the eschatological flavor of the egalitarian classless society, free of the state and corporation. Workers of the world, unite! Or, Repent and prepare for the kingdom of God.
Six of one, a half a dozen of the other.
I found a community of like-minded people among some marxists. They were in earnest, serious, secular people. Some were much more intellectually charged up than others, given different levels of education. Some marxists are widely tolerant, others are very narrowly doctrinaire. I find the latter dreary.
I think it is better to think of Marx as providing a framework than a cookbook.
One of my favorite topics is how we got from Jesus to Christianity. When one looks at the topic as a historical problem rather than the unfolding plan of salvation, a fascinating conundrum is presented. What happened during the "dark gap" between the (probable) fact or Jesus and the definite fact of Christianity?
We don't know, for sure, because it is, after all, a dark gap. How much of what we know about Jesus was compounded after the fact? In some ways, Jesus is a creation of the church the church says He founded. (Heresy, of course.).
The transition from Marx to Marxism happened in "our time" more or less. We saw Karl's ideas taken up by maybe well-meaning but pretty vicious types in Russia, China, and elsewhere. Surely Karl was spinning in his Highgate Cemetery grave.
No. They might not like the world as it is (who does?) but existing methods of production (a vast topic encapsulated in a brief phrase), the existing class and power structures, the culture as it exists -- all that and more -- have to be taken into consideration as "from this point forward".
Marxists look forward to a revolutionary overthrow of the existing capitalist system (a rejection of the world as it is) but they don't engage in a future-other-worldly rejection of the world as it is.
Is this a problem? For marxists, yes. We live in a tension between the world as it is and the way we would like the world to be. The same problem is shared by all world reformers. Religionists and political-economic revolutionaries share this form of suffering.
What are the differences between Marxism and Communism?
Not to push anything but the guy was born in the 1800s. There were one billion people. In the whole world. Today the US has over a third of that alone. In a free and open society that does not rely on war everyone has to be working. How else could you sustain it's people? You can't just empty the land of oil and minerals, the waters of fish, and anything and everything else. There'd be nothing left. Nothing to trade. I get that the government providing basic necessities doesn't completely remove the incentive to work to earn nice things or position but. Yeah.
19th Century liberalism was reformist, it's just that it took over the world. An american marxist would agree that all people are born equal and free, and that the state infringes on our freedom because we accept that control as part of our citizenship.
The part that marxists disagree with, and so continue to seek reform for, is the idea that the state doesn't owe a citizen protection from the vagaries of the market. Right?
Here: Take the recent book "Evicted". It's a documentary volume on the way the market in housing for the poor works in Milwaukee. Landlords accumulate considerable wealth from the many poor people to whom they rent lousy, substandard housing. Crappy neighborhoods are full of crappy housing that goes onto the market through tax auctions and other means. You buy a piece of junk for $12,000, maybe. You fix anything that absolutely has to be fixed -- like not having a furnace of some sort, not having water service. You charge rent at the highest level the market for poor housing will bear, maybe $500 a month. In two years you have paid for the shit pile and for the next few years you earn more profit. During your ownership tenure you tend to fix nothing. Toilet breaks? Blame the tenants and charge them extra to fix it. They don't pay? Evict them, get some other desperate broke family in there. Maybe the toilet got fixed, maybe not.
That's how the bottom of the housing market works. Reform it? No. Do away with it altogether.
They would? News to me.
Any social contract is a tradeoff of benefits and sacrificed self-interests.
That's what I meant earlier, that marxists reject the world we presently inhabit. They're basically looking for a revolution.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Do they believe people are born equal and free? If they start there, it means any state interference has to be justified. People who believe in a social contract think laws are justified by our implicit agreement to live together as a society.
How do marxists imagine laws are justified? I was just looking to understand the varying perspectives. I guess I have little interest in a marxist's critique of any injustice that may exist in a capitalist society because of the depth and breadth of suffering caused by states whose leadership honestly embraced Marxism.
Build a society that works, and then we can discuss the facts on the ground. Until then, the discussion can only be about ideas, right?
Show me one who wants to do so and live as the average person after appointing former capitalists they convinced by logic alone as leadership and then maybe it's something to consider.
Marx said, "A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre." in 1844, in the Communist Manifesto. The "communism" that we think of was in the future. There was social and labor unrest at the time, and various polemics were being batted around. The Communist Manifesto introduction exhorts Communists to openly publish their views and aims, to "meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself".
But when Marx wrote the Manifesto, 1844, there was no more than a handful of communists in the world.
