How does Communism deal with peoples' inherent laziness and selfishness?

[MMIKEYJ]

Okay Im not a communist. But Im a tolerant person and am happy to discuss differences.

I think that its fair to say that in ANY economic system, in a perfect world, anything would probably work, be it capitalism, socialism, communism, etc..

However theres always going to be that asshole who robs, steals, cheats, etc.

My question is this. In a system where one produces according to his means and takes according to his needs, how do you prevent people from not living up to their ability and basically suck off the work of others?

In early America in Jamestown in 1607, the colonists had this sort of setup. But the colony almost died. It didnt produce enough food to feed itself because people were being lazy and letting others do the work for them.

When Captain John Smith came in and changed it it thrived. He basically said if you dont work, you dont eat. And everybody got to keep what they produced and could trade or sell any surplus for their own benefit.

This greed factor motivated the colony to succeed.

[Dermezel]

It doesn't need to. Democratic oversight keeps selfishness in check. And most production is based on machinery, not human labor.

Now my question is, how does capitalism keep that in check? I mean, the latest crisis shows it isn't that great for preventing "selfish" behavior. As for laziness, maybe it does for the poor, but for the rich? How do you prevent laziness for someone who was born into a rich family, with millions or billions of dollars under capitalism? Say someone is born with a billion dollars- they don't have to work at all. They can even hire someone or a group of experts to manage their funds.

And last, what does it matter to you if people are lazy? Selfishness is wrong for moralistic reasons, but laziness? Some guy is lazy- so what? Does that keep you up at night or something?

[Dermezel]

However theres always going to be that asshole who robs, steals, cheats, etc.



Well then you arrest him. I mean that isn't exactly a mystery.

Also you are acting like that doesn't happen under capitalism. What about these corporations and banks that steal billions of dollars, and murder millions every year with their BS wars and violating safety regulated? You do know that about ten times as many people die each year from violations of safety regulations then from street crimes like murder right?

Your question is kind of like a Monarchist asking how a Republic keeps crime in check- never mind that the biggest criminal might be the King himself.

[MMIKEYJ]

Well then you arrest him. I mean that isn't exactly a mystery.
Yeah those sort of people you can arrest.. But how do you arrest somebody for being lazy?

[Dermezel]

Yeah those sort of people you can arrest.. But how do you arrest somebody for being lazy?

Why would you?

[Left-Reasoning]

My question is this. In a system where one produces according to his means and takes according to his needs, how do you prevent people from not living up to their ability and basically suck off the work of others?

"Work will become a pleasure... laziness will be unknown." - Goebbles

"Can you doubt that even the hardest toil would become a pleasure...in an atmosphere of brotherhood and respect for labor?" - Berkman

We can visualize the time when labor will have become a pleasant exercise, a joyous application of physical effort to the needs of the world." - Berkman

[Invincible Summer]

Okay Im not a communist. But Im a tolerant person and am happy to discuss differences.

I think that its fair to say that in ANY economic system, in a perfect world, anything would probably work, be it capitalism, socialism, communism, etc..

However theres always going to be that asshole who robs, steals, cheats, etc.
The social motivations to rob and steal are primarily created within scarcity conditions and socio-economic disparity - capitalism.


My question is this. In a system where one produces according to his means and takes according to his needs, how do you prevent people from not living up to their ability and basically suck off the work of others?
I don't think this is as big of a problem as people make it out to be, especially if society is centered around production, not survival (post-scarcity vs scarcity)


In early America in Jamestown in 1607, the colonists had this sort of setup. But the colony almost died. It didnt produce enough food to feed itself because people were being lazy and letting others do the work for them.

When Captain John Smith came in and changed it it thrived. He basically said if you dont work, you dont eat. And everybody got to keep what they produced and could trade or sell any surplus for their own benefit.

This greed factor motivated the colony to succeed.
1) I don't see how this is "greed" as much as an incentive caused by punishment (not eating).
2) Again, this is based on a scarcity scenario where the settlement likely was not developed enough to excuse laziness. Today we would hardly have that problem with the technological advancements we have (mainly in developed nations, but they could easily be transferred to non-developed areas but capitalism doesn't see profit in it)

[Dermezel]

"Work will become a pleasure... laziness will be unknown." - Goebbles


Why are you quoting a Nazi?

[MMIKEYJ]

The social motivations to rob and steal are primarily created within scarcity conditions and socio-economic disparity - capitalism.


I don't think this is as big of a problem as people make it out to be, especially if society is centered around production, not survival (post-scarcity vs scarcity)


1) I don't see how this is "greed" as much as an incentive caused by punishment (not eating).
2) Again, this is based on a scarcity scenario where the settlement likely was not developed enough to excuse laziness. Today we would hardly have that problem with the technological advancements we have (mainly in developed nations, but they could easily be transferred to non-developed areas but capitalism doesn't see profit in it)

But this scenario happened in modern times as well. When you look at the collectivized farming in the USSR.. The farmers who worked the main fields were also given individual plots of there own.. where they could farm and keep anything they produced.. Their little gardens were much more productful and successful than the big collectivized farms, because they had an incentive to make their plots work.. ANything they grew they would barter or sell for their own personal gain.

[MMIKEYJ]

Why would you?
well if somebody keeps taking corn because they need it, yet isnt doing their share of the work to contribute to the corn supply eventually you get a situation where theres not enough food to feed the people.

[Invincible Summer]

But this scenario happened in modern times as well. When you look at the collectivized farming in the USSR..

I never said that the USSR was post-scarcity. Besides, again, when society is organized around production for the good of society, the benefits for individuals to not be lazy are well... so everyone doesn't starve. If 10 people wanted to be lazy and not operate the machinery to make bread, then the community would be lacking in bread, and everyone would be pissed off at them and tell them to work. I don't get why you're assuming everyone would just let it slide

[Bud Struggle]

But this scenario happened in modern times as well. When you look at the collectivized farming in the USSR.. The farmers who worked the main fields were also given individual plots of there own.. where they could farm and keep anything they produced.. Their little gardens were much more productful and successful than the big collectivized farms, because they had an incentive to make their plots work.. ANything they grew they would barter or sell for their own personal gain.

I think in a correct Communist society it is logical that all people would WANT to work their 60 or so hours a week for the good of their fellow Comrades. Those that didn't surely lack the proper understanding of how under Communism we all must do are part to help one another.. I'm sure representatives of the People's Will could arrange some sort of education camp that would gently "explain" to the non compliant Comrade his/her mistakes and help guide them to the point to where their actions were in complete accord with the wishes of the People. The camps could be at the leasure of the uneducated Comrades. One could stay ther 20-30 years if needed.

And if the Comrades don't comply after re-education? Well they will prove themselves traitors to the desires of the People.

"FEWER but BETTER Communists" may prove to be a valuable axiom for our brave new world.

[Left-Reasoning]

Why are you quoting a Nazi?

Because I was comparing him to the communists, specifically Berkman.

[Bud Struggle]

Because I was comparing him to the communists, specifically Berkman.

Work will set you free.

[vyborg]

There is a book of Lafargue about this topic (you can find it here http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/ch01.htm)

enjoy!!

[Zanthorus]

Because I was comparing him to the communists, specifically Berkman.

Oh what a powerful and insightful critique. Throw up some quote from Nazi that was probably just used as populistic propaganda like most things the Nazi's said and then compare it to something said by a communist and let everyone draw the influence that communists are all totalitarian maniacs. Newsflash: It's already been tried by every foaming at the mouth right-wing television presenter from here to eternity. It's doubly insane because Berkman was a staunch critic of the USSR and it's supression of political dissent.

[Dr Mindbender]

*Yawn* threads like this have been posted so many times it is almost trolling, but i'll bite.


Okay Im not a communist. But Im a tolerant person and am happy to discuss differences.

I think that its fair to say that in ANY economic system, in a perfect world, anything would probably work, be it capitalism, socialism, communism, etc..

However theres always going to be that asshole who robs, steals, cheats, etc.
Stealing is only applicable in scarcity conditioning. Or more specifically, the price system.

Why would you steal something if it is already readilly and freely available at point of demand? You would'nt need to. You can only watch one TV or drive one car. The removal of scarcity removes the motive to steal.




My question is this. In a system where one produces according to his means and takes according to his needs, how do you prevent people from not living up to their ability and basically suck off the work of others?
The problem with capitalism is not only its misappropriation of goods but also the misappropriation of labour. One of the main reasons why workers dont work hard as they can is because they are unhappy in their jobs. This is an extraodinarilly wasteful state of affairs. If you allocate jobs on the basis of peoples skills and interests as opposed to the dictation of the hand of the market then this is many times more efficient and it renders the need to discipline workers for ineptitude irrelevant.




When Captain John Smith came in and changed it it thrived. He basically said if you dont work, you dont eat.
I think communism/technocracy would operate on a similar principle. The difference being it wouldnt require the brutal hand of the whipmaster because abundancy planning doesnt co-erce people into alienating roles that make their lives miserable.



This greed factor motivated the colony to succeed.
I'm sure the vast majority of colonists lived comparatively miserably.

Doubtlessly it helped the colonial bourgeoisie but that doesnt make it the best factor.

[LeftSideDown]

"Work will become a pleasure... laziness will be unknown." - Goebbles

"Can you doubt that even the hardest toil would become a pleasure...in an atmosphere of brotherhood and respect for labor?" - Berkman

We can visualize the time when labor will have become a pleasant exercise, a joyous application of physical effort to the needs of the world." - Berkman

Sorry. There is such a thing as disutility of labor and communism will not, nay cannot, eliminate it.

[Dermezel]

well if somebody keeps taking corn because they need it, yet isnt doing their share of the work to contribute to the corn supply eventually you get a situation where theres not enough food to feed the people.


Do you? I mean we do have a surplus. There are disabled people. What do you suggest, we arrest anyone who is disabled or has a chemical imbalance?

We don't need everyone to work, especially with machinery and rational planning of a centralized economy- just enough. And compared to what we have now that could be way less of the population working way less hours. We may even get enough volunteers who do it for status, or people who do it for slightly more pay. You don't know.

[MMIKEYJ]

*Yawn* threads like this have been posted so many times it is almost trolling, but i'll bite.

Yeah Im sure you do.. When Im over at Ron Paul forums sometimes I feel the same way when people ask similar questions about libertarianism.. but in this case, its sincere curiosity... I appreciate everyones' input.

[Drace]

The goal of communism is not egalitarianism, but rather the worker ownership over the means of production.

Upon the arrival of this, society would be organized through worker councils, direct democracy and voluntary organization. How society seeks to organize from here, is its own problem.

The distinction is important. Merely saying that communism = where everyone works together and produces for each other is a idealist and Utopian point of view which I view as a strawman. I don't buy the "Work will become a pleasure!". Society could not be forced into such means of productions. We could not dictate how society will run upon the destruction of capitalism and the State.

[Dermezel]

The goal of communism is not egalitarianism, but rather the worker ownership over the means of production.


It isn't even that. It is the betterment of mankind in general. It is Communal or Societal control of the means of production. The creation of a society that is purely utilitarian. Where people are treated decently for moral reasons. Eventually there will be no workers under Communism because technology will evolve to the point where none have to work.

As for work- that is the opposite of what we want. The goal is to reduce or eliminate work- not increase. The goal is not to make people work harder.

If you want to make people work harder then promote capitalism.

Like I said, you want lots of free time, good housing, video games, free chicks (or guys, or chicks still, depending right?), good drugs, world peace, sushi every day, etc. All built on robotic labor- then go Communist/Socialist.

If you want to work long-hard hours, making dirt wages and eating oatmeal under a Monastic/Puritanical lifestyle, stick with the bourgeoisie.

They will make sure they get the former while you get the latter. The Ruling Classes will guarantee you a hard day's work. Either that or just a hard day.

The Left promises a free ride (oh how horrible!) and the Right promises a hard day. Literally, use your smarts and then decide.

[Bud Struggle]

Like I said, you want lots of free time, good housing, video games, free chicks (or guys, or chicks still, depending right?), good drugs, world peace, sushi every day, etc. All built on robotic labor- then go Communist/Socialist.

I don't think so at all. I think you'll have to work as hard if not harder under Communism than you do under Capitalism. I think there will still be laws and rules of behavior. There will be problems and frustrations from getting things done to getting a date. And while there won't be any wars there still will be arguments and disagreements and people getting pissed off when they can't get their way. There will be bullies and idiots just like there are now.

The difference is that you will be free men and women instead of slaves to an institutional impersonal economic system.

[Die Rote Fahne]

If human nature involved selfishness and laziness to the extent you think, we'd be extinct.

Don't confuse laziness with lack of motivation, and selfishness with survival instinct.

[Dermezel]

Well see what we do is deprive them of resources. First we kick them out of their house. Take away food, water and medicine. Then treat them like dirty animals. Criminalize being homeless, and make it illegal for people to feed them.

They either die off or pull themselves up by their boot straps.

[Obrero Rebelde]

Well see what we do is deprive them of resources. First we kick them out of their house. Take away food, water and medicine. Then treat them like dirty animals. Criminalize being homeless, and make it illegal for people to feed them.

They either die off or pull themselves up by their boot straps.

How do we know if a person is really just lazy or maybe they're suffering from depression?

If we summarily deprive them of resources so that they die, we could be causing the death of a person who is suffering from severe clinical depression and who thus cannot be motivated to do a goddamn thing but sleep, sleep, sleep. Haven't any of you had to cope with clinical depression for gawdsakes?

I would not want to live in a society that claims to be all the wonderful things ascribed to socialism only to find out I'm even more oppressed as a human being than I was under capitalism.

There are some things in the U.S. experience that are worthy of saving and utilizing under socialism. You know? Stuff like "checks and balances."

Hell, under socialism described this way, the gross violations of the human and civil rights of the elderly gay couple in Sonoma County, California, would be commonplace. The state officials could separate me from my partner of 20 years, lock us away in two entirely different nursing home facilities far from each other, sell off our lives' accumulation of personal effects and memorabilia, and force us to die separated from one another.

Pol Pot never looked so good!

[Dr Mindbender]

Yeah Im sure you do.. When Im over at Ron Paul forums sometimes I feel the same way when people ask similar questions about libertarianism.. but in this case, its sincere curiosity... I appreciate everyones' input.

Are you able to challenge my points though, or do you agree with everything i said and you're now ready to be unrestricted?

Wow that was a dissapointing debate.

[Obrero Rebelde]

Hey, Mikey, was that you in Pleasanton the other day giving the Tea Baggers a bad time?

[Dermezel]

Originally Posted by Dermezel http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1729210#post1729210)
Well see what we do is deprive them of resources. First we kick them out of their house. Take away food, water and medicine. Then treat them like dirty animals. Criminalize being homeless, and make it illegal for people to feed them.

They either die off or pull themselves up by their boot straps.

How do we know if a person is really just lazy or maybe they're suffering from depression?

If we summarily deprive them of resources so that they die, we could be causing the death of a person who is suffering from severe clinical depression and who thus cannot be motivated to do a goddamn thing but sleep, sleep, sleep. Haven't any of you had to cope with clinical depression for gawdsakes?

I would not want to live in a society that claims to be all the wonderful things ascribed to socialism only to find out I'm even more oppressed as a human being than I was under capitalism.

There are some things in the U.S. experience that are worthy of saving and utilizing under socialism. You know? Stuff like "checks and balances."

Hell, under socialism described this way, the gross violations of the human and civil rights of the elderly gay couple in Sonoma County, California, would be commonplace. The state officials could separate me from my partner of 20 years, lock us away in two entirely different nursing home facilities far from each other, sell off our lives' accumulation of personal effects and memorabilia, and force us to die separated from one another.

Pol Pot never looked so good!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUtE1d2fGkY

[MMIKEYJ]

Are you able to challenge my points though, or do you agree with everything i said and you're now ready to be unrestricted?

Wow that was a dissapointing debate.
Im not really trying to debate everybody on everything.. I just like to know what you guys think and why you think it.. It gives me a POV that I couldnt get any other way...

Case in point.. When I first came on here a year ago or so.. I figured everybody whos a communist was a totalitarian.. because of course thats how its always portrayed here in America.. USSR, China Tianamen Square, etc..

So after talking with people it quickly became apparent that, that was a misconception..

When I mention this board to other non-communists I tell them quite truthfully that most of the people here are really no different than republicans, democrats, or even some libertarians.. its just we all have a different opinion on who the bad guys are in society..

We can disagree without being disagreeable.

[MMIKEYJ]

Hey, Mikey, was that you in Pleasanton the other day giving the Tea Baggers a bad time?
Um.. you must have me mixed up with somebody else. Dont know of any Pleasanton. And I wasnt at any tea party events.

[Dr Mindbender]

We can disagree without being disagreeable.

What have I said that you disagree with though?

[Dermezel]

Im not really trying to debate everybody on everything.. I just like to know what you guys think and why you think it.. It gives me a POV that I couldnt get any other way...

Case in point.. When I first came on here a year ago or so.. I figured everybody whos a communist was a totalitarian.. because of course thats how its always portrayed here in America.. USSR, China Tianamen Square, etc..

So after talking with people it quickly became apparent that, that was a misconception..

When I mention this board to other non-communists I tell them quite truthfully that most of the people here are really no different than republicans, democrats, or even some libertarians.. its just we all have a different opinion on who the bad guys are in society..

We can disagree without being disagreeable.

Libertarian economics cause starvation.

[LeftSideDown]

Libertarian economics cause starvation.

What is "Libertarian economics"? I've never heard of this term. Am I alone?

[graffic]

Hasn't the OP said something that is true: economic equality kills aspiration. But so does capitalism. You either have everybody chilled out and living according to their needs or you have freedom to compete. I think that if people are not motivated to work then the question is whether that is a problem with the "individual" (they have mental health problems), and they need to be educated out of that "negative" mindset. Or it is a problem with the system of equality that causes "dissatisfaction". Similarly, in capitalism many many people are completely unmotivated to work. Is it their problem that they have a negative mindset? Or does the problem lie in the capitalist system? Or am I talking bollocks?

[Dermezel]

Also the OP is acting like we are living in the Middle Ages. The question is moot because machine development is so advanced that something like 90% of our production is from machines and technology, not people. As long as you have the machines you can have people being lazy almost all day and you will still be many times more productive then a society full of hard working people with little technological development.

[scarletghoul]

OP needs to understand that there is no 'inherent laziness and selfishness'; people are only this way due to the social conditions. The worker is alienated from his labour and only does it in so much as he needs the wages, there's no dignity in labour. In a system where the workers own the means of production this alienated laziness will not exist. Furthermore, technology will be used to increase production with minimum human labour so there will be enough for everyone with nowhere near the current amount of work necessary..

