gabor mate - how capitalism makes us sick

[stevehein]

I just found out about this guy....

he sounds very interesting.

I am listening to a talk he gave about how capitalism and our western/American style culture makes us sick or crazy.

here are two links

http://www.radioproject.org/2012/02/gabo...addiction/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaAJQR_9Dg8

they seem to be the same talk.

what he says makes a lot of sense.

[stevehein]

Here is some of what he says...

“Proximal Separation is when a parent is physically there but emotionally unavailable, because they're too stressed and too distracted. That's what my children experienced when they were small because I was a workaholic physician, and this society rewards workaholism.

They tell you what a great guy you are, they reward you for the very things that undermine the health of your family, and for a lot of people it’s not even a question of a choice.” “

So even if you don't abuse kids in this country, if you just follow the parenting practices recommended by the so-called ‘experts’ you’re going to screw up your kids tremendously.”

[MurkScribe]

Actually I've seen this guy on the Zetgeist Movie Trilogy, which is an excellent insightful documentary that you can see all three on you tube, that is. If you have 8 hours to spare from your life. And he talks about the War On Drugs which is a foreign policy based on the assumption that the drugs themselves are physically addictive, therefore they must be kept out of reach and people to be criminally locked up for drug use, but he argues that drugs themselves are not even physically addictive, rather a result of a societal ill, I kind of think that's a stretch, but I can agree that there hypocrisy and a overblown of violent video games, and that they must kept out of the hands out of children at all costs.

[brainiac3397]

(04-27-2015 01:00 PM)MurkScribe Wrote:  Actually I've seen this guy on the Zetgeist Movie Trilogy, which is an excellent insightful documentary that you can see all three on you tube, that is. If you have 8 hours to spare from your life. And he talks about the War On Drugs which is a foreign policy based on the assumption that the drugs themselves are physically addictive, therefore they must be kept out of reach and people to be criminally locked up for drug use, but he argues that drugs themselves are not even physically addictive, rather a result of a societal ill, I kind of think that's a stretch, but I can agree that there hypocrisy and a overblown of violent video games, and that they must kept out of the hands out of children at all costs.

I'd question that statement. Zeitgeist is nothing more than over-hyped and simplified conspiracy theory propaganda. It's as insightful as evidence provided by holocaust deniers.

Secondly, one must understand what capitalism actually is, which is basically a liberal economic system that relies on promoting individual free trade, with as small an involvement of government as possible. Of course theoretically it calls for totally free, but that's a questionable belief since you can't trust people not to do bad for profit.

I find it ironic that a man who flourished under the core principles of capitalism is quite confident in considering capitalism to be the source of sickness/illness. Obviously those standing in line for rations in Soviet Russia were in far better shape da?

There are certainly issues arising from various cultural structures. However you can't simply dismiss capitalism as a whole because it makes people work hard(and it should be noted some people are quite capable of being both family-man and workaholic).

[stevehein]

Murk, thanks for letting me know he was in Zeitgeist. I have seen 2 of them I think but I didn't remember him. I might check them out again. I found them a bit dramatic in some places but also very good in other places. But overall they are worth another look, and I will look for GM.

So far his observations and "analysis" match mine pretty well, so that was encouraging. He is pretty critical of the school system and modern society in general, btw, not just capitalism. He wasn't a fan of communism either from what I can tell. He seems to say they are very similar in how they mess up kids. From my travels it is hard to really say which system messes them up more. Eastern Europe was definitely messed up, but so is England, the USA etc. In general I'd say both systems separate kids from their parents and train them to meet the needs of the state or the powerful/elite.

Some kids need to be away from their parents, though, but still that doesn't mean sent to state controlled schools for much of their life.

He makes a good point that there are two basic ways to screw up kids.

Abuse - which is doing things you shouldn't and neglect, which is not doing things you should. He got that from someone else whose name I forgot so I will try to go back and find it later.