Sometime in the 1880s, Engles was asked to define Marxism. He said, "In four words, 'Marxism is a method'". It's a method of analyzing developments in political economy. It isn't a movement. "Socialism" or "communism" came later on - both for Karl Marx, and for the world. His thinking on instituting changes in the world ("Philosophers have striven to understand the world; the point is to change it.") developed over time.
"Communism" came into being in Russia in 1917. Socialism, and social democracy, were advocated prior to 1917, and sometimes put into practice. Over time, other people in various places, like Antonio Gramsci in Italy during (and against Mussolini) the 1930s contributed importantly to the understanding and practice of socialism/communism.
As I said above, Marx is probably spinning in his grave over what has been done in his name.
If Marxism is a method of analyzing the nature of society, the answer would have to be a resounding "NO". Clearly we are born into established conditions that curtail both our equality and freedom. The son or daughter of an office cleaner does not have the same opportunity as the son or daughter of the billionaire that owns the office. The idea that technically everyone is equal and free to pursue whatever dreams they wish to pursue runs into the implacable brick wall of reality. A few people might get over the brick wall, but most (the vast majority) do not.
Quoting frank
In the existing system (and previously existing conditions) laws are justified on the basis of their serving the needs of the ruling class. Take the law the establishes a meagre minimum wage (or a more generous one). The law wouldn't be there if it didn't serve the needs of the ruling -- employing -- class. The meagre minimum wage is too low to keep a family alive, so it clearly isn't in the interests of the working class.
Sometimes the state is sort of generous because the pressure boiling up from below is dangerous. One aim of the various social welfare programs put in place in the US (and elsewhere) is to pacify the working class--the better to prevent them from revolting. Even so, very conservative parties in the US (southern Democrats, conservative Republicans) opposed social welfare programs in court -- Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Disability insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, etc. have all been opposed in court and legislatures by politicians who would rather not spend a dime on those in need.
It is a bitter realization to come to understand that our system operates pretty much for the benefit of the rich, and the poor are free and equal insofar as they obey.
We need to identify and understand the facts on the ground right now -- the ones that we keep tripping over. We won't get anywhere without doing that. It's dirty work, dealing with the brute facts of bourgeois ways and means, but somebody has to do it.
One of the reasons why the average American worker (blue collar, white collar, high school drop out or Phd) hasn't made more progress towards their own liberation is that they have persisted in thinking we are all free and equal, and that the only reason the poor stay poor is that they are too god damned lazy to make it, and the reason people got ahead was because they were smart and very hard working, and they did it all by themselves.
But that's the exact argument that will be used by conservatives.
Quoting Bitter Crank
But you don't understand. Everyone has an opportunity to do well. You see, some people made better decisions to become doctors and lawyers and entrepreneurs.
Again, exactly the conservative argument.
In so far as Marx proclaimed he was a "materialist", he did so to emphasize that what many take to be a state of nature is actually a social arrangement.
Thus all the rather torturous attempts to explain the meaning behind the meaning of cultural products.
The arguments about whether private property is a necessary institution or not started as a question of how it works. The question is still more interesting than the answer.
The rush to politics as the antidote to academy turned out to be the most academic response of them all.
I just meant that observing the millions upon millions who died as a direct result of Communism doesn't tell you much about Marxism, much less american marxism.
Showing me that the Milwaukee housing market is designed to exploit people who have no other choice than to live in a pile of Wisconsin snow doesn't explain much about the ideals of liberalism. It just indicates that people are fat bastards.
Quoting Bitter Crank
So the concept of freedom needs to be reworked to recognize the inertia of historic social stratification.
That's a fascinating idea!
This seems reasonable - sure, societies and cultures often try to shape people, fair enough. Personally, and you might disagree, but I wouldn't say that capitalism itself is trying to transform human nature.
By the way, shaping and trying to transform human nature may very well be a good thing. I'm not treating it as if it's necessarily a negative yet here. I am however starkly opposed to the vision that Marxism has in mind for human nature.
Seems reasonable insofar as we don't completely abandon some level of personal responsibility if we're evaluating the people within these cultures.
I understand that there is a wide variety of people and cultures out there. One thing that I have noticed and that I asked fdrake was about this notion of family and personal attachment: Namely, across cultures and societies parents seem to grow a special attachment to their children and children to their parents. Maybe after that comes loyalty to the community, and then the state, then the country, etc. etc. This is a barrier to Marxism, which is an internationalist doctrine which seeks to unity humanity as a collective.