In other words 'work' will be a much more human activity and also much less of it will be required.

[Foldered]

If human nature involved selfishness and laziness to the extent you think, we'd be extinct.

Don't confuse laziness with lack of motivation, and selfishness with survival instinct.
Best post in the thread.
To suggest anything is part of "human nature" is to make vast and problematic assumptions; so, simply put, it isn't necessary to deal with inherent selfishness and laziness, those ideas are by-products of capitalist environments.
And you're right even with that simple example of humans being extinct if we were inherently lazy and selfish; there is way more evidence pointing towards the converse of those ideas.

[MMIKEYJ]

What have I said that you disagree with though?
Everything.

[LeftSideDown]

OP needs to understand that there is no 'inherent laziness and selfishness'; people are only this way due to the social conditions. The worker is alienated from his labour and only does it in so much as he needs the wages, there's no dignity in labour. In a system where the workers own the means of production this alienated laziness will not exist. Furthermore, technology will be used to increase production with minimum human labour so there will be enough for everyone with nowhere near the current amount of work necessary..

In other words 'work' will be a much more human activity and also much less of it will be required.

People inherently want to have the maximum satisfaction for the least amount of dissatisfaction, or stated differently, people want the most fun out of the least work. Arguing "selfishness and laziness" is only because of social conditions is silly.

[MMIKEYJ]

People inherently want to have the maximum satisfaction for the least amount of dissatisfaction, or stated differently, people want the most fun out of the least work. Arguing "selfishness and laziness" is only because of social conditions is silly.

I think thats a good analysis.. Its similar to a lion in the jungle.. They go kill an animal and eat it.. Once their belly is fully they aint goin hunting for awhile and prey animals walk pretty closely to them at times like this because they know theyre not in danger..

But when they get hungry again watch out...

[Foldered]

People inherently want to have the maximum satisfaction for the least amount of dissatisfaction, or stated differently, people want the most fun out of the least work. Arguing "selfishness and laziness" is only because of social conditions is silly.
How is it any more silly than you saying that "people inherently want to have maximum satisfaction for the least amount of dissatisfaction"?

And define satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

[LeftSideDown]

How is it any more silly than you saying that "people inherently want to have maximum satisfaction for the least amount of dissatisfaction"?

And define satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

They mean different things to different people. I'm not going to restrict its definition. Its less silly because "Selfish and lazy" are both negative terms and ones that create a prejudice against what/whomever. I merely explained in terms that didn't have emotional attachments.

[Jimmie Higgins]

People inherently want to have the maximum satisfaction for the least amount of dissatisfaction, or stated differently, people want the most fun out of the least work.What's the problem with that? This is not the same as saying people are inherently lazy and says nothing about"selfishness". The above statement could be applied to a Feudal lord as well as a surf, a worker as well as a capitalist, a stalinist buerocrat and a russian worker.


Arguing "selfishness and laziness" is only because of social conditions is silly.It's silly to argue that it's not. If you were on a boat stranded at sea, you would probably horde fresh water if you came across any. So, if this was not because of material conditions, but because of inherent "greed" and desire to horde things for yourself, why aren't you holding buckets under your sink as we speak collecting as much tap water as you can?

Could it be that you know that you are not going to face an immediate water shortage and that anytime you need water you can simply turn on the tap?

What about a idealized small-farmer on his own land - is he lazy for not working when there's no crops to harvest or plant or whatnot? Most single-family farmers throughout history worked hard and didn't slack off just because there was no wage or profit motive. They were self-motivated by both their needs for food as well as their desires to have a nice place to live and fix up their house and so on.

So capitalism "creates laziness" by creating a barrier between the work we do and the result of our labor - we're not building a car on an assembly line so we can have a car, we are doing it to make a wage under conditions that are largely out of our individual control. If we increase production, it's actually bad for the worker because it either means that the boss can now lay people off because fewer workers can produce the same level of production or it means that we are doing more work but getting the same wage for it. In a worker-run situation, we would work only as much as it was needed and useful to do so.

[graffic]

I agree with Jimmie Higgins. "Laziness" is linked to the fact that workers are alienated from their labour. Workers are forced to work in conditions outside of their control.

The majority of workers are so alienated from their labour they only work to survive and feed their family, whilst the boss, who sees the fruits and makes profits wakes up every morning with a twinkle in his eye.

I would guess that the presumption that communism makes people "lazy" and "unmotivated" demonstrates a misunderstanding of what communism is and the difficulty of adjusting to a different mindset that we perhaps have in a capitalist society.

[The Feral Underclass]

How does Communism deal with peoples' inherent laziness and selfishness

Your premise is fallacious and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. If you can't, then your entire argument is flawed, based on factual inaccuracies, therefore irrelevant.

Stop wasting peoples time.

[Thirsty Crow]

People inherently want to have the maximum satisfaction for the least amount of dissatisfaction, or stated differently, people want the most fun out of the least work. Arguing "selfishness and laziness" is only because of social conditions is silly.

On the contrary, it is rather silly to argue that dissatisfaction equals work, as you've concluded.

[Foldered]

On the contrary, it is rather silly to argue that dissatisfaction equals work, as you've concluded.
That's basically what I was trying to suggest by asking for a definition of satisfaction and its opposite.

[Comrade Anarchist]

By creating a totalitarian system of government that uses pure unadulterated force. Individuals will not all come to the communist ideology so it must be forced upon them. Force is the only key to a communist world, b/c without which there is nothing forcing anybody to follow the state.

[Duthchas]

In a capitalist system control of the worker is centred around the fact that they have no other choice. "Work or you're fired and you'll starve; work hard or I'll shit on you from a great height".

In a communist system worker control must come from political means. "Work for the sake of the movement; work for your comrades; work for yourself". Communism guarantees full employment so it could be argued that there is more scope for slacking off. So, whether or not workers succumb to laziness depends on how the movement is viewed by the masses.

I once read (can't find a reference, unfortunately) that in 1970s USSR, the party had to run television adverts reminding people, or rather pleading with them, to go to work. For long enough, simply the belief in the movement, as well as certain incentives such as awards (medals I think) for meeting targets, made people go to work. Once disillusionment constituted a critical mass then people just stayed at home and drank vodka. They knew that their job would still be there for them if they went in next week.

Then there is the totalitarian force idea. That is sound enough on the surface. If the choice is go to work or be killed or sent to a Gulag then I would choose work. However, if people are having to be coerced into working at the risk of being shit on from a great height then the system itself needs to come under more intense scrutiny. That is only different to capitalism in details.

So, I don't really have an answer to the original poster's question other than I think it all depends on the system being applied. If the only thing convincing people to work is to fulfill political aims then we need to make sure those political aims are as close to perfect as possible.

[Bud Struggle]

By creating a totalitarian system of government that uses pure unadulterated force. Individuals will not all come to the communist ideology so it must be forced upon them. Force is the only key to a communist world, b/c without which there is nothing forcing anybody to follow the state.

That's the nice think about Capitalism--it never forces you do do anything. You always have a choice--the problem is that the choice is between work or starve. But they never make it a public issue. Starving to death is a purely personal experience.

[this is an invasion]

I want communism because I'm kinda selfish. And I hate work.

[The Red Next Door]

If they don't work then that their lost, and they don't get the piece of the pie. In the commune, because he didn't do his share.

[this is an invasion]

If they don't work then that their lost, and they don't get the piece of the pie. In the commune, because he didn't do his share.
So, you don't have a problem with way life is constructed, you just want different managers?

[Comrade Anarchist]

That's the nice think about Capitalism--it never forces you do do anything. You always have a choice--the problem is that the choice is between work or starve. But they never make it a public issue. Starving to death is a purely personal experience.

So what. There is also a choice in communism. The choice is work and receive a small amount food and no luxury or be shot in the face.

[MMIKEYJ]

Your premise is fallacious and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. If you can't, then your entire argument is flawed, based on factual inaccuracies, therefore irrelevant.

Stop wasting peoples time.
Hey look.. don't take it personally.. Its just my analysis of the situation..
Plenty of historical references that this stuff happens.

You're retort comes off very immature.. Like you are going to take your toys and go home because I don't agree with communism...


You make me laugh actually :lol:

[Skooma Addict]

The incentive problem has plagued communism for a while now.

What I don't get about Socialism is why everything has to be a result of class conflict. I mean, are the tools who party 24/7 while they wear those visor hats upside down and backwards a product of class conflict?

[LeftSideDown]

The incentive problem has plagued communism for a while now.

What I don't get about Socialism is why everything has to be a result of class conflict. I mean, are the tools who party 24/7 while they wear those visor hats upside down and backwards a product of class conflict?

OF course they are! They're a movement that glorifies and imitates the bourgeois culture!

[Drace]

By creating a totalitarian system of government that uses pure unadulterated force. Individuals will not all come to the communist ideology so it must be forced upon them. Force is the only key to a communist world, b/c without which there is nothing forcing anybody to follow the state.

capitalizm is like where everyone is controlled by the money which is controlled by the corporations. and the government is being oppressive and people are being oppressed b/c of the authoartiy. fuckin government needs to be abolished so we have freedom. how is it fair people have 50 bill while other starve on the ground. its not capitalism is oppressive like that and the united states government in iran needs education so iraqi people can know stuff so they revolt against the totatalaranaism and replace capitalism with freedomm!!
don u understand what im sayin omgg?

[Plagueround]

I deal with being inherently lazy and selfish by sitting around in my underwear all day eating junk food and playing video games. Or is that not quite what you meant?

[La Comédie Noire]

In early America in Jamestown in 1607, the colonists had this sort of setup. But the colony almost died. It didn't produce enough food to feed itself because people were being lazy and letting others do the work for them.

When Captain John Smith came in and changed it it thrived. He basically said if you dont work, you dont eat. And everybody got to keep what they produced and could trade or sell any surplus for their own benefit.

This greed factor motivated the colony to succeed.

John Smith was something of a bull shit artist and most tales of his greatness are not to be believed.

[LeftSideDown]

John Smith was something of a bull shit artist and most tales of his greatness are not to be believed.

Doesn't change the fact that when he came in he gave people their own land and they were responsible for their own well being and, subsequently, the colonists didn't have to eat their dead relatives anymore! Whether or not he was a great messiah is irrelevant; that things changed when he came is undeniable.

[La Comédie Noire]

Doesn't change the fact that when he came in he gave people their own land and they were responsible for their own well being and, subsequently, the colonists didn't have to eat their dead relatives anymore! Whether or not he was a great messiah is irrelevant; that things changed when he came is undeniable.

Not exactly, it isn't like the colonists were a bunch of lazy screw offs, a combination of drought and Indian attacks brought them to the brink of starvation, and yes, into the graves of their relatives. What John Smith did was bring much needed supplies, including weapons, which they used to rob the Indians of their food. Food, which was produced by a far more egalitarian society than Jamestown ever was.

I don't think it was a matter of organization, the colonists were just ill prepared plain and simple.

[The Feral Underclass]

Hey look.. don't take it personally.. Its just my analysis of the situation..

What analysis? You haven't provided an analysis. You've just repeated the same boring mantra that most people repeat without really understanding why it is they're doing it.

I'm inviting you to prove otherwise. Are you going to at least try, or not?


Plenty of historical references that this stuff happens. :rolleyes:

Yes. Selfishness and laziness happens, but we're not talking about whether it happens or not. You have asserted they are both "inherent" in human beings, while dismissing the notion that it is a form of social conditioning. That's fine. If that's what you think, think it, but you have to demonstrate this as fact. You said it, provide us with evidence that this is the case. Have you somehow mapped out the selfish and lazy gene? If so, I'm certain some geneticists would be very grateful for your data.

In what way and how is it inherent? Answer these questions.


You're retort comes off very immature..It's not a retort. I'm directly asking you to provide us with evidence for your claim that selfishness and laziness are inherent.


Like you are going to take your toys and go home because I don't agree with communism...Do you honestly believe for one second that I care at all whether you agree with communism or not?...


You make me laugh actually :lol:That's all fine and well, but you have propositioned an argument on this forum that you have not substantiated, nor are you even attempting to do so.

If you want to remain on this board, then I suggest you start to understand the dynamics of debate. Making flat assertions of fact and then refusing to substantiate them isn't an acceptable way to debate and it just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. Which, frankly, is most likely the case.

[Comrade Anarchist]

capitalizm is like where everyone is controlled by the money which is controlled by the corporations. and the government is being oppressive and people are being oppressed b/c of the authoartiy. fuckin government needs to be abolished so we have freedom. how is it fair people have 50 bill while other starve on the ground. its not capitalism is oppressive like that and the united states government in iran needs education so iraqi people can know stuff so they revolt against the totatalaranaism and replace capitalism with freedomm!!
don u understand what im sayin omgg?

This is why i love you commie morons. Instead of actually saying anything you ***** about semantics. And plus what did i say wrong, force is the ONLY tool of a communist government can use b/c it can not afford to have dissenters or as you would call them reactionaries.

[The Grey Blur]

China Tianamen Square
Hey cool story bro, that was actually a socialist uprising - http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18040

[Drace]

This is why i love you commie morons. Instead of actually saying anything you ***** about semantics. And plus what did i say wrong, force is the ONLY tool of a communist government can use b/c it can not afford to have dissenters or as you would call them reactionaries.

I was just making fun of your way of analysis and argument. :rolleyes: I think I did a good job.

[Jacobinist]

This is why i love you commie morons. Instead of actually saying anything you ***** about semantics. And plus what did i say wrong, force is the ONLY tool of a communist government can use b/c it can not afford to have dissenters or as you would call them reactionaries.

Correction. Force, that is coercive force, is the only means ANY government has as a tool. Capitalists societies included.

[Invincible Summer]

So what. There is also a choice in communism. The choice is work and receive a small amount food and no luxury or be shot in the face.

Wonderful analysis.


The incentive problem has plagued communism for a while now.
Not really, it's just blown out of proportion by idiots who refuse to listen to answers.



What I don't get about Socialism is why everything has to be a result of class conflict. I mean, are the tools who party 24/7 while they wear those visor hats upside down and backwards a product of class conflict?
Everything is a product of class relations, not necessarily class conflict. Class struggle is the engine of history, to paraphrase some old guy.

[Klaatu]

This is why i love you commie morons. Instead of actually saying anything you ***** about semantics. And plus what did i say wrong, force is the ONLY tool of a communist government can use b/c it can not afford to have dissenters or as you would call them reactionaries.

There is no such thing as a "communist government." This is an oxymoron.

"Communists" are those freedom-loving people who choose to live in a commune (commune-ism) such as Buddhist monks, or Catholic Nuns. They have no "government," and need none. That is because they live in a higher plane of existence than the rest of the hoi-polloi, rat-infested worldly losers, of which both you and I are members of. STOP bashing communists, as they are better than you, you uneducated, ignorant person.

[MMIKEYJ]

What analysis? You haven't provided an analysis. You've just repeated the same boring mantra that most people repeat without really understanding why it is they're doing it.

I'm inviting you to prove otherwise. Are you going to at least try, or not?

:rolleyes:

Yes. Selfishness and laziness happens, but we're not talking about whether it happens or not. You have asserted they are both "inherent" in human beings, while dismissing the notion that it is a form of social conditioning. That's fine. If that's what you think, think it, but you have to demonstrate this as fact. You said it, provide us with evidence that this is the case. Have you somehow mapped out the selfish and lazy gene? If so, I'm certain some geneticists would be very grateful for your data.

In what way and how is it inherent? Answer these questions.

It's not a retort. I'm directly asking you to provide us with evidence for your claim that selfishness and laziness are inherent.

Do you honestly believe for one second that I care at all whether you agree with communism or not?...

That's all fine and well, but you have propositioned an argument on this forum that you have not substantiated, nor are you even attempting to do so.

If you want to remain on this board, then I suggest you start to understand the dynamics of debate. Making flat assertions of fact and then refusing to substantiate them isn't an acceptable way to debate and it just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. Which, frankly, is most likely the case.
Theres no point in it my friend. You believe what you believe and Im not going to be able to change it.. And I dont need or care to try and impose my values and beliefs on you.

If you like communism and believe in it, thats fine... But I think its a very poor motivator for people and does nothing but guarantee mediocrity..

[Glenn Beck]

So what. There is also a choice in communism. The choice is work and receive a small amount food and no luxury or be shot in the face.

Actually you get shot in the back of the neck. Face is messy, inefficient. Might have to use two bullets which would throw off the quota.

Also it's not so much of a choice because once you hit 40 you get to enjoy your accumulated mandatory retirement benefits.

[AK]

So what. There is also a choice in communism. The choice is work and receive a small amount food and no luxury or be shot in the face.
How many Glenn Beck specials did you watch?

[Comrade Anarchist]

There is no such thing as a "communist government." This is an oxymoron.

"Communists" are those freedom-loving people who choose to live in a commune (commune-ism) such as Buddhist monks, or Catholic Nuns. They have no "government," and need none. That is because they live in a higher plane of existence than the rest of the hoi-polloi, rat-infested worldly losers, of which both you and I are members of. STOP bashing communists, as they are better than you, you uneducated, ignorant person.

Quite frankly communism is the antithesis to freedom. You probably mean the forced collectivism and sharing of wealth as freedom, which means you don't know the definition. First off marxism calls for government owning of the means of production so the that the wealth can be shared. In every instance of a communist uprising there is never the voluntary choice to live in the collective, but instead everyone is herded into it. Communism requires force to spread b/c without it there is no way that everyone will accept it, and force is the main tool of states. And another thing i think you only filled up your paragraph with verbiage so as to make it look long b/c even in the hellhole of communism disease and rats will still exist, but the rat population may actually diminish b/c the people will have to eat them b/c of the poorly managed central economy. Quite frankly i would rather live in a city then with a bunch of religious nuts who sacrifice their self interests for others and i see them as on a lower plain of existence b/c they are willing to sacrifice themselves and in turn kill their individuality.


How many Glenn Beck specials did you watch?

I have never watched Glenn beck b/c he is a driveling religious ass prick. He is a conservative and conservatives are fuck nut stupid.

[Invincible Summer]

So if you an-caps are so obsessed with the individual, is your ideal society one where constant, graphic masturbation at home and in public is socially acceptable?