I agree with what he says about following parenting advice. Like time outs for example, now people are realizing that is similar to physical abuse in the actual brain response. (There was a Time magazine article about this by Dan Siegel and someone)

He also said something very interesting about the Christians vs the Indians of North America. He said when the Christians came they were shocked to see the natives picking up their babies and comforting them when they cried and also shocked they didn't hit them!

Anyhow, I am going to do more research about him.

[Sociopath]

Here's some mashup of Rebelnerd and his explanation on capitalism that I always found insightful:

Quote:Capitalism is a hierarchical system. That's not propaganda, it's a basic political definition. Capitalism always has classes, hence, hierarchy. You know that four-quadrant diagram of the four sociopolitical extremes? Libertarianism and anarchism occupy two entirely separate quadrants. The word "anarchy" means literally the opposite of "hierarchy." So no, anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. Just call yourselves libertarians. It sounds just as cool, it's more accurate, and it doesn't confuse people about the true meaning of anarchism. When modern anarchism was first developed, it was just an alternative route to the classless, stateless society envisioned by Marx, but skipping the "dictatorship of the proletariat" stage. Anarchists and capitalists have never been friends, and no amount of Ayn-Randian "logic" or yellow flags will change that. What the capitalists never seem to understand is that anarchism is more than just "legalizing everything." There has to be a strong measure of egalitarianism involved, or society becomes stratified into classes that will wield power over each other, ushering in the end of anarchism and a return to a hierarchical system. Wealth is power; only a blind idiot would deny that. If some people are allowed to accumulate an excessive surplus of wealth or control the means of production, that gives them exploitable leverage over the lower class. Remember, you don't have be in "the government" to have political power. It's not enough to just destroy the state and call it freedom. All forms of authority, both political and economic, must be eliminated. Otherwise you're just trading one boss for another. That's all anarcho-capitalism is, really: anarchy for people who still want to be a boss someday. Capitalist societies, voluntary or not, produce rich people and poor people. Those rich people will have more power than the poor people. Therefore, it's not anarchy. The upper class BECOMES the ruler; that's all there is to it. If you don't think that can happen, you should do some research on America in the late 1800s. And by the way, I didn't make up the fact that capitalism is hierarchical. Just look it up in any basic college poli-sci textbook. Any system with classes is hierarchical, and the whole point of capitalism is that a person is supposed to be able to move between classes. This naturally implies that classes exist. Don't like your boss? Tough shit, if you defy him he'll blacklist you so your family will starve. Oh, you want to live the American Dream and start your own business? Let's see how long that lasts when your old boss's company decides to plop a bigass Wal-Mart right across the street that offers lower prices due to nice cheap sweatshop labor. Or may you'd like to strike instead. Cool, but you'd better bring some Kevlar for when the gun-wielding Pinkerton mercs show up to mow you evil Red bastards down (Ludlow Massacre anyone?). Or how about bypassing all that activist crap and just running for office? Shit, your old boss just bought all the TV stations and refuses to run any of your campaign ads. Sucks for you, but hey, that's just capitalism, right? At least you have the choice of kissing his ass or sleeping in the gutter tonight. Capitalism, given enough time, becomes just as tyrannical as any dictatorship. It's a suicidal system, and I don't mean that as some hippie-ish metaphor to paint on a protest sign. I mean it's literally suicidal. It kills itself. The essential idea of capitalism is that those who have the ingenuity and perseverance to work for their money will make more money. Well, that's only true for one generation. After that the game is rigged. It's like playing a soccer game where the winning team gets to keep their points from the last match and you start with nothing. Since the wealthy are able to pass their wealth on to whoever they like, success is less about hard work than it is about licking the right ass and following the company rules. Capitalism stops being a system of free enterprise and becomes a sort of economic monarchy, where power is passed down by bloodline through the royal families of CEOs and rich investors. When this happens, the individualistic spirit of capitalism has died and an authoritarian aristocracy takes its place. Capitalism will have literally killed itself. A free society must be egalitarian or it just becomes a system where the rich rule the poor, and I don't see how that's any better than a system where the government rules the constituents. They control the means of production, therefore those with less have no choice but to work for them. They become the boss. Doesn't the word "boss" imply a position of power? If you resist they can blacklist you. By labeling you a "troublemaker" and sharing that info with other companies so that nobody will hire you, thereby eliminating your source of money. Just like they used to do ALL THE TIME in the 1800s, and then again during the Red Scares of the 1920s and 1950s. Look, capitalism is loosely based on the Darwinian theory of natural selection, only projected onto economics. Let enough time pass, and a small group of companies (or people or corporations, the little differences really don't mean anything) will become dominant. They don't have to fit into the strict technical legal definition of a corporation to have the same effect on society. Any social entity with excessive wealth or control over resources will do. If having multiple companies use sweatshop labor increases the standard of living, how come it hasn't happened? It's not like only one company is using poor Chinese or Indian laborers in their factories. What you don't seem to understand is that these workers don't fit into your neat little textbook diagrams of supply and demand. They are desperate, dirt-poor, and so completely out of options that their choices are literally to work for the nearest company or die. If their boss tells them to go faster, they go faster. If he says to put up with toxins in the air or lower wages, they do it. If he says they'd better not even think about quitting or he'll make sure every company in the province knows they're a dangerous commie agitator, they'll sit back down at the workbench because they have no choice. The free market IS NOT FREE for them, and it's not some big evil Federal government that's intruding into their lives, its wealthy capitalists who have enough wealth that they don't need to care about their workers so long as they keep working.

