Capitalism and the Primordial nature of man, and Capitalism Vs. Socialism

I remember hearing of a group of infants who had been left alone in the woods by their evil mother who felt she was unfit to care for them. Surprisingly enough the children survived thanks to a pack of wolves that cared for them as their own (how very cliché). When they were found years later by some people, aside from their physical appearance, they weren’t what most would call human. They were wolves at heart, for that was all they knew.
One could say the same for any other person; we only know what we are taught, and from that we create our greater meaning, so the claim that capitalism is “the manifest form of human nature” is not at all true. It would be more appropriate to say that man is destined to be alienated because what we are at the root of it all, is a blank slate. But of course there is a degree at which de-alienation becomes a paradox, since we have technically been alienated from our true selves for most of our lives, the de-alienated self that we revert to is alienated, unless of course we become comatose beings that indulge in nothing but the most basic, proprioceptive sensations.
Is this not what the stereotypical man does; does the average American not thrive on the most base of human sensations? I personally believe that your average person does little else than perform the most basic acts necessary to satisfy their most primal of needs. In our society, with the dawn of technology, we have transcended the need to use our brains as tools in survival. Our brains can now perform higher levels of thought that previously held a vestigial purpose; a crude attachment to the material world is what I define as being disembodied. To take advantage of the higher functions of our brain and transcend the physical plane that once firmly bound us to this world is my definition of de-alienation.
De-alienated people, are no longer just surviving, they find meaning in other things. The vast majority of Americans still cling to these basic functions, deriving all worldly meaning from acting them out. We now compete in similarly different ways; we commodify our existence and change ourselves accordingly to the beliefs of society. Just like a pack of wolves people have an inherent need to fit in and be part of a group, a reminiscence of our primal days. But still capitalism isn’t even a manifestation of the primordial nature of man. Capitalism is a system that takes advantage of and nurtures these primal urges, pushing man further and further away from his newly achieved ability to think and find higher meaning/importance in the world around him.
We learned early on that the capitalists and big corporations didn’t get to where they are today by working hard or being kind and considerate of those around them. At the roots of every tree lye the rotting shells of the tiny seeds that sucked the soil dry of it’s natural resources. Only through primitive accumulation of capital did they get to be the filthy rich people that they are today. They abused natural resources and enslaved people, selling their primitive collateral for capital that they could then use to make even more money, soughing the seeds of materialism and class difference in our young culture. People, in hopes of emulating their wealthy slave owners of ancestors, strive to become wealthy while living the myth, passed down to us generation by generation, that with enough hard work and sacrifice, we too can become affluent. Yet this is the same attitude that the capitalists want us to have because without it they couldn’t as easily exploit us.


Another thought:
While I do agree with Marx’s ideas I think that there is no absolute, black or white to it all. Capitalism is an evil system based on consumerism, the accumulation of capital, the exploitation of the prolitariate, and human greed. I believe that it is doomed to fail. Why it hasn’t happened yet is because people have found comfort in the mind dulling redundancy of the material world and they are unwilling to give it up despite how evil and stupid it may be to continue living in it. It’s just like smoking, no matter how many times people hear it’s bad for them they continue doing it. Like tobacco, the material world and the work-spend-get bored cycle is addictive and equally unsustainable: smoking will kill you and you will eventually be unsatisfied by the shit you buy.
But aren’t all systems, like Capitalism, doomed to fail? Marx’s concept of base and superstructure stated that the basic structure of the economy determines how everything in that society will go. In a capitalist society based on competition and accumulation of capital everyone is bound to be competitive and cut-throat, with the exception of the few individuals that will supposedly bring on the apocolypse of Capitalism. Marx’s dialectic would have shown Capitalism 50 years ago to be the thesis, or the idyllic version of the structure. Then, because Capitalism is essentially a free-for-all where everyone tries to take as much as possible, the anti-thesis will develop and there will be a small but still significant disapproval of the system itself. Lastly, after the people can no longer deal with the booms and crashes there will be the aufhebung/ revolution that will start a new world order with a different framework, but still one that maintains ideas of the old system of Capitalism.