[Klaatu]

Quite frankly communism is the antithesis to freedom. You probably mean the forced collectivism and sharing of wealth as freedom, which means you don't know the definition. First off marxism calls for government owning of the means of production so the that the wealth can be shared. In every instance of a communist uprising there is never the voluntary choice to live in the collective, but instead everyone is herded into it. Communism requires force to spread b/c without it there is no way that everyone will accept it, and force is the main tool of states. And another thing i think you only filled up your paragraph with verbiage so as to make it look long b/c even in the hellhole of communism disease and rats will still exist, but the rat population may actually diminish b/c the people will have to eat them b/c of the poorly managed central economy. Quite frankly i would rather live in a city then with a bunch of religious nuts who sacrifice their self interests for others and i see them as on a lower plain of existence b/c they are willing to sacrifice themselves and in turn kill their individuality.


WRONG. You are the one who has things backwards. Commune-ism is of the free will, and is the antithesis of government.

Communism is "a classless, stateless society." (Look it up)

"Stateless" means there is no governing body, and everyone is free. Communism is the ultimate freedom, and the ultimate equality.

You have been spoon-fed a steady diet of capitalist BS all of your life, just like all of the other inhabitants of this corrupt culture. If capitalism is such a great system, it would stand on it's own, without the need for constant pep-talking propaganda from the greedy upper classes, who benefit most from the capitalist golden goose, unwilling to share the wealth.

If you people spent half of your time studying the pitfalls of capitalism, and the merits of communism, you might have a balanced view.

It is too bad that guys like Stalin, Hitler, et al, have soiled the face of socialism. These people were nuts.
They only used the "socialism" label in order to garner support of their people, and then turned the
tables on them, stealing their wealth and property, under the guise of "collectivism for the people."
It was collectivism for them, not for the people.

Realize that these were very corrupt people. They ruined the world's perception of socialism. They made
the world hate it, despise it. It is these dictators we ought to despise, not the system itself. Do not throw
the baby out with the bathwater.

[Drace]

Quite frankly communism is the antithesis to freedom. You probably mean the forced collectivism and sharing of wealth as freedom, which means you don't know the definition. First off marxism calls for government owning of the means of production so the that the wealth can be shared. In every instance of a communist uprising there is never the voluntary choice to live in the collective, but instead everyone is herded into it. Communism requires force to spread b/c without it there is no way that everyone will accept it, and force is the main tool of states. And another thing i think you only filled up your paragraph with verbiage so as to make it look long b/c even in the hellhole of communism disease and rats will still exist, but the rat population may actually diminish b/c the people will have to eat them b/c of the poorly managed central economy. Quite frankly i would rather live in a city then with a bunch of religious nuts who sacrifice their self interests for others and i see them as on a lower plain of existence b/c they are willing to sacrifice themselves and in turn kill their individuality.

Lol. You just touch on a lot of subjects and state your opinion on them without a proper analysis.

[Comrade Anarchist]

WRONG. You are the one who has things backwards. Commune-ism is of the free will, and is the antithesis of government.

Communism is "a classless, stateless society." (Look it up)

"Stateless" means there is no governing body, and everyone is free. Communism is the ultimate freedom, and the ultimate equality.

You have been spoon-fed a steady diet of capitalist BS all of your life, just like all of the other inhabitants of this corrupt culture. If capitalism is such a great system, it would stand on it's own, without the need for constant pep-talking propaganda from the greedy upper classes, who benefit most from the capitalist golden goose, unwilling to share the wealth.

If you people spent half of your time studying the pitfalls of capitalism, and the merits of communism, you might have a balanced view.

It is too bad that guys like Stalin, Hitler, et al, have soiled the face of socialism. These people were nuts.
They only used the "socialism" label in order to garner support of their people, and then turned the
tables on them, stealing their wealth and property, under the guise of "collectivism for the people."
It was collectivism for them, not for the people.

Realize that these were very corrupt people. They ruined the world's perception of socialism. They made
the world hate it, despise it. It is these dictators we ought to despise, not the system itself. Do not throw
the baby out with the bathwater.

Communism has only been taken at free will by communists. It has been shoved down the throats of everybody else. Look at russia, china, every other shitty communist nation. Another thing they all try full marxism for like a year and then everybody revolts so they mix private property with collective property.

Alright ill go ahead and forget about history from now back to 1917. First off communism and socialism were the same thing in marx's day the become separated by people who looked at russia and when Damn. Communism is not stateless. Marx calls for a state to have complete ownership over everything and for the wealth to be shared among everybody, so lets go ahead and forget the fact that the state never relinquishes control so it never fades away like marx's imagination said it would.

So if we go by your definition then you are an anarcho-communist, b/c the state with full power over economic means has full power of political means, so go ahead and throw the dictatorship of the proletariat out of the window. So as i have said in another thread anarcho communism is practically primitivism which is unsustainable for 7 billion people. And it also inevitably leads to another form of governing body that being through direct democracy everyone becomes a tyrant to everyone else.

As for capitalism yes it destructive when mixed with state control. History shows us that capitalism uses the state and vice versa to push down lower classes and inflate the upper classes pockets. History has also shown that in a FREE MARKET everyone has a chance to make it. Everyone has the voluntary right to work where ever they want. Even anarcho communists of the last century said they were against the free market anarchism that rothbard was professing.

So yes go and live in a commune, there won't be any major advances and you wont have a great time watching people not work while you work for them. But you will have to create a force of some kind to force them to or else your commune is destined for destruction. But no one else wants that everyone else wants a society of individuals that advance through free markets and voluntary exchanges, not through forced exchanges and collective slavery.

[Obrero Rebelde]

I would much prefer to stay home and play with myself than go to work all day. Does that mean I'm "lazy" or just honest about my preferences for lifestyle?

Under socialism, no one should ever have to work again. Why can't we have THAT? Invent robots to do all the shit work so we humans can just kick back and have a good life.

What could be so wrong with NOT wanting to have to work at all?

[Obrero Rebelde]

Hedonism is a school of ethics which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.[1] The basic idea behind hedonistic thought is that pleasure is the only thing that has intrinsic value. This is often used as a justification for evaluating actions in terms of how much pleasure and how little pain (i.e. suffering) they produce. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize this net pleasure (pleasure minus pain).

Is there such a thing as Hedonistic Communism?

[Klaatu]

Communism has only been taken at free will by communists. It has been shoved down the throats of everybody else. Look at russia, china, every other shitty communist nation. Another thing they all try full marxism for like a year and then everybody revolts so they mix private property with collective property. (snip)


I speak of the TRUE communism, the PURE communism. Like I said, it has been corrupted. You can see this too.

I would like to add another good example of a thriving socialist system: The Amish people. Socialism works for them. And no one "shoves it down their throats..."

[Scary Monster]

Most "shitty" communist nations kicked out the capitalist fuckers, and didnt have to shove communism down the throats of the people they were fighting for. Look at Cuba, Afghanistan for instance. Especially with USSR, Cuba and Afghanistan, they overthrew their western puppet/theocracy with popular support. Thanks to Gorbachev, russia's people live in extreme poverty with his capitalist reforms.

And Comrade "Anarchist", why do you continue to support a demonstrably broken and exploitative system? Its utterly retarded to think that without government, corporations would simply just let other people have access to the means of production and resources. With no state to intervene and unaccountabliity, who would keep corporations from doing whatever the hell they want, hiring private militaries to have complete control over capital and resources, forcing slavery, enforcing monopolies, etc. The state is the sole reason capitalism has survived this long. Even your hag Ayn Rand states that the state is needed for a market system to survive.

[Klaatu]

And Comrade "Anarchist", why do you continue to support a demonstrably broken and exploitative system? Its utterly retarded to think that without government, corporations would simply just let other people have access to the means of production and resources. With no state to intervene and unaccountabliity, who would keep corporations from doing whatever the hell they want, hiring private militaries to have complete control over capital and resources, forcing slavery, enforcing monopolies, etc. The state is the sole reason capitalism has survived this long. Even your hag Ayn Rand states that the state is needed for a market system to survive.

Exactly. What is that saying: "Those who do not study history are bound to repeat the mistakes already made" or something like that.

One of my students asked just what the tea-partyers are about. My answer was: "Why do they think the past was so great, anyway? they had slavery, massive poverty, no minimum wage, no unions, no workers' comp, no unemployment insurance, no health insurance (you just died), no social security, no laws against racial discrimination, sexual harassment, stalking, etc. What is so great about this "limited government" thing? Do we wish to regress to the "good 'ol days" of anything goes???

[Scary Monster]

Exactly. What is that saying: "Those who do not study history are bound to repeat the mistakes already made" or something like that.

One of my students asked just what the tea-partyers are about. My answer was: "Why do they think the past was so great, anyway? they had slavery, massive poverty, no minimum wage, no unions, no workers' comp, no unemployment insurance, no health insurance (you just died), no social security, no laws against racial discrimination, sexual harassment, stalking, etc. What is so great about this "limited government" thing? Do we wish to regress to the "good 'ol days" of anything goes???

Yep its exactly what they want lol. They want absolutely nothing to cut down on their profit margins. Our economic history (USA) is full of corporations gaining more and more power (well gaining it back, after FDR's reforms and the worker struggles of the '30s). Especially with Reaganism and his deregulations. Anarcho capitalism is just incredibly laughable. None of its proponents give any rational arguments for it. Take Comrade "Anarchist" here- he just blames the world's problems on the State, offering no argument at all, just a nonsensical rant.

One of our fellow commies on this site had an argument with an Ancapper. He asked him something to the effect of, "how would corporations be punished if they pollute a river or kill one of their workers?" To which the ancapper replied "you take them to court". To which our guy said "But i thought you were against the state?"...he then received a blank stare from the cappie. This made me lol

[Klaatu]

Right on, Scary Monster. I'm not sure these people really know what it's really all about. I grew up in the 60s-70s, right when the big environmental movement was getting started. I get it. Capitalists don't. They think the earth is just waiting for them to profit from it... :crying:

Your signature says it all; rock on!

[The Feral Underclass]

Theres no point in it my friend. You believe what you believe and Im not going to be able to change it.. And I dont need or care to try and impose my values and beliefs on you.

So basically you have no evidence...Basically you can't prove to us that laziness and greed are inherent, can you?


If you like communism and believe in it, thats fine... But I think its a very poor motivator for people and does nothing but guarantee mediocrity..That's all beside the point. You have made a claim that you can't substantiate. Why do you continue to uphold something you don't know is true? Do you not think it's unusual that you have made a claim and are now evading requests to back-up your claim? Do you not think it's a little strange that you believe something you can't prove?

[Klaatu]

If you like communism and believe in it, thats fine... But I think its a very poor motivator for people and does nothing but guarantee mediocrity..

Do you realize how many people do volunteer work, and donate time to non-profit organizations? For example, most of the folks at the American Cancer Society (I am told) are single volunteers. People who give their time to churches, homeless shelters, etc, these are just practicing mediocrity???

Have you ever done volunteer work, my capitalist money-is-all-things friend?

If not, you should. The good feeling you will get from helping others (as communists and socialists do everyday) might just change your mind about the real value of life. The best things in life are free, you know. ;)

[Comrade Anarchist]

I speak of the TRUE communism, the PURE communism. Like I said, it has been corrupted. You can see this too.

I would like to add another good example of a thriving socialist system: The Amish people. Socialism works for them. And no one "shoves it down their throats..."

You used an example that is quite shitty. The amish are fucking agricultural, i nor anyone else wants to live in a fucking agricultural world we want thriving cities and progress which can only be achieved in laissez faire capitalism.


Most "shitty" communist nations kicked out the capitalist fuckers, and didnt have to shove communism down the throats of the people they were fighting for. Look at Cuba, Afghanistan for instance. Especially with USSR, Cuba and Afghanistan, they overthrew their western puppet/theocracy with popular support. Thanks to Gorbachev, russia's people live in extreme poverty with his capitalist reforms.

And Comrade "Anarchist", why do you continue to support a demonstrably broken and exploitative system? Its utterly retarded to think that without government, corporations would simply just let other people have access to the means of production and resources. With no state to intervene and unaccountabliity, who would keep corporations from doing whatever the hell they want, hiring private militaries to have complete control over capital and resources, forcing slavery, enforcing monopolies, etc. The state is the sole reason capitalism has survived this long. Even your hag Ayn Rand states that the state is needed for a market system to survive.

They didn't kick them out they killed them. And war communism was implemented and it was practically pure marxism and the people revolted so they combined private property with communism and presto they barely survive for another 70 or so years. Russia is not laissez faire at all they are heavily state capitalist and rely very heavily on political connections.

Without gov't corporations wouldn't be able to use its force to destroy competition. Monopolies are created by state interruption in the market. And quite frankly i don't give a shit what people do as long as they do not use force against people to subvert competition and people's natural rights. If a corporation breaks people's natural rights the people have a right to protect themselves and destroy the corporation. The state is the sole reason that capitalism has diverged from free markets into the state capitalist bailout world of today. The early 1900's were corrupted with giant trusts and monopolies that came about from government intervention. Capitalism can not survive unless it does away with government or else it will be continually perverted for politicians pockets. And another thing Ayn rand is wrong on the state. She could look at her own philosophy and see that the state is not objective and is instead subjective and the fact she wants to give it a monopoly on force undermines her hole philosophy unfortunately.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

This question is kind of hard to discuss because usually the right wingers just throw out a bunch of statements without really trying to connect with what the commies are saying.

Just as a quick pointer, the communist "dream" is premised on the idea that things will work well fairly in a communist society - it'll be better than capitalism, so people will have a rough incentive to work together to mantain communism, as its all in their self intrest.

Basiscally, even doing the cappies the favour of agreeing that humans are all 100 percent self intrested, and we can sum up the grandness of the entire human experience, of which millions of hours have been expended contemplating with "Humans want good shit and avoid hardship" (I can't resist commenting here that its no concidence that capitalists so readily agree to such an asocial idea of humanity..probably cause thats how they think.) then communism can still work fine, if it gives most people a better life than they have now in capitalism..in which case, they should do what is nessacary to mantain it. While no doubt there is a division between collective good for people to work at keeping communism going, and the individual one (in this case) to slack off, i honestly don't see that adding up to something substantial provided people generally want to mantain communism and will enforce rules etc to make sure that happens.

I always get kind of perturbed how this argument is stated in terms of "are humans too selfish for communism.." since its not at all "Not" selfish to work together if its in both parties self intrest to do so, I think the question poised by cappies is better phrased as "are people too goddamn dumb for communism to work." - which I think clarifies their position a bit better - that people are no better than apes need to have some whip driving them to work cause they are incapable of working collectively for their own, and others long term good. Even more laughable is this when they posist examples of people "wanting a second tv" or some equally laughable "individualistic selfish" reason why people might steal or fuck over their fellow man in a communist society. Says more about the total lack of conviction in humanity from these supposed "champions of the individual"

[Klaatu]

You used an example that is quite shitty. The amish are fucking agricultural, i nor anyone else wants to live in a fucking agricultural world we want thriving cities and progress which can only be achieved in laissez faire capitalism.

C'mon now. I don't think my example is "shitty" at all. So the Amish are agricultural; so what? They live with higher morals than most people who live in cities do. And you don't have "to live in a fucking agricultural world" at all. Nor do you have to thwart progress. It's just that this is the life they choose.

It is possible to have freedom and progress; it is also possible to practice good morals. Capitalism often lacks this important attribute.

[Klaatu]

The early 1900's were corrupted with giant trusts and monopolies that came about from government intervention.

This is nonsense. The government had to break up monopolies. It did not create them! How do you justify getting this backwards?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Theres no point in it my friend. You believe what you believe and Im not going to be able to change it.. And I dont need or care to try and impose my values and beliefs on you.

If you like communism and believe in it, thats fine... But I think its a very poor motivator for people and does nothing but guarantee mediocrity..

Why? It seems you have a very limited view on what motivates humans here.

Equally, why not bring back slavery? After all, if the prospect of earning boundless wealth is considered a "good motivator" for people in your eyes, how much more well motivated would people be if they could own slaves!

Not that I think you actually believe this - but do you see my point? Wheter or not "rewards" of a certain type motivate people is highly disputable, certainly I doubt slaves were highly motivated by the prospect of becoming slave owners..it just seemed too unlikely...and the communist case is that the working class have almost as slim a chance to become one of the "winners" in this society as slaves did then. Not to mention that one might hold other concerns that purely wanting a society which motivates people the highest? Surely you could accept SOME decrease in overall motivation in exchange for the other benefits of communism? And you surely can't be saying that people's main motivation is money, and without which (even if they had nothing else to do) they'd do nothing, sit around till they starved to death, and play xbox for all 80 years of their life, because I just find that so astoundingly obviously inaccurate that I just can't bring myself to think you've really thought this though. (Or are actually a sociopath, who literally..only does things to get money.)

[this is an invasion]

There is no such thing as a "communist government." This is an oxymoron.

"Communists" are those freedom-loving people who choose to live in a commune (commune-ism) such as Buddhist monks, or Catholic Nuns. They have no "government," and need none. That is because they live in a higher plane of existence than the rest of the hoi-polloi, rat-infested worldly losers, of which both you and I are members of. STOP bashing communists, as they are better than you, you uneducated, ignorant person.
This is some weird anti-worker shit. Do you honestly believe you are living in a higher plane of existence than most workers?

[Klaatu]

This is some weird anti-worker shit. Do you honestly believe you are living in a higher plane of existence than most workers?

I apologize for my strong wording. (I am NOT Communist. I am Socialist, as I believe in workers' ownership.) By "higher plane,"
I meant that, for example, Buddhist monks have a better chosen lifestyle than most people.

Again, my post was a bit obnoxious, and I see that now :blushing:

[Jazzratt]

I apologize for my strong wording. (I am NOT Communist. I am Socialist, as I believe in workers' ownership.) By "higher plane,"
I meant that, for example, Buddhist monks have a better chosen lifestyle than most people.

Again, my post was a bit obnoxious, and I see that now :blushing:

The thing is that they don't. I'm not really sure what metric you use to quantify what a "better chosen lifestyle" is, but I really don't see how religiously inspired ascetiscm is at all "better" than a more normal lifestyle. Certainly it takes something more persuasive than unsupported assertions to make me consider sitting about with a bunch of mysticists eating boiled rice.

It's just totally innacurate to describe communists as

those freedom-loving people who choose to live in a commune (commune-ism)
As it has nothing to do with communism as laid out by communists themselves. The term you're looking for is "communalists". Communism has very little to do with living that kind of lifestyle.

[Barry Lyndon]

They didn't kick them out they killed them. And war communism was implemented and it was practically pure marxism and the people revolted so they combined private property with communism and presto they barely survive for another 70 or so years. Russia is not laissez faire at all they are heavily state capitalist and rely very heavily on political connections.

