Capitalism

Every year, thousands of students are exposed to the classic textbook definitions of 
different economic systems. Many such systems are often associated with particular 
political systems as well, such as socialism and communism. For better or for worse, 
capitalism seems permanently bonded with democracy. Certainly, with a populace that 
is free in almost every respect, it makes perfect sense to also allocate the juiciest fruits 
upon the sweatiest brows. After all, where is fairness in life if the fruit of your labor is 
instead distributed among those who don't work as hard (governmental taxation 
notwithstanding)?

But still, capitalism. What is it really?

Merriam-Webster defines it as "an economic system characterized by private or 
corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private 
decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined 
mainly by competition in a free market." In other words, the government and other 
potentially interested parties leave you almost completely alone to amass as much 
wealth as you wish.

That sounds wonderful. In fact, just like the concept of Utopia, it actually is a 
wonderful concept. Who can argue against the idea of controlling your own financial 
destiny? Who can find fault in the joy of gathering to one's self the results of individual 
hard work and effort? No one. No one without a dictatorial agenda, that is.

However, there is a problem with capitalism. It's the same problem with Utopia: when 
you introduce human behavior, complete with all its attendant virtues and vicissitudes, 
you end up with something other than the original intention. Thus, capitalism, that 
fair, just and motivational ideal, evolves through time into a new animal; a paradigm 
that corrupts the human spirit, while simultaneously waving the original conceptual 
flag as its justification.

Whoa there, you say! What am I, a communist? A socialist? An anarchist? Or name 
your "ist?"

Not at all. Whether by mere serendipity due to the geographical location of my birth, 
or by deeply considered choice, I infinitely prefer the economic system in place in the 
United States of America. Not because I'm wealthy, you understand; I've lived at what 
is statistically considered the poverty level for eight consecutive years now. And quite 
happily at that, which does seem to hint that happiness is not exclusively attached to 
affluence. I prefer capitalism simply because I wish to be able to choose my own fiscal 
destiny, rather than have it directed by some other individual or group that may or 
may not have my best interests in mind.

Be that as it may, let's leap back onto the original train of thought.

The utopian capitalistic ideal is one where everyone works and enjoys the result of that 
labor. Those wishing to devote many extra hours to their jobs or businesses may reap 
the benefits of those extra hours. Those who wish to not work as hard may 
enjoy less material benefit, but this is often balanced by comparatively less stress in 
one's life. Both of these choices, and any gradations of them, are ours to choose as 
free individuals in a capitalistic system. Bravo!

So what's the problem?

Human nature can lend an odd parameter to existence. One of the inescapably 
negative aspects of our collective and individual selves is the strange knee-jerk desire 
to possess whatever we see. There has been considerable debate on this subject, but 
the detractors of this idea are wasting everyone's time by trying to force their own 
personal philosophies on the public. Marketing, as a college course, social science and 
tool of private business, has conclusively proven the aforementioned negative aspect 
of humanity by extensive and consistent material success. This success has been 
entirely predicated on the consistency of the human propensity to covet.

Why else are there maxims in the marketing industry such as the "rule of seven?" This 
is experience-based wisdom in the advertising game. Running an ad (in print or video 
media) at least five to seven times does not guarantee that those seeing it 
will purchase your product or idea. However, it is a time-tested way to make 
sure those who are inclined to do so will personally explore what you are hawking.

Of course, no individual covets everything, and many individuals have somewhat 
tamed their (natural?) covetous instinct through awareness and due diligence. An 
enormous obstacle to our collective ability to ignore this selfish impulse is the media. 
"The media" is a generic reference to the advertising, "news" and entertainment industries.
Thanks to the efforts of many, most of us are aware of the adversarial yet symbiotic
relationship between the consumer public and the media. Somewhere between the alarmist
grousing of the anti-media activists and the glib arrogance of the media moguls, there
exist some basic truths that none of us should deny.

We want what we see. We seek what we don't have. We desire the carrot that's just 
out of reach. Some have allegedly risen above such compulsions, but a cursory glance 
at your social surroundings will certainly net the conclusion that most are not free from 
these strange fixations. We covet.

It is this unfortunate proclivity that capitalism unintentionally exploits. How 
does this happen?

In a system where individuals are allowed to excel materially way beyond their 
"neighbors," guess what happens to most of those neighbors? They want the same 
success for themselves. Not satisfied to simply attempt the same course of action that 
garnered such wealth for the successful neighbor, the ones who haven't yet attained 
that status will discover their view of their own existence has been darkened by the 
perception that they aren't getting the "most" out of their lives. This may motivate 
the "poorer" neighbors to work harder, thus being more productive, but it also takes
the shine off of what they previously considered precious.

Oh boo hoo, you say? If someone wants something someone else has, that's his or her 
problem, right?

Yes, you can dismiss the phenomenon that way. You can philosophically defend the 
"right" of the wealthier person to retain his or her wealth. Truthfully, I would be 
steadfast there beside you, championing the premise that the wealthy person should 
be able to keep what he or she has, despite how poor his or her neighbors are. 
However, that isn't the point being made here. That objection is a classic deflection of 
the actual argument.

The crux of this matter lies not with some having more than others; it lies with the 
ethos the combination of capitalism and human nature creates.

What it creates is the erosion, and eventual elimination of, a key ingredient to personal 
happiness: contentment.

I didn't go into great detail on this subject at this time, because I wasn't seeking to
decry nor overturn an entire economic system. I merely wanted the reader to be more
aware of the negative effects generated by the sheep-like devotion to material acquisition
and resultant social status.

Of course humans generally enjoy sex, good food, nice things, etc. And certainly, to be 
able to access these things should be considered a blessing, not a curse. The objection 
being raised by this essay is not regarding the simple joy of relishing something 
pleasurable. It's when the pursuit of obtaining what one doesn't possess turns into a 
life-defining ambition that robs one of truly enjoying "the best things in life."

Yes, the best things in life. Most of which truly are simple, free and accessible 
by everyone, regardless of social, financial or spiritual classifications.

The greatest irony in all this?

Most people in a free society already possess that which brings the most 
happiness to human beings; they've just been led by their own bad judgment into 
an unnecessary state of dissatisfaction.