[stevehein]

For Brainiac, could you explain more why you say Zeitgeist is conspiracy theory propaganda?

I feel understanding like 6 out of ten let's say, but I would like to understand your position more.

[stevehein]

In reply to what Sociopath posted, I would like to try to explain my thoughts about some labels like capitalist, anarchist, libertarian.

I don't consider myself any of the above. Just a human.

One thing I like about Zeitgeist 3, as I watch it again, is that one of the guys says pretty much exactly the same thing. I will go back and try to find who it was.

For a long time I have considered myself a "world citizen" and not an "American" as I was taught that I was. It actually is starting to be painful to think of myself as an
"American". I guess you could say I am an "ex-American" who still is owned by others called the government employees in the part of the world called the United States.

I believe focusing on these labels divides us.

The post by Sociopath was divisive, in my opinion. As I read it I felt pressured, lectured to, a little shouted at with the capital letters, for example. I started feeling defensive, like as in defending my space or something, like someone was trying to impose or force their ideas into my vagina. haha (if I had a vagina that is)

I felt somewhat the same when I read Brainiac's post. For example when he said "one must understand...".

I don't like people telling me what I "have to do" or "have to understand" etc. I resist it. I can feel my body resisting being controlled by others. It has happened too many times and I am very sensitive to it or even to the slightest signs of it.

But at the same time I want to understand people who I respect enough to make some time to try to understand them and why they believe what they do and why they feel as they do. Thus my question for Brainiac.

But back to Zeitgeist, I like how they focus on what humans need and on the planet's resources. If I had a lot of time and a faster processor I would edit Zeitgeist 3 and cut out parts where the narrator is talking too much and about his plan for new cities of the future, for example. Then I would just leave most of the interviews which were pretty much all very good, in my opinion. So thanks again to Murk for pointing me back to the film. I am getting a lot more out of it this time. I think the last time I started watching number 3 I never even finished. Or maybe I didn't ever see three and just remember Gabor Mate from a previous one. I really am not sure but I definitely saw him in one of them before this week. I feel sad that Brainiac was mocking him because GM has a lot of very important things to say, again in my opinion. What he says fits so well and affirms so much what I have been seeing and writing about in the world. I think we might differ on the use of Ayahuasca though haha. He seems to be a big fan of it. But he has raised my interest in how it might be used on a limited basis in some kind of treatment plan for people with addictions or traumatic, abusive histories.

I also like how clearly he states the connection between society, parenting, abuse, neglect and mental health problems such as addictions, depression and self harm.

[stevehein]

More on capitalism.