Without gov't corporations wouldn't be able to use its force to destroy competition. Monopolies are created by state interruption in the market. And quite frankly i don't give a shit what people do as long as they do not use force against people to subvert competition and people's natural rights. If a corporation breaks people's natural rights the people have a right to protect themselves and destroy the corporation. The state is the sole reason that capitalism has diverged from free markets into the state capitalist bailout world of today. The early 1900's were corrupted with giant trusts and monopolies that came about from government intervention. Capitalism can not survive unless it does away with government or else it will be continually perverted for politicians pockets. And another thing Ayn rand is wrong on the state. She could look at her own philosophy and see that the state is not objective and is instead subjective and the fact she wants to give it a monopoly on force undermines her hole philosophy unfortunately.

The Soviets implemented war communism and the NEP because of a major civil war with pro-monarchist forces as well as a crippling naval blockade by Britain, France, and the United States which was cutting off food and medical supplies and causing starvation and typhus epidemics. They had to compromise their ideals if they wanted to survive.

The Soviet Union, however, did succeed in redistributing land from a handful of aristocrats to millions of peasants, making healthcare available for all, achieving almost universal literacy, making abortion and divorce legal for women(before women could even vote in capitalist countries), decriminalizing homosexuality, defeated the Nazis and put a man in space before the United States.

Examples of anarcho-capitalism put into practice include:

>The American West in the 19th century, with bandits, gunslingers, Pinkerton agents(yesterdays version of Blackwater)gone amok and all shooting each other over gold and silver claims.

>The present-day Democratic Republic of the Congo, with multinational corporations funding their own militias to fight each other over mines worked by child slave labor.

You fail.

[Bud Struggle]

>The present-day Democratic Republic of the Congo, with multinational corporations funding their own militias to fight each other over mines worked by child slave labor.


You have proof of this? I'd be interested in doing something about it.

PM me.

[Klaatu]

As it has nothing to do with communism as laid out by communists themselves. The term you're looking
for is "communalists". Communism has very little to do with living that kind of lifestyle.

You are technically correct. But I disagree on the "very little to do with" part: Communism is, more accurately,
Communalism, of a much larger scale. While "Communalism" is a small-scale group, Communism encompasses
an entire society. But the idea is basically the same: everyone is equal. While Western societies have made absolutely
no progress on the "wealth" aspect of equality, they have made strides in other areas, such as equal civil rights for
gays, minorities, handicapped people, etc (that's a start.) One day our wealth will be equalized also.

I was not advancing the Buddhists' religion, only their high moral standards. I meant that people like this can
serve as a good example to us; a high standard of which to aspire to. By "better chosen lifestyle," I meant that
we never hear of Buddhists being jailed for crime and insurrection. I think we can learn from them.

As for most of the rest of society, all of us have our transgressions upon our fellow man, at one time or another.

[A.R.Amistad]

I'm sorry, but doesn't anybody feel like a religious fundamentalist or some confused pagan whenever they say something like "humans inherently are...." existence precedes essence. Life is meaningless except for the meaning that we give it. No human nature, only a human condition. We choose our own essence, our own persona and meaning in life. Through labor (the opposite of laziness) we achieve meaning and therefore happiness and passion, which we yearn for. Laziness cannot give one that.

[trivas7]

I'm sorry, but doesn't anybody feel like a religious fundamentalist or some confused pagan whenever they say something like "humans inherently are...." existence precedes essence. Life is meaningless except for the meaning that we give it. No human nature, only a human condition. We choose our own essence, our own persona and meaning in life. Through labor (the opposite of laziness) we achieve meaning and therefore happiness and passion, which we yearn for. Laziness cannot give one that.
I haven't a clue what you mean to say. Are you arguing against a human nature? On what grounds? How do you distinguish this from the "human condition"? Why do you think religious fundamentalists/pagans advocates a human nature as opposed to avowed secularists? Thanks for the Sartrean apothegm, but what has this to do w/ your argument?

[Blake's Baby]

Human nature is made not given. Our 'nature' now is not the same as 'human nature' quater of a million years ago when homo sapiens evolved. It isn't even the same as 500 years ago in medieval times. What we are told is 'human nature' is 'the ideas about humanity that are promoted by capitalism' - atomisation, individuality, competition, heirarchy, a dog-eat-dog attitude to our fellow-beings... if these are inherent in humanity, then we must have been really 'unnatural' for 245,000 of our 250,000 years, as there's no real evidence for those things until very recently (along with class society).

So, 'human nature' as an immutable concept is religious claptrap (descended from Biblical thinking on 'The Fall', actually), and what we are left with is 'the human condition' which is what we have around us and how we react to it. Our environemtal conditioning, which we can overcome through collective effort (class consciousness and a revolutionary transformation of society).

[Bud Struggle]

I think there are definite attributes are similar to all human beings, e.g. they care for their young, they form social groups, they work together to produce or find food, they are innovative and intelligent. On the other hand there can be vast differences in results when these human attributes are placed in real world situations sometimes good sometimes evil (e.g. Nazis working together to kill Jews.)

I think the human drives or attributes are essentially basic and it's society that manipulates those drives to its own end. How one society can become evil and one good is something pretty complex. One could say it's a matter of education, that more educated and well though out people tend to be more fair and good, but the Germans in 1932 were as well educated and theoretically humane as any nation on earth at the time. So it's more than that. There is a dark side to humanity that can come out at most unexpected times. I think human being while having a great capacity toward good--must always and vigilently check its own motivations.

This is a very easy question to answer if there is a God--he just made us this way but he's watching over us. Without a God it's alot more difficult. What if evolution put into us this little seed of a fatal flaw, that worked well when we were wandering bands of hunter gatherers but could prove evil and brutal when larger societies? Hopefully we have other capacities that could overcome that flaw.

Life is a struggle in more ways than one.

[NecroCommie]

I think there are definite attributes are similar to all human beings,
Luckily enough "you think", is not enough to alter reality.


e.g. they care for their young,
Are you saying that bad parents don't exist?

they form social groups...
they work together to produce or find food,
These are born out of necessity, not always is this voluntary, therefor it does not count as something universal to "human-nature"

they are innovative and intelligent.
Like the religious zealots of middle ages? Also known as europeans.

Honestly, when you think about it, pretty much nothing in society is universal for all humans. This also means that the society can be changed.


I think the human drives or attributes are essentially basic and it's society that manipulates those drives to its own end.
"You think"? Well, I just quit! What can I say to such an astounding argument? After all it is completely flawless. Why haven't humans realized this before?! Forget all that evidence stuff and looking at actual real world examples! You think this is true, it abolutely changes everything!

How one society can become evil and one good is something pretty complex.
Especially considering that there is no such thing as "good" or "evil". Morality is a constantly shifting trend that responds to material and social conditions, and changes with those conditions.

One could say it's a matter of education, that more educated and well though out people tend to be more fair and good
Yes... Yes one could, but then the one would be flat out wrong...

, but the Germans in 1932 were as well educated and theoretically humane as any nation on earth at the time.
You speak of germans as if they are a collective entity.

There is a dark side to humanity that can come out at most unexpected times.
And you base this on logic which is... Define "dark side". Then define "coming out". Do we start using the force in a series of seizures while dramatically looking evil?

I think human being while having a great capacity toward good--must always and vigilently check its own motivations.
That's how communism and class consciousness was born.


This is a very easy question to answer if there is a God--he just made us this way but he's watching over us. Without a God it's alot more difficult.
It's a lot easier than that, since there is no imaginary friend called "god", or "jahve", or "allah" or "santa claus" or any other silly superstition either. Learn empirical science and why it triumphs.

What if evolution put into us this little seed of a fatal flaw, that worked well when we were wandering bands of hunter gatherers but could prove evil and brutal when larger societies?
It's not evolution, it's capitalism.

Hopefully we have other capacities that could overcome that flaw.
Yes we have, class consciousness and working class revolution.

[Bud Struggle]

Luckily enough "you think", is not enough to alter reality. Fair enough. But since there isn't a definitive scientific answer to the question--all we have is what you think and what I think.


Are you saying that bad parents don't exist? Ok, this is basic biology. There are animals that take care of their young and there are animals that birth them and then just let them float out there to take care of themselves. Humans are of the former type.


These are born out of necessity, not always is this voluntary, therefor it does not count as something universal to "human-nature" So then you can see how the solitary hunter gatherer might have been bread out of humanity. It's pretty obvious that people form social groups.


Like the religious zealots of middle ages? Also known as europeans. Of course. Hind sight is 20/20 they did the best they could with the information they had to explain and understand the universe. As information is gathered and analyized we come to different and better conclusions. Don't you think people 1000 years from now will be looking on us like we were a bunch of idiots? You don't think the sum total of all human thinking for all time is culminated in you?


Honestly, when you think about it, pretty much nothing in society is universal for all humans. This also means that the society can be changed. There are plenty of similarities between groups of humans all over the world.


"You think"? Well, I just quit! What can I say to such an astounding argument? After all it is completely flawless. Why haven't humans realized this before?! Forget all that evidence stuff and looking at actual real world examples! You think this is true, it abolutely changes everything! I assume this sort of stuff passes for wit in the circles you travel in. :)


Especially considering that there is no such thing as "good" or "evil". Morality is a constantly shifting trend that responds to material and social conditions, and changes with those conditions. Well that's what you think! :D


Yes... Yes one could, but then the one would be flat out wrong... Well if you actually read what I was saying--I wasn't saying that at all.


You speak of germans as if they are a collective entity. They thought they were.


And you base this on logic which is... Define "dark side". Then define "coming out". Do we start using the force in a series of seizures while dramatically looking evil? Again--wit. :rolleyes:


That's how communism and class consciousness was born. As well as religion. As well as democracy.



It's a lot easier than that, since there is no imaginary friend called "god", or "jahve", or "allah" or "santa claus" or any other silly superstition either. Learn empirical science and why it triumphs. Again you miss the point.


It's not evolution, it's capitalism. It's best one contains one's Communist trimphalism till the happy day when Communism become triumphant. Up to now it hasn't worked very well. That's not to say that it can't, but it has to be rethough to work correctly.


Yes we have, class consciousness and working class revolution. Well, WE don't have that--a few do--but for the most, not so much. And when was the last time you saw a "Working Class Revolution?"

[Blake's Baby]

...

There are plenty of similarities between groups of humans all over the world.

...

Not really. Not enough to claim that there is a set of 'hard wired' principles of what it means to be human (in other words, a 'human nature'). Some groups of humans hold the idea that property is individual, some that it's communal, some are ruled by hereditary rulers, some by elected rulers, some if they're small enough get away with no rulers at all. In some, power is given to women, in some to men, some are matrilocal and some patrilocal, in some child-rearing is individual, in some collective; some have individual hunting and collective feasting, some collective hunting and individual feasting, etc.

Anything you come up with as a 'human trait' that goes beyond the utterly banal (eg, 'humans tend to like having sex with other humans'; or 'humans like food') will have been done differently by another human group somewhere else.

The entire 'New Archaeology' project of Binford and co (the 'scientific archaeology' of the 1950s-90s, essentially) was predicated on the idea that there were necessary 'rules' about human reactions to the environment and when they went out looking they were unable to formulate general rules to govern human behaviour. They couldn't find them even though they thought they were there and looked really hard. It's not like they didn't really want to find them, their failure essentially destroyed their whole approach to archaeology as science (and really jeopardised their funding).

[NecroCommie]

Fair enough. But since there isn't a definitive scientific answer to the question--all we have is what you think and what I think.
Yet the two are not equal, because the positive factual claim has the burden of proof... so... What do you have to support the statement that there are charateristics universal to man?

Ok, this is basic biology. There are animals that take care of their young and there are animals that birth them and then just let them float out there to take care of themselves. Humans are of the former type.
Yet the feature is not universal to man. It means that culture and social conditions have greater impacts on this quality than the hypothetical "human nature". Humans are parenting animals, yes, does this impose restrictions on cultural development, no. Humans have long since passed beyond biological evolution. Nowadays the fittest culture survives.



So then you can see how the solitary hunter gatherer might have been bread out of humanity. It's pretty obvious that people form social groups.

Yet if conditions change to support individuals that are not reliant on society, highly social humans would quickly become a minority. Yet there would still be humans, indicating that the hypothetical "human nature" is either not universal, or excludes this feature.


Of course. Hind sight is 20/20 they did the best they could with the information they had to explain and understand the universe.
Oh please! There is a clear distinction between not understanding the rationality behind the theory of evolution and intentionally burning at the stake anyone who says that your imaginary friend is not correct.


Don't you think people 1000 years from now will be looking on us like we were a bunch of idiots?
Only if we exclude options because their names are scary. (hint hint)

You don't think the sum total of all human thinking for all time is culminated in you?
Ofcourse not... Then again I am not supporting a viewpoint simply because other people do. There is no objective indication of a "human nature", so therefor according to empirical science it does not exist.

There are plenty of similarities between groups of humans all over the world. Material conditions are somewhat similar because we live in the same planet. Social conditions are similar because of imperialism.
There are no qualities that are universal to all cultures, meaning that cultural evolution is not tied to some spooky "original sin" inherent in all humans.


I assume this sort of stuff passes for wit in the circles you travel in. :)
Yet it also has a point. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


Well that's what you think! :D
Again, positive factual claim has the burden of proof. If evidence is not shown, empirical science must assume the claim as false. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


Well if you actually read what I was saying--I wasn't saying that at all.
I know it, you said it was something "more". That however cannot be the case because it is nothing "more", nothing "less", it is something completely different. The very indication that the premise is right in that proposition is flat out wrong.


They thought they were.
Again! "They" did not think anything because "they" are not a collective entity.

Again--wit. :rolleyes:
With a point. If you cannot define them, it means they have no meaning and are merely rhetoric. Rhetorics are a useless thing when trying to find out whether economical systems are valid or not.


As well as religion. As well as democracy.
Both of which are prone to exploitation. (I assume that with "democracy" you refer to parliamentarism. Otherwise it would be of little value to differentiate it from communism)



Again you miss the point.
Which is what. You present religion-derived morality as an equally valid oppinion. It is not.

That's not to say that it can't, but it has to be rethough to work correctly.
There is nothing to rethink, since that would be utopian thinking. It is not the job of a communist to design a society. We must simply make sure that whatever the new order is, it will respect the rights of workers and the working class as a whole.


Well, WE don't have that--a few do--but for the most, not so much. And when was the last time you saw a "Working Class Revolution?"
Your question is loaded with the assumption that there hasn't been one. The fact that all working class revolutions have been taken over later on, does not mean they were not working class revolutions to begin with.

[Bud Struggle]

Yet the two are not equal, because the positive factual claim has the burden of proof... so... What do you have to support the statement that there are charateristics universal to man? Again--it isn't a science hence nothing can be proven. There in't a logical sequence here that will give any proof whatsoever. You have your poinion and I have mine.


Yet the feature is not universal to man. It means that culture and social conditions have greater impacts on this quality than the hypothetical "human nature". Humans are parenting animals, yes, does this impose restrictions on cultural development, no. Humans have long since passed beyond biological evolution. Nowadays the fittest culture survives. How do you know that people havelong since passed biological evolution. People act on biologocal urges all the time (food, sex, etc.) How do you know that they aren't still the primary motivation for cultural excesses?



Yet if conditions change to support individuals that are not reliant on society, highly social humans would quickly become a minority. Yet there would still be humans, indicating that the hypothetical "human nature" is either not universal, or excludes this feature. I don't see that as having even the slightest possibility of happening. From the jungles to complex societies people always form tribes or clans or countries or neighborhoods. It's instinctual. Besides every other creature on the face of the earth acts in instinctual patterns--can you think that humans don't? It seems you set people a bit too far ahead of the other creatures on the earth.


Oh please! There is a clear distinction between not understanding the rationality behind the theory of evolution and intentionally burning at the stake anyone who says that your imaginary friend is not correct. Hey, Stalin killed plenty of people that he thought were "not correct." So did Hitler. People weren't any more or less rational 500 years ago than they are now.


Ofcourse not... Then again I am not supporting a viewpoint simply because other people do. There is no objective indication of a "human nature", so therefor according to empirical science it does not exist.
Material conditions are somewhat similar because we live in the same planet. Social conditions are similar because of imperialism.
There are no qualities that are universal to all cultures, meaning that cultural evolution is not tied to some spooky "original sin" inherent in all humans. The whole point of Psychology and Sociology are pointing out similarities in the human condition. Besides I see no reason as I mentioned above why every animal on earth behaves in some ways instinctually and humans don't. I'm not that much a fan of hunman exceptionalism.


Again, positive factual claim has the burden of proof. If evidence is not shown, empirical science must assume the claim as false. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And here is one of the great problems of Communism--it's totality of thought. Being able to "proove" that there is evil is not a logical construct. When you try to reduce everything to logic and reason you come up with the silliness that mass murder isn't "wrong" it's just a "trend." No one that had their wife and kids fried in a Nazi oven would say--"sucky trend!" (As an aside--it's thought processes like this that explain why Communism has so little traction in real world politics.)



I know it, you said it was something "more". That however cannot be the case because it is nothing "more", nothing "less", it is something completely different. The very indication that the premise is right in that proposition is flat out wrong. My point was extistential not material.


Again! "They" did not think anything because "they" are not a collective entity. So there is no sense of collectivization--just random individual doing random things that add up to a society? I see where you are comming from and why you are comming from there--but I doubt you are going to get many takers.


With a point. If you cannot define them, it means they have no meaning and are merely rhetoric. Rhetorics are a useless thing when trying to find out whether economical systems are valid or not. So is empty logic. Again this is another example of Communism's lack of tools to capture people's imagenation.


Both of which are prone to exploitation. (I assume that with "democracy" you refer to parliamentarism. Otherwise it would be of little value to differentiate it from communism) And Communism isn't? (Almost) every Communist society to date has been the platfrom of a "great leader" doing "great things for the people" in the name of the people. If that isn't exploitation, what is?


Which is what. You present religion-derived morality as an equally valid oppinion. It is not. Of course it is--the fastest growth of Christianity is taking place in China right now. You isolate yourself to meaningless mumbleing when you don't take a Pragmatic account of the world.


There is nothing to rethink, since that would be utopian thinking. It is not the job of a communist to design a society. We must simply make sure that whatever the new order is, it will respect the rights of workers and the working class as a whole. I have no problem with that as a Social Democrat.


Your question is loaded with the assumption that there hasn't been one. The fact that all working class revolutions have been taken over later on, does not mean they were not working class revolutions to begin with. Maybe it's just human nature that such revolution ALWAYS get taken over. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Not really. Not enough to claim that there is a set of 'hard wired' principles of what it means to be human (in other words, a 'human nature'). Some groups of humans hold the idea that property is individual, some that it's communal, some are ruled by hereditary rulers, some by elected rulers, some if they're small enough get away with no rulers at all. In some, power is given to women, in some to men, some are matrilocal and some patrilocal, in some child-rearing is individual, in some collective; some have individual hunting and collective feasting, some collective hunting and individual feasting, etc. I have no problem with your examples--my contention was that human nature was more primal than the points you mentioned.


