I was discussing capitalism with someone. We also discussed altruism and money. The discussion lost some focus due to differing definitions of these terms. They are used often as if they have clear meanings. I doubt they do.

Capitalism is conventionally associated with business and money. I think it is better understood as simply describing how humans try to maximise their own positions. They do this socially, materially, intellectually, spiritually and any other way they can. That kind of generic definition of capitalism is more useful I think than the specific one used by twentieth century Marxists.

People often conflate capitalism and money as if synonymous. I don't agree with that either. I think they are different. Capitalism is a base thing, virtually animalistic. You could say everything in nature is capitalist. Everything in nature tries to maximise itself. Pack animals respect a kind of capitalism in that the leader owns the space and has authority over the rest. He maximises his position and does so more successfully than the rest. This is a kind of capitalism consistent with Darwin.

Money is a much more sophisticated thing not in any way replicated in non-human nature. It is particularly human. It brings the complicated abstractions of mathematics into empirical reality. Money allows for trade and exchange in ways that would be impossible in nature without a fight. You can walk into a shop and take away high-value goods which have taken considerable effort to produce simply by handing over a piece of paper. That paper is of course loaded with value and agreement. Therein lies the sophistication. It is a clever concept which sometimes goes unappreciated. Money is misunderstood when it is thought of as a thing. It is not a thing, it is an agreement. The piece of paper or plastic or whatever only represents the agreement. It is the agreement that is important. It is the agreement that has psychological value. Money is a very clever idea indeed, one of the cleverest humans have come up with. It is far more elevated than capitalism.

The other expression used in the conversation was altruism. I don't believe altruism exists. It is another one of those words that tries to describe something that has no reality but has linguistic value only. Words like “good” and “right” are other examples. Altruism is considered highly moral. By the same token I don't think morality exists either in the way it is understood. I think the only morality that could be said to exist is that of self-interest. Within that there are different types. There is the primitive type employed by most which contributes little to the common pool. It is characterised by a narrowness of thought and intention. People who commit so called immoral acts are employing this kind of self-interest at its worst. Good self-interest has more to do with enlightenment and intelligence. It serves both the individual and the collective. This is the type to be encouraged. It is sometimes misunderstood as altruism as if it is selfless. This is what is advocated by Christianity. Like this it is a nonsense. It is as impossible for humans to be selfless as it is for them to be headless. It is literally a contradiction in terms. Being selfish is basic to humanity. Like with capitalism there are some who do selfish better than others, types who are more successful at it and contribute more to society.

These points may seem to be only semantic. But I think they are more than that. Such linguistic conventions are deeply sown into psychology. They are inherited from the perceived wisdoms handed down through generations. They often go unexamined. Being woven into the fabric of mindsets they have immediate emotional import which in turn effects how people feel about themselves, about the world and how they behave in it. I think having a clearer understanding of concepts is important to living a better life