Basically I think the problem with capitalism is not really a problem with capitalism. It is a problem with society, with humans, with aggressive people.

I have been to socialst type countries and to one country which considered it self communist, Laos. I wasn't impressed. Laos was one of the only countries where I really wanted to get away from it. The others were Jamaica, Sri Lanka and Morocco.

But I think I was most scared in Laos. Scared by people in police or military uniforms.

I have also been around people who call themselves anarchists in various countries and in general I did not feel comfortable with them. Ironically, I found them to be very controlling. This is understandable since they have felt too controlled themselves. You might think that this would make them more sensitive to not controlling others, but that hasn't always been the case in my experience.

I am going to try to explain why I think that is, even tho it is a side point....

The other day I was talking to someone and she said she was angry at her mother. I said do you feel controlled by her? She said yes.

I was trying to help her distinguish between feeling "angry" and "controlled." The reason I believe that is important is because if u are paying close attention to your feelings and you realize what specific things make you feel what specific feelings, you are more self aware, and with this self awareness there is a higher chance you will be aware when u are doing the same things to someone else.

I will continue this below....

[stevehein]

continued.. (I was afraid I might lose what I was writing.. that has happened before and it is very painful)

So anyhow, I will use the example of feeling pressured or shouted at when someone says "you have to...." or when they type in all caps.

I don't say I feel angry or annoyed. I say I feel pressured, shouted at, controlled for example.

So that makes those connections stronger in my brain. So when I see someone pressuring or controlling or shouting at someone else, my brain makes the connection to the specific words and not to "anger" so much.

One theory, which I agree with, is our feelings represent our needs, in particular our painful or "negative" feelings. So if I feel controlled or pressured, I need to feel free and in control of my own body, mind, thoughts, beliefs etc.

This gets me back to Zeitgeist. They are talking about basic human needs. So that is a step in the right direction, I believe.

And back to capitalism. The capitalist system works pretty well, I'd say getting things done or at organizing resources for a clear goal. I would say the problem is what they called, I think, a value system disorder, in the third Zeitgeist. In other words people value money itself rather than something people need.

We need water for example. We need air. There are different ways to get water and air and food and shelter. Using money to facilitate exchanges of services is what we have come up with all around the world. I haven't been to one country yet that didn't use money. But that doesn't mean it is the best way to facilitate exchanges. It does imply to me that a system for exchanging and organizing things is helpful. But if people value unhealthy, unneeded things, and they keep wanting more and more stuff, ie material things then there is going to be a problem - and it seems that problem will exist in any of the current systems, including anarchy. If people still want to consume unhealthy, unneeded things, like Coke, for example, and they still want gold and diamond jewelry, for example, there will still be problems with sustainability and what is called inequality. (I won't get into what is called inequality now except to say I don't believe all have equal needs or potential)

So thanks for reading all of this haha I will stop.... for now... but I might write more after I try to read more of what SocioP posted.

[stevehein]

Ok I read a little more of SP's post and it made me think of my beliefs about "inequality" more.

I basically like the idea of from those who can to those who. So I can grow food, make shoes or whatever, and I enjoy doing it because I choose to do it. So I grow a lot of food and make a lot of shoes. And I could become "rich" under the capitalist system.

Now I can either use my extra capital/money to help people or I can ignore them.

Let's say we live in my ideal world. I love what I do. And I love the people I am close to, my partner, kids for example. And I care about lots of other people on a level just below love, and I care about even more who I don't even know - like the starving people in Africa kind of thing.

So I am very productive and I can raise a lot of money. Or maybe I am a great singer. I can use my talents to help people or not. It depends on my values and beliefs. And these come mostly from the culture I was born into.

So if I want to use the capitalist system to make a lot of money and I use that money to help people then that is a good thing. But if I use it to become filthy rich and I isolate myself from poorer people and I pay off politicians to write laws that serve my interests, and at the same time I judge others and say things like they are lazy and don't want to work or they are drug addicts or criminals and should be locked up, etc, then that is a "bad" thing.