Anything you come up with as a 'human trait' that goes beyond the utterly banal (eg, 'humans tend to like having sex with other humans'; or 'humans like food') will have been done differently by another human group somewhere else. You can say that about any animal--dogs for instance. they like to have sex with other dogs--but there have been instances of things being otherwise. An instinct doesn't have to be 100% exclusive to be correct--there just has to be trends.


The entire 'New Archaeology' project of Binford and co (the 'scientific archaeology' of the 1950s-90s, essentially) was predicated on the idea that there were necessary 'rules' about human reactions to the environment and when they went out looking they were unable to formulate general rules to govern human behaviour. They couldn't find them even though they thought they were there and looked really hard. It's not like they didn't really want to find them, their failure essentially destroyed their whole approach to archaeology as science (and really jeopardised their funding). Fair enough I'm not farmiliar with the study.

[Blake's Baby]

It wasn't a study, it was a paradigm of how to do archaeology. The notion of 'scientific archaeology' also known as 'new archaeology' or 'the new American archaeology' or 'Processualism'. All the stuff about inputs and workflows and measuring everything - if you've ever played 'Civilisation' or 'Rome Total War' or 'SimCity' or anything like that then you know the stuff I mean. That entire project (basically of every archaeologist in the English-speaking world over 40 years) foundered on the fact that 'human nature' is impossible to identify and quantify. I believe a lot of good work was done over that period but its theoretical underpinnings were... wrong.

So what 'human traits' are there that go beyond the examples that I listed, that would supoport the idea of 'human nature'?

[#FF0000]

I think people are sort of nitpicking and Bud Struggle is basically correct when he says that there are some really basic drives that humans have.

EDIT: But like Blake's Baby said they are kind of banal like "they like to reproduce and have friends and live"


These are born out of necessity, not always is this voluntary, therefor it does not count as something universal to "human-nature"

"Human nature" itself sort of means "not voluntary" because it refers to how people are hard-wired to act. Human beings are hard-wired to form social groups. Doesn't mean that individuals are necessarily good at it or even capable, but the desire is there and it is more or less innate.


Like the religious zealots of middle ages?

People were still intelligent and innovative in the middle ages though.

[NecroCommie]

Again--it isn't a science hence nothing can be proven. There in't a logical sequence here that will give any proof whatsoever. You have your poinion and I have mine.
Again, science or not, the existence of human nature is a factual statement. It must be true or false, meaning that a positive claim for it's existence must have evidence or it must be considered false. It is no more a matter of oppinion as the existence of telepathy.

How do you know that people havelong since passed biological evolution. People act on biologocal urges all the time (food, sex, etc.) How do you know that they aren't still the primary motivation for cultural excesses?
With the fact that people can have children even if they would not even survive in pre-agriculural societies. Today it does not matter what genetic phenotype you possess, but in which society you live in, and what practices that society uses. This is to say that cultural evolution has a bigger impact than biological one. Animals too have some minor cultural evolution, but only with man has it greatly surpassed the importance of biological evolution. This also means that biological evolution no longer concentrates on who is the fittest in a certain environment, but rather it eliminates those who cannot fit into the culture that surrounds the individual.

This is quite common knowledge, tought to us in the very first history and society lessons in high-school.


I don't see that as having even the slightest possibility of happening. From the jungles to complex societies people always form tribes or clans or countries or neighborhoods. It's instinctual.
What a laughable suggestion. One word can denounce that. Hikikomori, which is but an extreme manifestation of perfectly common charateristic. There are many persons in this world who are tied to their society, not by psychological bondage, but by material necessity. Material necessity most certainly is not universal to man.

Besides every other creature on the face of the earth acts in instinctual patterns--can you think that humans don't?
It is not a black and white question. Ofcourse humans have universal needs as Blake's baby pointed out, but those needs are nothing more than the need to survive and reproduce. Everything else can be learned, or learned away from. Even the method of survival and reproducing varies from culture to culture.

It seems you set people a bit too far ahead of the other creatures on the earth.
No, you seem to think that humans can't work against their instincts. That is to say humans are not conscious.


Hey, Stalin killed plenty of people that he thought were "not correct." So did Hitler. People weren't any more or less rational 500 years ago than they are now.
So... what? Humans are all intelligent and clever, and now there has always been huge numbers of irrational and immoral people? Someone's losing some ground here. It seems that we have uncovered yet another feature that is not universal to man.


The whole point of Psychology and Sociology are pointing out similarities in the human condition. Besides I see no reason as I mentioned above why every animal on earth behaves in some ways instinctually and humans don't. I'm not that much a fan of hunman exceptionalism.
No, the point in psychology and sociology is to understand human behaviour. They have found out many things that violate your view of "human nature", since they have been forced to categorize human behaviours in a myriad different ways to myriad different categories. To claim that: "point of Psychology and Sociology are pointing out similarities in the human condition" Is like saying that the point of mathematics is to find similarities between numbers 2 and 11. Even if similarities were to be found, it hardly means that the point was to find similarities, nor does it mean that every number is essentially the same.


And here is one of the great problems of Communism--it's totality of thought. Being able to "proove" that there is evil is not a logical construct.
Everything that exists can be proven, abstract constructs through examining their definition, and concrete claims through physical evidence and observation. If there is nothing to indicate the existence of absolute evil, we must conclude that either evil does not exist, or it is not absolute (meaning that it is a shifting trend).

When you try to reduce everything to logic and reason you come up with the silliness that mass murder isn't "wrong" it's just a "trend." No one that had their wife and kids fried in a Nazi oven would say--"sucky trend!"
No they wouldn't, because they would have the luxury of cultural context.

(As an aside--it's thought processes like this that explain why Communism has so little traction in real world politics.)
In reality, it is thought processes like yours why reactionary ideas of god and nation still exist and are accepted.


My point was extistential not material.
Irrelevant. Bringing the example of elitist thought is futile, especially in this forum where people understand it's inherent contradictions.


So there is no sense of collectivization--just random individual doing random things that add up to a society? I see where you are comming from and why you are comming from there--but I doubt you are going to get many takers.
I would have to say that black and white thinking is typical of capitalists. Where ever did I say that there is no sense of collectivization? I simply stated that the sense of collective effort cannot manifest itself nationwide, since nation is an arbitary construct created by idealistic elite in the 19th century. Never before has nation played any part in identity, because nations are an abstract concept, unlike class or family. (which were the center of all politics before bourgeoisie rule)

My point was simply to illustrate that the germans did not co-operate against the jews, because the definition of germans included millions upon millions of people who objected nazi rule and anti-semitism. And that the germans could never ever co-operate in anything because the notion of "germans" include dozens of factions divided by social and material conditions. Even if some nation could co-operate in full, it would not be because of national co-operation or identity, but because of material or social necessity. Therefor saying that "germans co-operated" is necessarily either false, or misleading.


So is empty logic. Again this is another example of Communism's lack of tools to capture people's imagenation.
It is interesting that you chose to include the word "empty", because ofcourse I understand that logic alone could not achieve anything. Yet one would be an utter fool to suggest that logic shouldn't be taken seriously. It is called logic for a reason. And why would we need to capture people's imagination for? To create nice communist art? Our job is not to talk nice things about future, but to build a solid and lasting rule of the working class. A task in which logic and work go hand in hand and are both vital.



And Communism isn't? (Almost) every Communist society to date has been the platfrom of a "great leader" doing "great things for the people" in the name of the people. If that isn't exploitation, what is?

You really don't see the mistake here? Fine, I'll help:

...every Communist society to date...
... Get it?

Of course it is--the fastest growth of Christianity is taking place in China right now. You isolate yourself to meaningless mumbleing when you don't take a Pragmatic account of the world.
What is this supposed to mean? Because I don't kiss the ass of people with imaginary friends communist economy cannot work? My hypothetical lack of pragmatism, that manifests itself as arguments against irrational faith, means that communist society could not possibly become a reality?

I have no problem with that as a Social Democrat.
I know that, because social democrats are utopians. You do know the definition of utopian politics don't you? A quote from wikipedia:
...The term has been used to describe both intentional communities... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_community)
Social democracy is utopian, because it has a pre-considered idea of a society it intentionally seeks. Unlike marxists and anarchists, who merely derive their politics completely from previous experiences of leftist revolutions.


Maybe it's just human nature that such revolution ALWAYS get taken over. :)
Itentional invasions and meddling by foreign societal elite hardly counts as human nature. Sounds more like material interests of the ruling class to me.

[Robert]

Especially considering that there is no such thing as "good" or "evil".

"Especially"?

Child abuse (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-missing-boy-utah,0,556967.story), animal abuse, torture, gang rape, child prostitution? None of those qualify in your worldview?

You're a hard man to please.:crying:

[NecroCommie]

EDIT: But like Blake's Baby said they are kind of banal like "they like to reproduce and have friends and live"
I do not deny this, yet it hardly count's as human nature. It counts as biological necessities of life, instead of some social "original sins" if you may.


"Human nature" itself sort of means "not voluntary" because it refers to how people are hard-wired to act. Human beings are hard-wired to form social groups. Doesn't mean that individuals are necessarily good at it or even capable, but the desire is there and it is more or less innate.
Not all have even the desire. Some have only the material need, and material need cannot be counted as human nature. Very strong introverts are not uncommon.


People were still intelligent and innovative in the middle ages though.
True, yet beside the point.

[NecroCommie]

"Especially"?

Child abuse (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-missing-boy-utah,0,556967.story), animal abuse, torture, gang rape, child prostitution? None of those qualify in your worldview?

You're a hard man to please.:crying:
They are not in line with current ethical norms of western society. But they are far from universal laws of nature, since every one of your "evils" has been commonly accepted at certain cultures and at certain times. Some are still tolerated in different parts of the world.

It does not mean that I accept those things, it simply means that no one can claim superiority when it comes to moral code. Western, and especially communist ethics are heavily centered in individualistic empathy.

[NecroCommie]

I have no problem with your examples--my contention was that human nature was more primal than the points you mentioned.
Yet it is not, since these societies existed. If human nature was somehow superior to cultural context, these kinds of societies would not have existed.


You can say that about any animal--dogs for instance. they like to have sex with other dogs--but there have been instances of things being otherwise. An instinct doesn't have to be 100% exclusive to be correct--there just has to be trends.
Trends are subjective. According to you homosexuality was part of human nature in the ancient island of Lesbos. Yet if we widened the context a bit it started to be abnormal. How large does the context need to be in order to verify a human nature? And what is the percentage at which human nature turns into cultural trends?

[#FF0000]

Not all have even the desire. Some have only the material need, and material need cannot be counted as human nature. Very strong introverts are not uncommon.

Yeah that's true. I think this in particular is an example of how "human nature" is vastly different from society to society. I doubt you'd find many introverts in hunter-gatherer groups.

[Robert]

It does not mean that I accept those things, it simply means that no one can claim superiority when it comes to moral code.

I suspect you don't "accept" those things because you know they are "evil" as that word is commonly understood.

I do wonder if, by rejecting the notion of "evil" as hopelessly subjective and trendy, you mean that those who do things that you (presumably) disagree with, like torturing babies and selling the video for profit, you mean that we can't be sure that there is some supreme moral arbiter like God to punish them.

If that's all you mean, I won't argue at all. But if you "don't accept" child abuse as a permissible act, wouldn't you go further and urge its prohibition? If so, why? Who are you to judge that I can't set fire to my child? Or would you just say "well, some people like artichokes and others don't"?

[A.R.Amistad]

I haven't a clue what you mean to say. Are you arguing against a human nature? On what grounds? How do you distinguish this from the "human condition"? Why do you think religious fundamentalists/pagans advocates a human nature as opposed to avowed secularists? Thanks for the Sartrean apothegm, but what has this to do w/ your argument?

I think that would just turn into an argument of free will, but we've just evolved beyond being controlled by our physical needs. Thats the only reason some animals have a "nature." They are what we existentialists call "slaves of necessity." Humans have gone beyond necessity and can lead more complex lives than just living to eat, sleep and breathe. I'm not a libertarian believer in free will. I'm a comptiblist, but I think that freedom is something we have evolved, and something tht other species will evolve as well. I don't believe in any sort of human nature beyond our bodily needs. I think its religious to say "people are greedy, peaople, are good, people are social, etc. etc." because its as if some omnipotent God has inserted these subjective moral values and judgements into our genes. Life is meaningless and we give it meaning, so life is not "of greed" or "of morality" unless we make it so.

[Bud Struggle]

Back at you soon. Just watched this--http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100514/NEWS02/305140003/1006/NEWS01/Liftoff++Shuttle+Atlantis+soars+into+orbit

over a 3 martini lunch. Whew!

[Blake's Baby]

I suspect you don't "accept" those things because you know they are "evil" as that word is commonly understood.

I do wonder if, by rejecting the notion of "evil" as hopelessly subjective and trendy, you mean that those who do things that you (presumably) disagree with, like torturing babies and selling the video for profit, you mean that we can't be sure that there is some supreme moral arbiter like God to punish them.

If that's all you mean, I won't argue at all. But if you "don't accept" child abuse as a permissible act, wouldn't you go further and urge its prohibition? If so, why? Who are you to judge that I can't set fire to my child? Or would you just say "well, some people like artichokes and others don't"?


No, I can't let that wash. They (your original list was "child abuse, animal abuse, torture, gang rape, child prostitution") are contrary to western norms. Yet it wasn't that long ago that girls aged 12 could marry in the west, and marriages often involved financial arrangements between the families; and that qualifies as both child abuse and child prostitution now. Was England 'evil' up to 1759? Where the people that inhabited it? Must be. Sex with 12 year olds is evil, apprently under all circumstances, no matter what society says.

Animal abuse happens now. It's totally accepted by about 98% of most western countries. Those who oppose it are regarded as freaks (eg, vegans). Is it evil? Must be, no matter what society says.

And society approves torture too. Prisoners are tortured (even though they're not supposed to be) and a lot of other people are tortured too. Sure, it's against the law. But socially condoned by swathes of the population because the victims are gay/black/foreign/disabled/pick an oppressed minority.

Gang rape? Difficult to find recent examples of that in a western context that anyone would be trying to defend. But if you'd said 'rape' instead, it was only in 1989 that English law accepted the principle that it was possible for a woman to be raped by her husband. And it's still often hard for a woman to be believed that she's been raped, especially if the prosecution can claim that she's 'asking for it'. So, yes, socially condoning rape.

All of these examples are problematic for your 'ultimate evil' because all of them have been accepted by societies that are regarded as 'civilised'.

Anyway, this is a very long way from why people aren't inherently lazy and selfish.

[NecroCommie]

I suspect you don't "accept" those things because you know they are "evil" as that word is commonly understood.

I do wonder if, by rejecting the notion of "evil" as hopelessly subjective and trendy, you mean that those who do things that you (presumably) disagree with, like torturing babies and selling the video for profit, you mean that we can't be sure that there is some supreme moral arbiter like God to punish them.

If that's all you mean, I won't argue at all. But if you "don't accept" child abuse as a permissible act, wouldn't you go further and urge its prohibition? If so, why? Who are you to judge that I can't set fire to my child? Or would you just say "well, some people like artichokes and others don't"?
People have different codes of ethics because people prioritize different things. Those who prioritize pleasure are called hedonists, those who prioritize slefish gain are called egoists, those who prioritize the collective "greater good" are called something else and so on and so on. My morality, among with the morality of the western majority puts alot of weight on empathy, and the feelings of others.

Yes, I would seek to ban all cruelty, not only on people but animals too. I even dare to claim that I demand this more strictly than the majority of finns. Yet if my claim is contested by another ethical view, I understand that there is no objective justification for the claims of either one... save for one! The will of the majority is a valid argument in this case. If your entire community shuns murder (whoa! what a rare treat) it is reasonable to ban it even from those who hold opposite oppinions.

Luckily for us, the ethical trend in greater historical scale has always been shifting towards the political left. During the past hundred years quite dramatically so.

This viewpoint does however have two practical details that differ from the current majority.
1) It does not claim any moral code as absolute (many still claim their morals are)
2) It accepts the fact that different people have different, philosophically equal sets of moral code, even if only one is accepted as the community norm.

[Bud Struggle]

Again, science or not, the existence of human nature is a factual statement. It must be true or false, meaning that a positive claim for it's existence must have evidence or it must be considered false. It is no more a matter of oppinion as the existence of telepathy. People behave in certain ways when confronted with certain situations. That's human nature. You can put a 3 year old in a crib with another 3 year old is the first one hits the second one the second one will hit back--translate that to a couple of terroriest slam into the Workd Trade Center and the next thing you know there are a hundred thousand troops milling around Afghanistan,. It's the same scenario writ large.


With the fact that people can have children even if they would not even survive in pre-agriculural societies. Today it does not matter what genetic phenotype you possess, but in which society you live in, and what practices that society uses. This is to say that cultural evolution has a bigger impact than biological one. Animals too have some minor cultural evolution, but only with man has it greatly surpassed the importance of biological evolution. This also means that biological evolution no longer concentrates on who is the fittest in a certain environment, but rather it eliminates those who cannot fit into the culture that surrounds the individual. I agree that there is a certain amount of cultural evolution--though one can't really say it is "evolution" it's more just "change" than anything else. And the world certainly is all about the survival of the fittest--the fittest (intellectually) live the best, make the most money and have the best quality of lives. The guys making 50 million dollars a year at Goldman Sachs are all the same--smart and greedy. They are the fittest in our particular Capitalist enviornment. They would be the fittest (smartiest) in any other culture also.


What a laughable suggestion. One word can denounce that. Hikikomori, which is but an extreme manifestation of perfectly common charateristic. There are many persons in this world who are tied to their society, not by psychological bondage, but by material necessity. Material necessity most certainly is not universal to man. You miss the bigger question of WHY our sociey is the way it is--and that's through biological determinism. The world is a Capitalistic affair because that's essentially the way humans are--theoretical constructs like Capitalism and Fascism have been tried and missed the point of how the hunan being is spychologically and socially constructed and EVERY time these ideas are tried they either go down in flames or die a slow quitet death. Do you think it's by chande that every time Communism is tried a strong man takes over? Or that it gradually breakes down into some sort of Market Communism of back to Capitalism.

The Societ Union IS what Communism looks like in the real world when put into practice.