This is what seems questionable to me: if a new system, let’s say socialism, is started, there are bound to be a few people who disagree with it or are ambivalent about it. Those people are still around even after the downfall of Capitalism, then regardless of the economic system they are bound to have some influence on the economy or other people. If you have such a presence in a socialist society it doesn’t seem unthinkable that it could easily revert back to Capitalism.
One reason I doubt Socialism is that there has yet to be an effective one. This is not to say that I think Capitalism is better, because I don’t, but Socialism seems to be an unrealistic ideal. I’m no expert on government, but there have been far more intellectual people who have attempted to create socialist systems and in trying to create equality the system becomes a dictatorship. Were we all las tabulas rasas or like minded individuals, socialism would make more sense. But since we are all slightly different people with different opinions it remains idealistic system to me.
Another argument against Capitalism is that it stifles creativity and intelligence. Just think about it for a second, in a system that promotes equality, what room is there for originality and difference. Let’s say an exceptionally bright or creative individual is born into such a society, should they be treated like every other kid? At that point the line would have been set so low, thanks retardation, that kids as bright as this one would not be in a nurturing enough environment. What if the society as a whole decided to kill off retarded kids or other children with low comprehension to maintain a high but equal standard of education? I don’t know what to think about either of those scenarios; while I do value education and intellect I believe that an unequal society creates imbalances that result in a power shift.
But what’s so wrong about equality; I think that is the fundamental question that separates Capitalists and Socialists. If we make all equal like the socialists would suggest then society as we know it would be made up of a bunch of un-motivated and poorly educated people. As I stated earlier we are nothing but what we are taught to be. You could be the brightest child in the world, but if your raised by wolves you’re going to act like a wolf. If we maintain the system of Capitalism we will remain in a rigor based society with major differences in class. From this point of view Capitalism wins because I still value education and intellect. That’s probably just my Capitalistic ego talking, but because I am so torn between what I want and what I think would benefit humanity as a whole I can’t rightfully express any clear position on what to do about it.
Of course, these are just generalizations; I am trying to learn more and more about these systems as I go along. I know that most socialists wouldn't force stupidity on bright children, especially since alienation and thoughtless receptivity are things that many socialists claim to be wrong with Capitalism. If anything, they would probably give their kids better educations to make them less accepting of the media. Socialist elements do work in other countries; take Sweden for example, it's socio democratic system with socialized medicine. Many visitors of the country have asked, where are all the homeless people, where are all the lunatics, the killers. Sweden is rumored to have a strong foundation of family values carried generation to generation. They have substantially less homeless people than we do because people have more days paid vacation than there are days in a year, this is not to say that they have an unemployment problem as a result. The people are willing to work in order to maintain their way of life. But even Sweden has it's flaws. Despite it's many positive attributes, Sweden was also one of the first countries to develop a eugenics program in hopes of sterilizing the mentally ill. In 1998 it was reported that the Swedish government had lobotomized about 4500 people, in some cases, without the consent of their families (David Dieteman PhD, Sweden and the myth of Benevolent Socialism). This, to me, seems just as fascist, if not more so, than U.S. government.
One commonality between several Socialist countries is the position of race in the development of their government. Cuba, for example, became what it is today through slavery just like the U.S.. Even the benevolent Sweden took part in the slave trade during the 17th century. If slavery and corruption is at the roots of an economy, the apples that fall from the tree are bound to be corrupt.
I decided to do a little research on Anarcho-syndicalism and found it to be more or less a people run version of capitalism. Anarcho-Primitivism, another form of Anarchism, is based on de-industrialization; anarcho primitivists would argue that hunter gatherers have traded based on need and not trade value, which to them sets the grounds for a less materialist more community oriented society.