A lot of this is very similar to what Zeiteist three says, but it doesn't say there is any potential good from capitalism, as far as I remember.

---

SP posted this...

"It's like playing a soccer game where the winning team gets to keep their points from the last match and you start with nothing. "

I agree. It is a lot like that.

That is why I would change how we play sports, for example, basketball. In fact one day I did just that. And I wrote a story about it. So the problem isn't basketball or sports. It is the people playing it. Who follow someone else's rules instead of seeing the pain the rules cause and changing them....

*goes to look for the story....

http://eqi.org/rff.htm

so what I would say is that the problem isn't basketball or capitalism.... it is how we use them, and that depends on our values, beliefs and needs.

[stevehein]

SP's post ends with

" its wealthy capitalists who have enough wealth that they don't need to care about their workers so long as they keep working."

i agree with this to a large degree. i would say wealthy or powerful people instead of capitalists but i agree with the idea is that when more powerful people don't care about the less powerful, there is a type of inequality which i would call unhealthy, unsustainable, unnatural.

but i would ask how do we get people to care about others? and what if wealthy, powerful people in a capitalist system did care about people and try to balance the score, and didn't just pass on their wealth to someone else who was doing nothing or very little to improve life? and they weren't forced to help others but instead they did it voluntarily?

a question i have with a lot of people's ideas for reform or revolution is how do u change things without using force, coercion or violence?

another question regards this from SP's post...

" If some people are allowed to accumulate an excessive surplus of wealth or control.."

but who is going to say they are not "allowed" and who will define what is "excessive"

and how would u stop someone from accumulating wealth without using force or coercion, such as forced taxes?

i am in favor of voluntary action, voluntary relationships. so i judge or evaluate things using that measure or standard.

[brainiac3397]

(04-28-2015 05:40 PM)stevehein Wrote:  For Brainiac, could you explain more why you say Zeitgeist is conspiracy theory propaganda?

I feel understanding like 6 out of ten let's say, but I would like to understand your position more.

As in I'd recommend taking what's said with a grain of salt because it's more so just some media trying to establish a cult-like belief in the arguments presented.

There are far too many factors to take into account. A few hours of a documentary with questionable evidence doesn't inspire confidence in it's validity.

Most conspiracy theories like to assume the government is like some single organic entity. What they fail to realize is that the government is a massively bloated bureaucracy with dozens of agencies, sub-agencies, and a Congress that is massively divided(at least according to specific issues)

I'm more inclined to believe that 9/11 was allowed to happen through purposefully conducted mistakes than believe that the "government" had secret agents running up and down the building putting little bombs into the frame of the building while also managing to procure the necessary resources and funding without ANYBODIES suspicion of what's going on, to train terrorists to fly the planes.

Considering how hard it is to get multiple agencies to work together without fuck ups and conflict, and how hard it is to play with government money because money always leaves a trail, I find it highly unlikely a kingpin was able to somehow magically bring together these groups to ensure a successful operation of destroying American buildings and kill American people.

[stevehein]

ok thanks to braniac for explaining. i think the 911 stuff was in the first zeitgeist or maybe the second.

i think the third one might be less conspiracy sounding. anyhow i found a lot of what the third one said spot on

[Sociopath]

Alot of inequality can be solved by adopting the anarchist system. Capitalism supposedly has "curves" but they don't prevent inequality. Sure you could use taxes but those won't help. Anarchism wouldn't have taxes and also the means of production (i.e. factories) are owned by the workers.

[Missile]

Anarcho-Socialism?

[Sociopath]

(04-29-2015 12:23 PM)Missile Wrote:  Anarcho-Socialism?

Anarcho-socialism is actually a catch-all term for describing basic principals in a set of anarchist systems rather than an individual anarchist system. Anarcho-socialism sees mutual aid as vital to bringing individual freedom. So again, its a principal not a system, it is, however, a principal that guides a set of systems, including anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, collectivist anarchism, mutual anarchism, platformism, inclusive democracy, participism, social ecology, and communalism.