Personally, I do believe in a human nature. I believe men are not angels, and despite however advanced we get as a culture we'll just have to deal with that fact that people will think and do bad things. I'm not saying that "humanity is evil" or "fallen" or whatever. I'd also group family attachments in that human nature category, and I think the costs for breaking this one whether it's through raising children collectively or dissolving the trust between families in an attempt to strengthen loyalty to the collective are really quite severe.
So maybe one should support a universal basic income as opposed to trying to go full Marxist and kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
I don't know your actual positions so this point isn't aimed specifically at you, but we can address these issues in ways besides breaking down the fundamentals our society and making radical, coercive changes.
A potential fallacy I see from your last two posts is equating a high school dropout and their potential careers and resulting salaries with that of a PhD's.
Seeming to imply, and I may be mistaken, both are 'unfree' and 'poor'. Someone with a good head on their shoulders can earn a PhD by age 26 or younger. Uncommon but possible. And get into a great field. Possibly earning 100 grand a year or more at this point, as well as whatever they were earning before which if done wisely would pay off any potential student loans and perhaps even much more. They may even be eyed by a major corporation and earn themselves a place earning tenfold and a 'golden parachute' to match. Or perhaps even be smart enough to utilize the stock market and use trends to make themselves stupidly rich.
It comes down to, and this may miss your point entirely. No, a dullard with little more drive than to chase after the next high or pleasure who embraces and embodies the most negative traits of humanity (sloth, wrath) will not and should not 'automatically' be as successful or free as one who has always pushed himself forward to achieve more for himself and those around him. Especially with the latter being restricted to the state of the former. Any such nation or system is doomed to fail as productivity is virtually made foolish and irrelevant while stagnation and indifference becomes the only worthwhile option. Unless you live in a land of or protected by gods and demigods, it will soon cease to exist. Guaranteed.
Oh, that's what you meant. Well, I totally agree.
Well, it shows what we liberals are willing to allow to stand right next to our liberal ideals. We live with major contradictions.
I mean, if we agree every person has a right to property, could that be used to support reorganization of the economy to protect the poor? I'm not asking if it would provide any leverage in the present setting, but maybe at a time of catastrophe and rebuilding.
I would have thought selfishness was the defining neo-liberal notion. Not that selfishness was not present in classical liberalism, but that in neo-liberalism it is elevated to the core virtue.
In the context of this discussion there are two kinds of property: personal property (your house, your car, your bed, your computer...) and business property (rental property, stores, railroads, factories, airlines, etc.). Marxists have no objection to people owning a house, a car, a toaster. We plan on abolishing business property. If you have some business property, like a foundry, a fleet of trucks, a for-profit nursing home, we plan on taking it away from you, and no, you won't be getting a big settlement.
I lived without owning any substantial personal property until I was 50. After I left for college, I rented rooms and apartments for the next 32 years. I never objected to renting -- I liked not being tied down to a particular address, and since I don't drive, moving to be closer to work or social life was facilitated by not owning a house.
I didn't live in deluxe rental housing by any stretch of the imagination, but they were always clean, decent, reasonably safe (minimum fire hazards, sound structure, etc.). I want people to be able to afford clean, decent, sufficiently large (not crowded) housing. People don't have to own it, but it needs to be available.
From whom would people rent if business property were eliminated? They would receive housing from a much expanded public housing department. That 20 story luxury apartment building you own? You'll lose it under the "from each according to his means" proviso, but since you know the building well, presumably, you might be hired in the maintenance department. The building will be added to the pool of housing. Public housing has a bad reputation because quite a few cities allowed what started out to be quality buildings to turn into dumps through minimal maintenance. In cities where the buildings have been maintained, 50 years later they are still in good shape, providing good quality housing.
To each according to their needs... Do you need the 15 room house you occupy by yourself and your mistress? No. You and your mistress should be comfortable in a 1000 square foot house or apartment. Do the two of you need 2 sedans, one SUV, and one convertible? No. You should be able to get alone where you will be living by taking public transit or bicycle. Your vehicles will be recycled. There are 1 billion cars on the world's roads. Obviously unsustainable.
We might need to define our terms here . Plenty of capitalists (myself included) will agree that humans are by and large self-interested, but this is different from "selfish." "Selfish" has a more moral flavor to it in that it implies that someone is overly self-interested or greedy to the point where money or power is all they want. If we go with this definition then I don't agree that capitalism views selfishness as a virtue or a facet of human nature.
Capitalism really just lays down the rules; it doesn't seem a fundamental transformation of the human condition like communism does. I view capitalism as largely amoral.
Quoting Bitter Crank
And there we go. The timeless, consistent, and age old reason why anyone does anything. "We" (I) take this. I do this so you should too. Never fails.