It is not a black and white question. Ofcourse humans have universal needs as Blake's baby pointed out, but those needs are nothing more than the need to survive and reproduce. Everything else can be learned, or learned away from. Even the method of survival and reproducing varies from culture to culture. And there is also a pattern on how those needs are met. Capitalism has shown itself to be a rather universal way inwhich people meet their basic needs--and yes there are other ways--social and economic experiments, but for the most part they never work out as planned and fail. There are also small groups of people that do things in different ways--but for the large world Capitalism of trading or barter seems to be quite natural to most people.


No, you seem to think that humans can't work against their instincts. That is to say humans are not conscious. People can work against their instincts--they don't very often, but they can. The problem is it is hard to identify what is an instinct and what is will.



So... what? Humans are all intelligent and clever, and now there has always been huge numbers of irrational and immoral people? Someone's losing some ground here. It seems that we have uncovered yet another feature that is not universal to man. Not all humans are intelligent and clever--and certain drives (such as the desire to protect one's family from harm) could be perverted into thinking for example that all Jews are out to hurt them. Just because certain drives are perverted doesn't mean they they aren't there.



No, the point in psychology and sociology is to understand human behaviour. They have found out many things that violate your view of "human nature", since they have been forced to categorize human behaviours in a myriad different ways to myriad different categories. Psychology is used in marketing and sales all of the time to find similarities in people and to exploit those similarities to influence them to buy things. That's one of the "great" discoveries of Capitalist culture--how to sell things to people en mass. They use cues and subtle subconscious signs to influence people into doing particular things. Again--this is one of the tools that the west used to break down the Iron Curtain--they made the Soviets WANT things their governments couldnt provide.


Everything that exists can be proven, abstract constructs through examining their definition, and concrete claims through physical evidence and observation. If there is nothing to indicate the existence of absolute evil, we must conclude that either evil does not exist, or it is not absolute (meaning that it is a shifting trend). Not in the least. Reality exists but there is no proof that humans understand it in any other way than in through our own human interpretation--which may or may not actually a true reflection of reality. We have no wat of knowing. The construct of what we believe as evil may indeed actually exist but we can only see it through our limited ability to understand the universe. Besides evil doesn't need an absolute to exist.


No they wouldn't, because they would have the luxury of cultural context. So in it's cultural contex slavery was a good thing?


In reality, it is thought processes like yours why reactionary ideas of god and nation still exist and are accepted. We will be around until the Revolution. :) (And then we'll be around forever after the counter-Revolution. :D)


I would have to say that black and white thinking is typical of capitalists. Where ever did I say that there is no sense of collectivization? I simply stated that the sense of collective effort cannot manifest itself nationwide, since nation is an arbitary construct created by idealistic elite in the 19th century. Never before has nation played any part in identity, because nations are an abstract concept, unlike class or family. (which were the center of all politics before bourgeoisie rule)

My point was simply to illustrate that the germans did not co-operate against the jews, because the definition of germans included millions upon millions of people who objected nazi rule and anti-semitism. And that the germans could never ever co-operate in anything because the notion of "germans" include dozens of factions divided by social and material conditions. Even if some nation could co-operate in full, it would not be because of national co-operation or identity, but because of material or social necessity. Therefor saying that "germans co-operated" is necessarily either false, or misleading.I see what you are saying and I disagree, but if nations exist or not is a sidelight to this discussion and not worth going into unless you want to.


It is interesting that you chose to include the word "empty", because ofcourse I understand that logic alone could not achieve anything. Yet one would be an utter fool to suggest that logic shouldn't be taken seriously. It is called logic for a reason. And why would we need to capture people's imagination for? To create nice communist art? Our job is not to talk nice things about future, but to build a solid and lasting rule of the working class. A task in which logic and work go hand in hand and are both vital. I don't believe that you will ever have a Revolution with that line of thinking. I could go on making some statement that logic isn't reality and that it is only a human representation of reality, etc. but it would miss the point. The Revolution isn't about logic or reason or rationality. It's about hope. It's about hope for a better chance for individuals to have a more rewarding physical existance in this world. You don't give any reason why things should change other than the idea that it's a logical trend. I think the world is a much more pragmatic affair and of the ten most important things in people's lives ligic is about number 50. I really don't believe logic truly reflects the human condition in it's whole.

And understand--I'm not saying that Capitalism is good at all. I'm saying it reflects the human condition better than your materialist philosophy--and that's why it has the nasty habit of winning in clutch situations.

You really need to change that aspect of Communism before you can make any headway in the world.

[NecroCommie]

People behave in certain ways when confronted with certain situations. That's human nature.
What a huge load of bullcrap! Beyond eating drinking and fucking, the single most important factor in human behaviour is surrounding culture!

You can put a 3 year old in a crib with another 3 year old is the first one hits the second one the second one will hit back
I will promise you that not even half the three year olds hit back if struck by a peer! You pulled this analogy out of your ass!

--translate that to a couple of terroriest slam into the Workd Trade Center and the next thing you know there are a hundred thousand troops milling around Afghanistan,. It's the same scenario writ large.
What a huge load of "might makes right"-crap! But fine, let us continue on your questionable line of reasoning. Does it not follow then that with troops looting the shit out of afghanistan would lead to people wanting to get rid of american imperialism?

I agree that there is a certain amount of cultural evolution--though one can't really say it is "evolution" it's more just "change" than anything else.
Really? Then what do you suppose is the difference between the words change and evolution? Hell! I should know better than to challenge you! After all you know this alot better than teachers who have studied this subject for years in universities.


And the world certainly is all about the survival of the fittest--the fittest (intellectually)
What kind of mind boggling arrogance does it take to alter the very theory of evolution without any basis?! There is just the survival of the fittest. You cannot add (intellectually), or (physically), or (mentally), or any other "-ally" either. There is simply the statement that those who fit in current conditions, survive. And as it happens, in capitalism the best fit is if you can lie the most without getting cought, exploit the most without getting suspected, and pass the most bullshit without anyone questioning.

The guys making 50 million dollars a year at Goldman Sachs are all the same--smart
Yet I will quarantee that any long term revlefter can debate the living shit out of any of those guys when it comes to economics. Want proof? Read the book of this guy, an ex stock broker in London who got sick of all the pretentious pseudo-intellectual shit in the trade. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_BvjXGecME

and greedy.
Agreed.

They are the fittest in our particular Capitalist enviornment.
True, yet they are fittest only in capitalism, and fittest for quite the dishonorable reasons.

They would be the fittest (smartiest) in any other culture also.
Hah! Read the book, and learn some basic history.


You miss the bigger question of WHY our sociey is the way it is--and that's through biological determinism.
No I am not missing it, you just have the wrong answer. The society is the way it is because of material conditions and class struggle.

The world is a Capitalistic affair because that's essentially the way humans are--
If that's the way humans are, there wouldn't have been any need to wage wars through entire continents to spread it. There wouldn't be any need to artificially meddle and destroy the labour movement. There wouldn't have been any need for forceful coup'detats in latin america. You just willfully remain ignorant to the fact that our current society is a consciously built arrangement that benefits only the capitalist class.

theoretical constructs like Capitalism and Fascism have been tried and missed the point of how the hunan being is spychologically and socially constructed and EVERY time these ideas are tried they either go down in flames or die a slow quitet death.
Or intentionally shot down by capitalist class. No, wait, it's actually always been intentionally shot down by capitalist class.

Do you think it's by chande that every time Communism is tried a strong man takes over?
No, class war exists.


Or that it gradually breakes down into some sort of Market Communism of back to Capitalism.

This also can be explained with class war.

The Societ Union IS what Communism looks like in the real world when put into practice.
And you have nothing to back this up? Fine, I will now proceed to topple your claim with a counter argument equally valid in logical construct and evidence: "Is not!"


And there is also a pattern on how those needs are met. Capitalism has shown itself to be a rather universal way inwhich people meet their basic needs --and yes there are other ways--social and economic experiments, but for the most part they never work out as planned and fail.
What a steaming pile of utter intellectual waste! Participatory economies have never-ever failed due to economic reasons. Every single time they have been toppled with violence of foreign capitalists.


There are also small groups of people that do things in different ways--but for the large world Capitalism of trading or barter seems to be quite natural to most people.

It does? Fine, I'll guess I just ask you the next time I want to know what most people want and how they act. After all you seem to know these things very well. Wait! I got one question! What do most people think about your brazen display of constantly ignoring real world examples and your stubborn refusal to accept the failure of some ancient capitalist arguments?


People can work against their instincts--they don't very often, but they can. The problem is it is hard to identify what is an instinct and what is will.

But now that you have come forward with this astonishing "human nature" we don't have that problem anymore! \o/ We can just ask you what is instinct and what is will!


Not all humans are intelligent and clever--and certain drives (such as the desire to protect one's family from harm) could be perverted into thinking for example that all Jews are out to hurt them. Just because certain drives are perverted doesn't mean they they aren't there.
Ah! So even if there is no correlation between your claims and reality, it does not mean that you are wrong, and therefor you must be right?


Psychology is used in marketing and sales all of the time to find similarities in people and to exploit those similarities to influence them to buy things. That's one of the "great" discoveries of Capitalist culture--how to sell things to people en mass. They use cues and subtle subconscious signs to influence people into doing particular things. Again--this is one of the tools that the west used to break down the Iron Curtain--they made the Soviets WANT things their governments couldnt provide.
And this is supposed to make me want capitalism? Is this all capitalists can offer nowadays? "Well we are not good, just, nice, or even reasonable, but god-damn we exploit you guys in the most efficient way!"


Not in the least. Reality exists but there is no proof that humans understand it in any other way than in through our own human interpretation--which may or may not actually a true reflection of reality.
So we should believe in even unproven things, because they might be proven later on? Or should we believe in fairies, just because our inability to see them does not exlude their existence?

We have no wat of knowing. The construct of what we believe as evil may indeed actually exist but we can only see it through our limited ability to understand the universe. Besides evil doesn't need an absolute to exist.
So I should just accept your view of evil because I cannot prove against it?

And evil does indeed assume absolute values, otherwise you would conform to my proposition of moral codes as a matter of trends and oppinions.


So in it's cultural contex slavery was a good thing?
In what cultural context? Since you ask me, and I have grown in western culture, my answer would be no, slavery was never a good thing. Yet if you ask an ancient Roman, he would say yes it is, and neither of us could prove anyone wrong or right.

You ask that question in a context that denies the justification to own another man. If you were to ask the question in 18th century US to a southerner, you would get different answers.

We will be around until the Revolution. :) (And then we'll be around forever after the counter-Revolution. :D)
Really? Just like third-reich is still going to be around for another 900 years, or like the roman empire that still exists in the mediterranean? What kind of unreasonable pride and arrogance does it take for a man to think his ideas are the ones that exist forever more?



I see what you are saying and I disagree, but if nations exist or not is a sidelight to this discussion and not worth going into unless you want to.

What is relevant however, is that germans per se did not co-operate against anyone.


I think this and believe that and that in itself counts as an argument...
I don't even bother myself with this one.

[Blake's Baby]

... The world is a Capitalistic affair because that's essentially the way humans are...

Yes. That's exactly why communism existed for 245,000 years, class society has existed for about 7,000, and capitalism has existed for about 500 years as the general system in some areas (eg England, Holland) and 100 as a world system. Because humanity has only just learned to be 'human'.

Really, if it wasn't so sick an argument, it would be laughable. But it's both proposterous and anti-human to claim "that's how we are" when we've spent 2,450 times longer not being capitalist than being capitalist.

Honestly, Bud, if we are still here and still capitalist in 252,000AD then I'll come to accept that human nature may have changed. Don't hold your breath.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes. That's exactly why communism existed for 245,000 years, class society has existed for about 7,000, and capitalism has existed for about 500 years as the general system in some areas (eg England, Holland) and 100 as a world system. Because humanity has only just learned to be 'human'.

Really, if it wasn't so sick an argument, it would be laughable. But it's both proposterous and anti-human to claim "that's how we are" when we've spent 2,450 times longer not being capitalist than being capitalist.

Honestly, Bud, if we are still here and still capitalist in 252,000AD then I'll come to accept that human nature may have changed. Don't hold your breath.

The Proletariat has only been aroud 150 years or so. How do you figure the above?

[Lord Testicles]

The Proletariat has only been aroud 150 years or so. How do you figure the above?

I think Blake's Baby is talking about primitive communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism).

[Robert]

My morality, among with the morality of the western majority puts a lot of weight on empathy, and the feelings of others.

Great. And we have a word for those at the other end of the spectrum: "evil." The Chinese have a word for "evil" too. And they mean roughly what we mean.


This viewpoint does however have two practical details that differ from the current majority.
1) It does not claim any moral code as absolute (many still claim their morals are)
2) It accepts the fact that different people have different, philosophically equal sets of moral code, even if only one is accepted as the community norm.

I'm not going to excise the word "evil" from my vocabulary just because I recognize that I may change my views, or because other cultures may define it differently, though I think, to take an example, the enslavement of a people is unlikely to ever strike me as anything but "evil." Evil is a convenient word because everyone knows exactly what I am talking about.

It bothers me that you say "philosophically equal." It's the kind of talk that could lead to non-intervention in situations that call for intervening. If you can't bring yourself to call genocide and slavery evil, on what basis will you actively oppose it?

And if you are a native Finn, let me say that your English is astoundingly good. Not as good as my Finnish, of course.:rolleyes:

[Blake's Baby]

The Proletariat has only been aroud 150 years or so. How do you figure the above?

How do I figure which bit?

Capitalism developed slowly from c1250, and became the dominant system in England and Holland about 4-500 years ago, and through the rest of the world by the end of the 19th century.

Before that, Europe was Feudal... Feudalism developed from around 400AD onwards and reached its peak about 1250... before that, Europe was an 'Antique Slave' empire... Antique Slavery developed from about 600BC and peaked in about 150AD. Other areas of the world (eg China, Central America) had different developments, but even so, the more urbanised/statised areas of the world followed some broadly similar trends.

Before that, there were other more-or-less successful polities based on tribute and control of irrigation going ultimately back to about 5000BC. Before that, more or less, there were (and in fact some survived into historic times) semi-nomadic or semi-sedentry societies that practiced simple husbandry, pastoralism, and hunter-gatherer lifestyles, going back 250,000 years. None of them, until about 5000BC, are thought by archaeologists to be class societies.

[Bud Struggle]

How do I figure which bit?

Capitalism developed slowly from c1250, and became the dominant system in England and Holland about 4-500 years ago, and through the rest of the world by the end of the 19th century.

Before that, Europe was Feudal... Feudalism developed from around 400AD onwards and reached its peak about 1250... before that, Europe was an 'Antique Slave' empire... Antique Slavery developed from about 600BC and peaked in about 150AD. Other areas of the world (eg China, Central America) had different developments, but even so, the more urbanised/statised areas of the world followed some broadly similar trends.

Before that, there were other more-or-less successful polities based on tribute and control of irrigation going ultimately back to about 5000BC. Before that, more or less, there were (and in fact some survived into historic times) semi-nomadic or semi-sedentry societies that practiced simple husbandry, pastoralism, and hunter-gatherer lifestyles, going back 250,000 years. None of them, until about 5000BC, are thought by archaeologists to be class societies.

Maybe. But it also could have been Conan the Barbarianesque. We really don't know how life was like then. You want to believe Communism--then you can say it's a form of human behavior that we've grown out of and there are barbaric elements that want to bring us back to.

Meh--I don't see it as any sort of issue.


I think Blake's Baby is talking about primitive communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism). Thanks. I guess I've been hanging aroud too many Marxists. :D

[Robert]

But it also could have been Conan the Barbarianesque.

Really. It's far more plausible than a pre-historic democracy.:lol:

How do you reckon the communist hunter-gatherers of 200,000 years ago decided who got the tenderloin and who got the chuck roast? You don't think they voted on that, Bud?

[Bud Struggle]

Really. It's far more plausible than a pre-historic democracy.:lol:

How do you reckon the communist hunter-gatherers of 200,000 years ago decided who got the tenderloin and who got the chuck roast? You don't think they voted on that, Bud?

The Trogladite Soviet decided. :D

[Blake's Baby]

Well i'm glad the two of you are prepared to tell pretty much every archaeologist working in prehistory that they're wrong, even though you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm surprised that the most prestigious universities across the world aren't on the phone to you to head up their archaeology and anthropology departments. It's a great argument: humans are lazy and selfish because of Conan the Barbarian. Well, that's me defeated then, isn't it?

[Bud Struggle]

Well i'm glad the two of you are prepared to tell pretty much every archaeologist working in prehistory that they're wrong, even though you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm surprised that the most prestigious universities across the world aren't on the phone to you to head up their archaeology and anthropology departments. It's a great argument: humans are lazy and selfish because of Conan the Barbarian. Well, that's me defeated then, isn't it?

Oh us? We're sitting here just waiting for your links to prestigious journals an other publications to prove your point. While we both respect your just saying so for us to understand your points are true--we are under obligation from our superiors at the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Affairs to get some (though perfunctory) proof.

I hope you understand or position. We are just working for the MAN like everyone else.

Till the happy day of the Revolution,

Bud

[Blake's Baby]

Read some textbooks. Start with undergrad archaeology, anthropology and sociology books. Bruce Trigger's good, on the development of Archaeology as a discipline. Kevin Greene, and Renfrew and Bahn, are good for theoretical overviews.

[Bud Struggle]

Getting right on it! :)

[Qayin]

We give them Adderall for laziness and MDMA for selfishness

[NecroCommie]

.

Great. And we have a word for those at the other end of the spectrum: "evil." The Chinese have a word for "evil" too. And they mean roughly what we mean.
Yet the Japanese needed us westerners to bring the concept of good and evil to them. They only knew honor and dishonor before. And why do you insist on calling a trend with vague words like "evil"? Trend is a much more descriptive term in this case, as evil might just refer to something absolute.

So no, we don't have evil, we have moral trend, and that's it. It's not even philosophy really, but more like linquistics and grammar.



I'm not going to excise the word "evil" from my vocabulary just because I recognize that I may change my views, or because other cultures may define it differently, though I think, to take an example, the enslavement of a people is unlikely to ever strike me as anything but "evil." Evil is a convenient word because everyone knows exactly what I am talking about.

But this is why you should stop talking about evil, because the odds are people have no idea what you are talking about. Different people have different idea of evil. When I told my friend that religion was evil, he said that "no it isn't because religion defines evil". Where as I meant it as "scripture of major religion violate the moral norms of current society". (damn I should have put it that way in the first place!)


It bothers me that you say "philosophically equal." It's the kind of talk that could lead to non-intervention in situations that call for intervening. If you can't bring yourself to call genocide and slavery evil, on what basis will you actively oppose it?
Because in the context of victims (in this example at least), these practices are highly unpopular. My personal moral code of empathy makes me see the only objective justification called the democratic will of masses.


And if you are a native Finn, let me say that your English is astoundingly good. Not as good as my Finnish, of course.:rolleyes:
Well, thank you! :wub: I would have to admit that having an INTP personality helps alot when it comes to languages.

[Jazzratt]

We give them Adderall for laziness and MDMA for selfishness

All a bit brave new world don't you think comrade?

[Qayin]

All a bit brave new world don't you think comrade? My sense of humor im only kidding :)

Everybody on MDMA would be a utopia though haha
the compassion would be enormous, people hugging
strangers,ect

Adderall would make us get shit done! :laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

What a huge load of bullcrap! Beyond eating drinking and fucking, the single most important factor in human behaviour is surrounding culture!

I will promise you that not even half the three year olds hit back if struck by a peer! You pulled this analogy out of your ass! You have kids? I do.


What a huge load of "might makes right"-crap! But fine, let us continue on your questionable line of reasoning. Does it not follow then that with troops looting the shit out of afghanistan would lead to people wanting to get rid of american imperialism? You are bein shrill--and also missing my point.


Really? Then what do you suppose is the difference between the words change and evolution? Hell! I should know better than to challenge you! After all you know this alot better than teachers who have studied this subject for years in universities. What makes you think that societies actually evolve. Certainly Fascism isn't some sort of "better" evolution. I don't think Soviet state socialism was that much of an evolution. Maybe you think the demise of Socialism into capitalism in Eastern Europe was evolution?



What kind of mind boggling arrogance does it take to alter the very theory of evolution without any basis?! There is just the survival of the fittest. You cannot add (intellectually), or (physically), or (mentally), or any other "-ally" either. There is simply the statement that those who fit in current conditions, survive. What constitutes the "fittest" has changed with history. We actually may be saying the same thing here.


And as it happens, in capitalism the best fit is if you can lie the most without getting cought, exploit the most without getting suspected, and pass the most bullshit without anyone questioning. You saddly have a vastly distorted view of Capitalism. Capitalism has been very fair and forgiving to me. But then again like with "nations" we shouldn't speak in such generalities.


Yet I will quarantee that any long term revlefter can debate the living shit out of any of those guys when it comes to economics. Want proof? Read the book of this guy, an ex stock broker in London who got sick of all the pretentious pseudo-intellectual shit in the trade. He sounds like he goty fired.


True, yet they are fittest only in capitalism, and fittest for quite the dishonorable reasons. Comrade the trend is for Capitalism since the fall of Communism in the Iron Curtain countries and the tranmigration of China to a Capitalist economy. One can't be dishonorable if there is no good or evil--only trends, isn't that correct? :)


Hah! Read the book, and learn some basic history. I don't know--the same guys that did well (commissars, CP members, etc.) who were doing well under Soviet Socialism are now doing well under Capitalism. I think there's a connection. :)


No I am not missing it, you just have the wrong answer. The society is the way it is because of material conditions and class struggle. There wasn't even a real Proletariat before 150-200 years ago, so how did we have any formation of society before that?


If that's the way humans are, there wouldn't have been any need to wage wars through entire continents to spread it. There wouldn't be any need to artificially meddle and destroy the labour movement. There wouldn't have been any need for forceful coup'detats in latin america. You just willfully remain ignorant to the fact that our current society is a consciously built arrangement that benefits only the capitalist class. There were I think 115 Revolutions in South America in the 19th century--none of them was a product of class struggle.

Anyway, here's an essential point of disagreement--I don't see class struggle, I really don't even see much class difference. I see lots on individuals struggleing to do the best they can in the world. sometimes I see people joining with other people, unions for example, because AT THE MOMENT it serves their purpose. I see the same people going things on their own if that suits their purpose. I see people going from one class to another if that suits their purpose (I did that--my dad was a factory worker, I own a factory.) I see people doing whatever they can with the talents they have and the opportunity they are given. Everything else is secondary.



And you have nothing to back this up? Fine, I will now proceed to topple your claim with a counter argument equally valid in logical construct and evidence: "Is not!" One sixth of the world (according to Communist literature at the time) was at one time "Communist" Socialist really, and (almost) all those countries had their strong men. CNT Spain didn't. Maybe a couple of more places, but all of Eastern Europe, the SU, China, Viet Nam, North Korea, Cambodia, Laos. It's not like there were Soviets or fair democratic proceedures--I mean you don't actually think that in those places workers had any say in the way they were governed, do you? Look--in Poland they had a UNION formed to fight the Socialist government. Pretty darn embarassing don't you think?


What a steaming pile of utter intellectual waste! Participatory economies have never-ever failed due to economic reasons. Every single time they have been toppled with violence of foreign capitalists.The Soviet Union fell when Gobachev and his wife came to America and walked down Fifth Avenue bought stuff in the stores and became American consumers. The rest was just filler.


It does? Fine, I'll guess I just ask you the next time I want to know what most people want and how they act. After all you seem to know these things very well. Wait! I got one question! What do most people think about your brazen display of constantly ignoring real world examples and your stubborn refusal to accept the failure of some ancient capitalist arguments? Preachy. :)


But now that you have come forward with this astonishing "human nature" we don't have that problem anymore! \o/ We can just ask you what is instinct and what is will! Snippy :)


And this is supposed to make me want capitalism? Is this all capitalists can offer nowadays? "Well we are not good, just, nice, or even reasonable, but god-damn we exploit you guys in the most efficient way!" Hey, we live in a Capitalist society--they's the trend so being a Capitalist IS the correct way because Capitalism is our context.


So we should believe in even unproven things, because they might be proven later on? Or should we believe in fairies, just because our inability to see them does not exlude their existence?
We whould keep an open mind to everything.


In what cultural context? Since you ask me, and I have grown in western culture, my answer would be no, slavery was never a good thing. Yet if you ask an ancient Roman, he would say yes it is, and neither of us could prove anyone wrong or right.
You ask that question in a context that denies the justification to own another man. If you were to ask the question in 18th century US to a southerner, you would get different answers.. But by yout reasoning Cpaitalism and it's system is GOOD THING because it is the system we are in. There is no other context, it's a Capitalist world. Communism in its real form has NEVER existed--there is no context for it. Wishing for Communism is like wishing for your Fairy Godmother to come visit you and take away all your problems.

Your philosophical context is making Communism unworkable. And I rather like the idea of Communism, too. I suppose you don't see the problem with totalitarian nature of your belief system? Capitalism works because it dosn't care in the least what you believe, believe in God, don't believe in God, believe in Capitalism, believe in Communism, it doesn't matter--it just wants you to walk into the store and put your five dollars on the counter and buy something...

[Ax Pamericana]

It doesn't need to. Democratic oversight keeps selfishness in check. And most production is based on machinery, not human labor.

Now my question is, how does capitalism keep that in check? I mean, the latest crisis shows it isn't that great for preventing "selfish" behavior. As for laziness, maybe it does for the poor, but for the rich? How do you prevent laziness for someone who was born into a rich family, with millions or billions of dollars under capitalism? Say someone is born with a billion dollars- they don't have to work at all. They can even hire someone or a group of experts to manage their funds.

IMO you prevent that by setting extremely high inheritance tax rates.

[Obzervi]

Do you? I mean we do have a surplus. There are disabled people. What do you suggest, we arrest anyone who is disabled or has a chemical imbalance?

We don't need everyone to work, especially with machinery and rational planning of a centralized economy- just enough. And compared to what we have now that could be way less of the population working way less hours. We may even get enough volunteers who do it for status, or people who do it for slightly more pay. You don't know.
So you're suggesting there should be a class of people who don't work but benefit from the labor of others? Isn't that the problem with capitalism, that there is a class which owns and consumes wealth created on the backs of others. Who determines who is required to work and who doesn't have to under a communist system?

Also I saw it mentioned that greed, selfishness, and laziness are a result of scarcity brought on by capitalism, and that those traits would be eliminated under communism because there would be no scarcity. The problem with this is that its unrealistic since scarcity is a defining characteristic of economics. Unless you have infinite resources to suit everyone's insatiable wants, there will always be scarcity. I think that greed, selfishness, and laziness are symptoms of human nature. On the first page of the thread someone was advocating sending these people to "education camps", and then insinuated that if they failed to change their ways they merely be killed off. I don't see how that constitutes a brighter future for humanity, it sounds like a nightmare.

[Obzervi]

OP needs to understand that there is no 'inherent laziness and selfishness'; people are only this way due to the social conditions. The worker is alienated from his labour and only does it in so much as he needs the wages, there's no dignity in labour. In a system where the workers own the means of production this alienated laziness will not exist. Furthermore, technology will be used to increase production with minimum human labour so there will be enough for everyone with nowhere near the current amount of work necessary..

In other words 'work' will be a much more human activity and also much less of it will be required.

Can you explain what technological changes will take place which require less work to produce more, and if its so easy said as done why aren't the capitalists doing it today in order to reduce their labor costs.

[Che a chara]

If someone wants to influence a decision which will effect them and for them to be taken seriously then they may have to show some consideration and participate in helping advance society. Though alienation is more of a capitalist symptom, people who refuse to participate in a communist society may find themselves alienated from others around them and not be taken as seriously.

Conditions, hopefully, should be more all inclusive in communism. Work hours would be cut, workers would choose their own hours to suit their needs etc...

[Obzervi]

Though alienation is more of a capitalist symptom, people who refuse to participate in a communist society may find themselves alienated from others around them and not be taken as seriously.



I don't think alienation was the point, but I think the question is whether those lazy people have a right to the things produced by others under a communist system. Does every person have an equal amount of right to the total wealth produced, or should it be based on how productive the individual workers are?

[Cal Engime]

Can you explain what technological changes will take place which require less work to produce more, and if its so easy said as done why aren't the capitalists doing it today in order to reduce their labor costs.If productivity did not increase, we would be living in the same conditions as our primitive ancestors and 80% of people would still be employed in agriculture.

[Hexen]

The Human Nature argument is just a excuse for capitalists to justify their egos.

[Blake's Baby]

... Does every person have an equal amount of right to the total wealth produced, or should it be based on how productive the individual workers are?

I'm of the opinion that 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is pretty clear.

There can be no 'right to wealth' based on individual productivity, because then children, the old and the infirm who can't work have no 'right to wealth', that is 'right to consume the products of society' because they can't work. Furthermore, anyone who does socially useful work that isn't diectly productive, such as transportation, medical care, teaching - work that doesn't actually produce 'stuff' - would have no 'right to wealth' either.

That's obviously a nonsensical situation. So, everyone should have access to the social product. Not on the basis of 'illimitable wants', that's foolishness. On the basis of socially-determined need. If that in the beginning means that some goods will be rationed, then fair enough, that's not worse than what we have at the moment (we currently have rationing by wealth) but it will a fairer distribution of necessities (everyone will have enough) but also a fairer distribution of luxuries too (everyone will have an equal chance, as opposed to currently where 90% of the world has no chance).

Bread first, then Ferraris.

[trivas7]

So, everyone should have access to the social product. Not on the basis of 'illimitable wants', that's foolishness. On the basis of socially-determined need.

Bread first, then Ferraris.
Who determines "the basis of socially-determined need"? Whoever does so is the de facto government.

[Ele'ill]

Who determines "the basis of socially-determined need"? Whoever does so is the de facto government.

Direct democracy, spokes councils, community meetings- town meetings, neighborhood meetings- A general feel of who needs services or food to survive.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah.

We all do. We are society, we determine that which is 'socially determined'. I thought that was pretty clear but maybe it isn't.

Socialism involves the end of all states and governments. Decisions are made democratically, at the lowest level possible - generally the factory or neighbourhood. Some things may require wider co-ordination and that will necessitate some level of representation but this won't be permanent - if a 'regional council' needs to come together for some big engineering project it won't also get to decide about other things; it'll be an executive tasked with a specific purpose.

Otherwise, we decide in the factory and neighbourhood councils what is necessary to do. If enough people want Ferraris (if it's socially-determined that there is a need for them) then it's possible that some factory or other will decide (or be asked) to build them.

So yes, in that way every factory committee and every neighbourhood assembly is the 'government'. Ergo, every person is de facto a member of the government.

[NecroCommie]

You have kids? I do.
Irrelevant! Do you claim every single kid hits back? Because I have been baby sitting for a job and I know for a fact that very few actually do. Instead they start crying for attention.


You are bein shrill--and also missing my point.
Which is? Because babies hit back at each other US government has a justification to act like one?


What makes you think that societies actually evolve. Certainly Fascism isn't some sort of "better" evolution. I don't think Soviet state socialism was that much of an evolution. Maybe you think the demise of Socialism into capitalism in Eastern Europe was evolution?
Your understaning of evolution is weak I see. Evolution does not make anything better, it makes everything fitter. Fascism fitted the german political and material condition a lot better than parliamentary looneys of Weimar. In equal matter, the soviet army controlled superior political and material advantages, leading to their almost pre-determined victory.


What constitutes the "fittest" has changed with history. We actually may be saying the same thing here.
No we are not, because you claim that in capitalism the fittest are the most intelligent or the most hardworking.


You saddly have a vastly distorted view of Capitalism.
I have not.
Capitalism has been very fair and forgiving to me.
Well that changes everything! I think I will join my right-wing party now that you have made me seen the light. Indeed, it is the living standard of small imperialist minority that defines the economic system that affects all.

But then again like with "nations" we shouldn't speak in such generalities.
So why bring it up? Sounds like an attempt at rhetorics to me.


He sounds like he goty fired.
No, he quit to previously mentioned reasons. Read the book.


Comrade the trend is for Capitalism since the fall of Communism in the Iron Curtain countries and the tranmigration of China to a Capitalist economy. One can't be dishonorable if there is no good or evil--only trends, isn't that correct? :)
Except that when defining trends one needs to look at the bigger picture. With that logic fascism was the superior trend in the end of 1930's. Yet when we look at how general values have shifted from the end of the 19th century to present day, we will see that leftist and socialist values are unreasonably triumphant.


I don't know--the same guys that did well (commissars, CP members, etc.) who were doing well under Soviet Socialism are now doing well under Capitalism. I think there's a connection. :)
Yes, because SU was state capitalist. Meaning that from the very beginning it too had an elite that owned the means of production. The economic model was not all that different, it was the state that tried to impose itself upon the otherwise capitalist economy.


There wasn't even a real Proletariat before 150-200 years ago, so how did we have any formation of society before that?
Classes existed, even if they were nowhere near this polarized.


There were I think 115 Revolutions in South America in the 19th century--none of them was a product of class struggle.
What makes you think that? Remember that class struggle includes the notion that bourgeoisie factions compete even with each other for power.


Anyway, here's an essential point of disagreement--I don't see class struggle, I really don't even see much class difference.
And where do you live? USA? The biggest bunch of population bought off by the imperialist? Do you honestly claim that the US society is not divided into owners and non-owners?

And if you do not recognize the plight of your countrymen, go to the ruins of New Orleans where the working class is still completely subjucated to the whims of the ruling elite... Just to name one example.

I see lots on individuals struggleing to do the best they can in the world. sometimes I see people joining with other people, unions for example, because AT THE MOMENT it serves their purpose. I see the same people going things on their own if that suits their purpose.
And the owners of the means of production have no power over any of this? Oh, Pleeeeease...

I see people going from one class to another if that suits their purpose (I did that--my dad was a factory worker, I own a factory.)
And this proves that everyone can do it? How much arrogance does it take to assume everyone is subject to the same priviledges you have?

I see people doing whatever they can with the talents they have and the opportunity they are given. Everything else is secondary.
Oh shit! I just stopped taking you seriously. You claim that the fact that factory owners casually choose to ruin the livelyhood of thousands of people simply because they want a pool, is secondary?



One sixth of the world (according to Communist literature at the time) was at one time "Communist" Socialist really
That would be incorrect. Especially comming from an alledged communist. I do not know what ridiculous source gives such misleading information.

CNT Spain didn't. Maybe a couple of more places, but all of Eastern Europe, the SU, China, Viet Nam, North Korea, Cambodia, Laos. It's not like there were Soviets or fair democratic proceedures--I mean you don't actually think that in those places workers had any say in the way they were governed, do you?
No. But then again these conditions were forced by foreign, mainly US intervention.


Look--in Poland they had a UNION formed to fight the Socialist government. Pretty darn embarassing don't you think?

No, because there has never been a socialist government in Poland.


The Soviet Union fell when Gobachev and his wife came to America and walked down Fifth Avenue bought stuff in the stores and became American consumers. The rest was just filler.

And Soviet union was not a participatory economy. I fail to see the relevance here.



Preachy. :)

Snippy :)

Then stop using relative or completely arbitary terms that have no actual meaning in conversation.

Hey, we live in a Capitalist society--they's the trend so being a Capitalist IS the correct way because Capitalism is our context.
So if I lived in fascism I should just live with fascism? This is the problem with reformists, they always go apathetic at every turn, and leave all the freedom fighting to actual revolutionaries.


We whould keep an open mind to everything.
Personally I will never keep an open mind to baby raping and murderous looting. And you failed to answer my question: should we believe in fairies and bigfoots?


But by yout reasoning Cpaitalism and it's system is GOOD THING because it is the system we are in.
No, capitalism is not the context, it is the system of production that tries to adapt to conditions. Social conditions dictate that for a vast majority communism is the superior choise.

There is no other context, it's a Capitalist world.
Again, capitalism is not the context, it is an attempt to adapt to social and material context.
Communism in its real form has NEVER existed--there is no context for it.
Communism either is not a context, but a method to deal with the context.
Wishing for Communism is like wishing for your Fairy Godmother to come visit you and take away all your problems.
No it is not. There is ample evidence for the superiority of commmunist economy, yet none for my fairy godmother taking away my problems.


Your philosophical context is making Communism unworkable. And I rather like the idea of Communism, too. I suppose you don't see the problem with totalitarian nature of your belief system?
No, because it is not totalitarian.
Capitalism works because it dosn't care in the least what you believe, believe in God, don't believe in God, believe in Capitalism, believe in Communism, it doesn't matter--it just wants you to walk into the store and put your five dollars on the counter and buy something...
This is very superficial and naive description of capitalism, that excludes all the hunger, war, submission and humiliation it has created.

[Robert]

Yes, because SU was state capitalist. Meaning that from the very beginning it too had an elite that owned the means of production. The economic model was not all that different, it was the state that tried to impose itself upon the otherwise capitalist economy.

I think the point is that "communism," pure as is may be on paper and in your mind, for some reason invariably enables the prosperity of a few, those being the comrades who find their way to positions of power. The Russian revolutionaries didn't plan it that way, just as you're not planning it that way.