I'll be non biased. Is it terribly different from the "me, me, me" of capitalism and consumerism? Possibly not. Public transport and other services are so strict nowadays in both regulation, oversight, and direct funding it'd be a feat to differentiate already. There are laws that prevent nursing home abuse, the perpetrators and with enough time management can face harsh prison sentences. In a way, a buffer between any government wrongdoing in the eyes of the international community.
The idea of at least there being the possibility to live a luxurious and ostentatious lifestyle through your efforts in life is the proven best motivator. To own that 15 story apartment building or those two SUVs. It's up to the individual to realize after a time there are better ways to spend what you've earned and give back. Not all will. And that's the point of the free will we're given. Some learn. Some don't. Maybe this Marxism may be humanity's saving grace with the sheer number reached. Perhaps it should be tried somewhere. Two questions to ask that I think anyone on the fence about the issue would appreciate any supporter asking. Will citizens be allowed to willingly leave? And will you live as an ordinary citizen with others who you do not know and know nothing about you, including rather especially, that you were for the system beforehand? Enquiring minds would like to know.
Never a good idea.
Capitalism per se does as you say - self interest as opposed to selfishness.
Note that capitalism involves a free market with multiple equal players. That is not what we have in many cases in our glorious new global economy. Neoliberalism developed as liberals become the apologists for oligarchy.
Well, that's pretty much the way it is now in large stretches of the world. I grew up in a very small town--2000 people. Everyone did not know everything about everybody there. Still, I was extremely happy to leave for cities like Boston or Minneapolis, where ordinary citizens mostly don't know anything about each other. After 50 years, I still prefer a certain degree of anonymity.
Best motivator for what? Rapacious life styles?
Good idea! Let's try it in the United States!
For anything... unfortunately that could be one. Even so. Rather. Ideally. For wanting to get out of bed each morning. To be excited to go to work, granted under the premise of earning more than is currently. I won't be biased. Capitalism can make work environments toxic. Hostile. Dog eat dog. Stepping on someone or even outright lying to get ahead even by putting a more qualified or worse nice person down. A culture of crab mentality that permeates every waking moment. Not going to blindly dismiss your point. It can lead to savagery and hate for others, the system, and even life itself.
However. We have laws. Not always followed. Justice. Not always served. By men, anyhow.
It's a work in progress. An experiment some say. Any man made system has its pros and cons I suppose. Eager to discuss further.
I wasn't comparing PhDs with high school dropouts--I was just citing a range, FROM high school dropout TO PhD.
The break-point of difference is really between having a BA degree and not having one. Of course, a person with a PhD in engineering is going to make more than a BA in engineering, but if you compare the performance of 1 million people, those without a BA have quite a bit worse outcomes than people who have a BA (or better).
The reason for that is probably because the BA has become a marker for "capable person". Even if your BA is in Medieval French Poetry (and not mechanical engineering) you have still demonstrated the capacity to perform on a collegiate level for 4 years, meet many deadlines, remain at a task for extended periods of times, work with abstract material, and so on.
Persons who have not completed more than high school are usually (not always) at a major disadvantage for life. Yes, there are outstanding exceptions, but there are more outstanding confirmations of the principle.
100 years ago, having a high school degree was quite exceptional in the US, and back then it was a marker for success. It was, like the BA, an entry ticket into some more demanding jobs. 100 years ago, however, not completing high school wasn't a major problem, because there were many jobs that required mechanical skill (or brawn, or ability to tolerate boredom) which one could develop on-the-job. That's not the case anymore.
Once we settled down, started living together in cities, began accumulating surpluses, and so on -- then luxury and ostentation became a thing. It takes a system of competition, and we have to be trained into that system.
Equal in regard to market share? Revenue? Or do you just mean things ought to be competitive?
I wouldn't agree with this conception of capitalism. It seems way too strict and unrealistic.
It would imply that in one given industry - lets say the restaurant industry - each separate company (McDonalds, BK, Wendys, all the way up to the world class restaurants) would receive both an equal share of the revenue and of the market which just doesn't make sense. That's not how things work in reality.
Yeah. The usual excuse.
I just don't know of any capitalist theorists who would present capitalism this way. I know of many who would argue that some degree of competition is good and necessary for capitalism, but is different from demanding every company have equal market share and equal revenue.
Peter Thiel in "Zero to One" makes an interesting case where he basically said he tried to avoid competition and instead just find a niche that no one else was doing. I think there's a genuine debate to be had over this topic even among capitalists.