It won't help matters to just say "we don't favor state capitalism." That's what you're going to get.

I actually suspect that Fidel Castro, Stalin and Kim did plan it that way, but I'm a little cynical as regards those particular comrades.:)

[Bud Struggle]

Which is? Because babies hit back at each other US government has a justification to act like one? I never "justification" I said reaction.



Your understaning of evolution is weak I see. Evolution does not make anything better, it makes everything fitter. Fascism fitted the german political and material condition a lot better than parliamentary looneys of Weimar. In equal matter, the soviet army controlled superior political and material advantages, leading to their almost pre-determined victory. I see. Just as Capitalism was fitter than Socialism in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, etc. That's why Socialism failed there.


No we are not, because you claim that in capitalism the fittest are the most intelligent or the most hardworking. If it survives--than it is the fittest.


Except that when defining trends one needs to look at the bigger picture. With that logic fascism was the superior trend in the end of 1930's. Yet when we look at how general values have shifted from the end of the 19th century to present day, we will see that leftist and socialist values are unreasonably triumphant.And since the fall of the Berlin Wall now Capitalism is on top again.


Yes, because SU was state capitalist. Meaning that from the very beginning it too had an elite that owned the means of production. The economic model was not all that different, it was the state that tried to impose itself upon the otherwise capitalist economy. So even a minor attempt at Socialism fails? So why try a major attempt is Communism doesn't seem to work?


Classes existed, even if they were nowhere near this polarized. to an extent if you want to go back and re-label the past.



What makes you think that? Remember that class struggle includes the notion that bourgeoisie factions compete even with each other for power. Everyone competes--it's human nature.


And where do you live? USA? The biggest bunch of population bought off by the imperialist? Do you honestly claim that the US society is not divided into owners and non-owners? There are people that own some things, there are people that own some other things and there are people that don't own much at all. But for the most part all Americans are Middle Class.


And if you do not recognize the plight of your countrymen, go to the ruins of New Orleans where the working class is still completely subjucated to the whims of the ruling elite... Just to name one example. Well, it was a major natural disaster. And a few people died, but surely only a small fraction of the amount that died in the great famine inb China.


That would be incorrect. Especially comming from an alledged communist. I do not know what ridiculous source gives such misleading information. Stalin as quoted in the Daily Worker.


No. But then again these conditions were forced by foreign, mainly US intervention. So the Soviet Union wasn't democratic bacause of American Imperialist intervention?


No, because there has never been a socialist government in Poland. right--nor anywhere else. Communism is like one of those huge unstable atoms at the end of the periodic table--it exists for a second and then quickly decays into something else.


So if I lived in fascism I should just live with fascism? This is the problem with reformists, they always go apathetic at every turn, and leave all the freedom fighting to actual revolutionaries. Maybe. But up to now most Revolutionaries also have been dictators on the make.


And you failed to answer my question: should we believe in fairies and bigfoots? As much as we should believe in a workable Communist society. Like faries and bigfoots--it has never really existed besides in people's imagenations.


No, capitalism is not the context, it is the system of production that tries to adapt to conditions. Social conditions dictate that for a vast majority communism is the superior choise. It seems good on paper, to be sure, but so do fary godmothers.


Again, capitalism is not the context, it is an attempt to adapt to social and material context.
Communism either is not a context, but a method to deal with the context.
No it is not. There is ample evidence for the superiority of commmunist economy, yet none for my fairy godmother taking away my problems. No there isn't it has never existed--so there IS NO EVIDENCE.


No, because it is not totalitarian.
This is very superficial and naive description of capitalism, that excludes all the hunger, war, submission and humiliation it has created.

Such things are not Capitalsim--they are a byproduct of the way humans function.

[Ele'ill]

Such things are not Capitalsim--they are a byproduct of the way humans function.

They are byproducts of a flawed system (Capitalism)- which is set up in a fashion so that the negative aspects of human behavior are used as the only vehicle for survival on a local and global level. This is an atrocity in itself.

In order for a factory to continue to run on zero environmental standards with zero tolerance of unionization the workers must be targeted, intimidated and killed. It means the person that owns the company operating the factory must be ok with these operating procedures- or- ok with Structural Adjustment Policies implemented by our trifecta of global whoring the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and the World Trade Organization.

[Bud Struggle]

They are byproducts of a flawed system (Capitalism)- which is set up in a fashion so that the negative aspects of human behavior are used as the only vehicle for survival on a local and global level. This is an atrocity in itself. As if no people suffered or died under what passed for Communism in the real world?


In order for a factory to continue to run on zero environmental standards with zero tolerance of unionization the workers must be targeted, intimidated and killed. It means the person that owns the company operating the factory must be ok with these operating procedures- or- ok with Structural Adjustment Policies implemented by our trifecta of global whoring the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and the World Trade Organization.

And yea as Communists might point out about the Soviet Union or Communist China--there are some "imperfections" in the system. For the most part Capitalist places like the US and Europe are pretty much free of death and gross human suffering--we need to extend that style of like around the globe.

[Ele'ill]

As if no people suffered or died under what passed for Communism in the real world?

Don't visit my intentions. There have been a lot of flawed systems in this world- Capitalism is one of the worst but it is useless to compare as Chomsky said 'an atrocity is an atrocity.'

Saying 'this system only kills ten million people where THAT system killed 20 million' is fucking rubbish and I want no part in that discussion.




And yea as Communists might point out about the Soviet Union or Communist China--there are some "imperfections" in the system. For the most part Capitalist places like the US and Europe are pretty much free of death and gross human suffering--we need to extend that style of like around the globe.

A lot of people don't understand exactly what the issues are. Sure there's no suffering in the first world because of the first world's grip on the global economy- because the corporations have penetrated soft governments in the third world and are literally killing people for profit- Thanks to the organizations I previously mentioned.

[Bud Struggle]

Don't visit my intentions. There have been a lot of flawed systems in this world- Capitalism is one of the worst but it is useless to compare as Chomsky said 'an atrocity is an atrocity.'

Saying 'this system only kills ten million people where THAT system killed 20 million' is fucking rubbish and I want no part in that discussion.
But that brings up the question--what you think Communism will be better? And further, how do you know it won't be much much worse than Capitalism?


A lot of people don't understand exactly what the issues are. Sure there's no suffering in the first world because of the first world's grip on the global economy- because the corporations have penetrated soft governments in the third world and are literally killing people for profit- Thanks to the organizations I previously mentioned. It might just be easier to "extend" the first world to the entire planet than it would be to creat a whole new social and economic order.

Or best yet--Social Democracy. A fair and balanced economic order--without those bloody Revolutions and fear of yet another "Communist" Dictator.

[Ele'ill]

But that brings up the question--what you think Communism will be better? And further, how do you know it won't be much much worse than Capitalism?

I'm not a communist. I generally don't believe in 'pure forms of political structure' and perhaps this is why I am an anarchist.


It might just be easier to "extend" the first world to the entire planet than it would be to creat a whole new social and economic order.I think it would be the same amount of work and I'm not sure what 'extending the first world' would look like as that was tried already with neo-liberalism and failed because corporations still held the majority of imperialist style power.


Or best yet--Social Democracy. A fair and balanced economic order--without those bloody Revolutions and fear of yet another "Communist" Dictator.
Social Democracy would still require some form of revolution. I think any serious change will.

Also, I consider the actions and outrage in Greece to be near revolutionary in practice but I am unsure of the goals and success.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm not a communist. I generally don't believe in 'pure forms of political structure' and perhaps this is why I am an anarchist. You are right about the "pure" forms, but impure Anarchism could become quite nasty. :(


I think it would be the same amount of work and I'm not sure what 'extending the first world' would look like as that was tried already with neo-liberalism and failed because corporations still held the majority of imperialist style power. I think--little by litt we could "enlighten" the world to a kinder more fairer way of thinking. None of the messyness of "Revolution" where ANYONE of ANY political view could win.


Social Democracy would still require some form of revolution. I think any serious change will. All it takes is time and education.


Also, I consider the actions and outrage in Greece to be near revolutionary in practice but I am unsure of the goals and success. I disagree. There is NOTHING going on in Greece. The Greeks will be spanked. They will learn to do with less (or at least live within their means) and learn nothing from this whole affair. The Greek government has no interest in changing the status quo. Watch Portugal and maybe Spain follow in short order.

Germany and France to PAY. There will be a lowering of the European standard of living across the board for the next ten years or so.

Sooner or later it will happen to America, too. We all just don't PRODUCE as much as we spend.

[Gecko]

the question of laziness and selfishness ..
with people living under a capitalist system it's easy to understand why people are motivated to be insanely selfish,competitive and dog-eat-dog.

laziness under capitalism could be a symptomatic reaction of the human being to the capitalist "rat race" ..
...a personal spiritual rebellion against a sensed dehumanizing,competitive and degrading capitalist system..an unwillingness to participate in it's depraved absurdity.

chronic spiritual,mental,physical fatigue from poor health,malnutrition,depression,stress,drugs,alcoho l.a general absence of a healthy meaningful lifestyle.life under capitalism is extremely stressful and full of all types of twisted antisocial pathologies..people are sick and tired..

laziness could also be a form of exploitation of human using and exploiting other human beings for their labor for sustenance,maintenance and support.This form of laziness reflects and emulates the exploitative vampiric aspect of capitalism..

Under communism people will have a true feeling of concern and love for each other...there will be no punishment ..only engagement and a struggle born out of human love..human love more than anything else has enormous power to change..

[RGacky3]

laziness under capitalism could be a symptomatic reaction of the human being to the capitalist "rat race" ..
...a personal spiritual rebellion against a sensed dehumanizing,competitive and degrading capitalist system..an unwillingness to participate in it's depraved absurdity.

I think alienation of labor is a much likelier and logical explenation, you rarely find a a person to be lazy when doing his gardening, fixing his home and so on, at work is a different issue, alienation of labor.


chronic spiritual,mental,physical fatigue from poor health,malnutrition,depression,stress,drugs,alcoho l.a general absence of a healthy meaningful lifestyle.life under capitalism is extremely stressful and full of all types of twisted antisocial pathologies..people are sick and tired..

thats true, Capitalist work and the problems it brings IS unnatural and does create an undue amount of stress.


Under communism people will have a true feeling of concern and love for each other...there will be no punishment ..only engagement and a struggle born out of human love..human love more than anything else has enormous power to change..

Now listen, I'll be the first to say that human nature is not absolute but dependant on the atmosphere you grow up in and live in. But honestly, you can't believe this idealistic pie in the sky mentality.

Under Communism people will still be dicks, people will still look out for their own concern before others, people will still like to drink, people will still get angry at each other, people will still not like other people. This hippy crap is'nt going to change anything. Dealing with actual societal exploitation and power structures will.


You are right about the "pure" forms, but impure Anarchism could become quite nasty.

Its not a matter of purity, the Zapatista territories are not pure Anarchism, they have rules, hell they bann alcohol, but they are more anarchistic then say Somalia, because the power that exists is extremely democratic and decentralized, more people have actual freedom and self-determination, in somalia there is'nt that, the government is just warlords.

In Anarchistic Spain, it was'nt pure anarchism either, the union had some social control, but it was so democratic and its power so relative that it compared to ... again ... somalia, it can be considered anarchism. Because the warlords power is not relative nor is it democratic.


I think--little by litt we could "enlighten" the world to a kinder more fairer way of thinking. None of the messyness of "Revolution" where ANYONE of ANY political view could win.

Thats rediculous, WHO needs to be enlightened? The rulling class so they will just give up power? Are you insane? The working class so they can ask for power?

What needs to happen is (and I know this sounds cliche) hope, once the working class realises how much power it has then they will start using it, now whether or not you want to call that a revolution is up to you, but your solution of just asking the Capitalists to be nicer will NEVER work, never has and it never will.


All it takes is time and education.

No it does'nt, look at history, any progressive change in the US has essencially been something demanded by the people by threat of revolution, look at FDRs change, the US was on the verge of uprisings, in Europe social-democracy came about when the socialist parties and unions were threatening to destroy capitalism, time and education does'nt work, what is needed is revolution, maybe not in the way the leninists envision, but revolution in the sense of the people working against the system, not with it.


I disagree. There is NOTHING going on in Greece. The Greeks will be spanked. They will learn to do with less (or at least live within their means) and learn nothing from this whole affair. The Greek government has no interest in changing the status quo. Watch Portugal and maybe Spain follow in short order.

Germany and France to PAY. There will be a lowering of the European standard of living across the board for the next ten years or so.

Sooner or later it will happen to America, too. We all just don't PRODUCE as much as we spend.

What happened with greece was they went along with free market policies which essnecially gave the large banks free reign to dump on them (literally, bad assets and the such), I love how people blame the collapse on people being payed too much, really? This giant collapse? How can you ignore the free market policies that led to this essencially letting the banks regulate themselves and do whatever they want (as if they would put nations economies over profits).

What I suspect will happen in greece, and I'm being quite hopefull, is something close to a revolt, anarchists were already very popular in greece, as were communists, they will gain tons and tons of support, and the government will panic and try and appease them, at best you'll have regional revolutions, at worse you have crack downs, but people in greece are going to have a major shift to the radical left after this, the trick is what is the government going to do about it.

As far as europe I think some parts of europe are going to get hit, the Euro is definately overvalued, and European banks have been essencially buying into the American banks game. However, I don't think that western Europe will take a huge hit, the United States is going to within the next couple of years have a big economic collapse (I know I'm making a bold statement), but right now the banks that made the collapse in the US are even bigger and have had NO regulation put on them, all that they had was more capital pumped into them. At least many countries in Europe tried to regulate their banks more an increase public control (which means that banks would be run more for public benefit) somewhat, the US has done NONE of that.

The US producing less than it spends has nothing to do with in in the way you think, the US still produces a lot, and US companies produce even more (overseas maybe), the fact is you have to understand that this is not countries, this is companies, companies run the economy not countries, banks run them, what countries can do is regulate and try and put public control on their economy, but this is Capitalism, Corporations control things.

So when you say WE, you have to clerify.

[Bud Struggle]

Thats rediculous, WHO needs to be enlightened? The rulling class so they will just give up power? Are you insane? The working class so they can ask for power?

What needs to happen is (and I know this sounds cliche) hope, once the working class realises how much power it has then they will start using it, now whether or not you want to call that a revolution is up to you, but your solution of just asking the Capitalists to be nicer will NEVER work, never has and it never will. I just don't think there will be a Revolution. For the most part those days are over.


No it does'nt, look at history, any progressive change in the US has essencially been something demanded by the people by threat of revolution, look at FDRs change, the US was on the verge of uprisings, in Europe social-democracy came about when the socialist parties and unions were threatening to destroy capitalism, time and education does'nt work, what is needed is revolution, maybe not in the way the leninists envision, but revolution in the sense of the people working against the system, not with it. Granted, there was some "demanding" back in the day but the unions are all gone now and all that's left is democratic institutions. No one is demanding anythiong anymore by threatening revolution. It's all done by the legislature.


What happened with greece was they went along with free market policies which essnecially gave the large banks free reign to dump on them (literally, bad assets and the such), I love how people blame the collapse on people being payed too much, really? This giant collapse? How can you ignore the free market policies that led to this essencially letting the banks regulate themselves and do whatever they want (as if they would put nations economies over profits). The banks lent money to Greece when they shouldn't have--and that produced for Greece (a backward little hole in the wall) and economy and a lifestyle that was equal tothe rest of Europe when they produced a lot less per capita. The Greek government wanted to say in power and gove its people more than they earned.


What I suspect will happen in greece, and I'm being quite hopefull, is something close to a revolt, anarchists were already very popular in greece, as were communists, they will gain tons and tons of support, and the government will panic and try and appease them, at best you'll have regional revolutions, at worse you have crack downs, but people in greece are going to have a major shift to the radical left after this, the trick is what is the government going to do about it. If Anarchists or Communists get in they will default on their loans (the rest of Europe won't cover them) and the entire country will be in isolation and they well see how poor they really are. A Junta will take over and make nice with the rest of Europe and things will get back on track with a military dictatorship. It's best Greece stays the course and says democratic and pays its bills.


the United States is going to within the next couple of years have a big economic collapse (I know I'm making a bold statement), but right now the banks that made the collapse in the US are even bigger and have had NO regulation put on them, all that they had was more capital pumped into them. At least many countries in Europe tried to regulate their banks more an increase public control (which means that banks would be run more for public benefit) somewhat, the US has done NONE of that. Actually we just HAD the big economic collapse. That's what they look like these days.

[Ele'ill]

All it takes is time and education.

That won't be enough. Once educated, the new world revolutionaries are going to want change and the people up top are not going to let go.


I disagree. There is NOTHING going on in Greece. The Greeks will be spanked. They will learn to do with less (or at least live within their means) and learn nothing from this whole affair. The Greek government has no interest in changing the status quo.


I've been following the events in Greece closely since December 2008 and what you see now in the streets isn't just a product of budgeting or IMF coziness.

[Bud Struggle]

That won't be enough. Once educated, the new world revolutionaries are going to want change and the people up top are not going to let go. They always do. That's what happened in America--some people got educated enough and made themselves valuable to capital enough so that they make very comfortable wages. That's the beginning of the American middle class. Of course there are those that don't get educated, or don't get educated with the correct skills--and they are in for a bit of a rough ride.


I've been following the events in Greece closely since December 2008 and what you see now in the streets isn't just a product of budgeting or IMF coziness.The people in Greece can try to do whatever they want politically but in the end they have no money--and money is power. and without power they can do nothing.

Without those loans the Greeks won't have enough to eat and in no time they will be selling their political souls to some military Junta for a bowl of porrage.

[Ele'ill]

They always do. That's what happened in America--some people got educated enough and made themselves valuable to capital enough so that they make very comfortable wages. That's the beginning of the American middle class. Of course there are those that don't get educated, or don't get educated with the correct skills--and they are in for a bit of a rough ride.

The change wanted isn't just internal in America. It's to stop raging through the rest of the world. Thus far attempt at education/reform or even education reform has proved generally useless.


The people in Greece can try to do whatever they want politically but in the end they have no money--and money is power. and without power they can do nothing.

Without those loans the Greeks won't have enough to eat and in no time they will be selling their political souls to some military Junta for a bowl of porrage.


They don't necessarily want to do anything politically- they want to take matters into their own hands which is the cure for having a government signing up for loans through the IMF.

[Bud Struggle]

The change wanted isn't just internal in America. It's to stop raging through the rest of the world. Thus far attempt at education/reform or even education reform has proved generally useless.


As has Revolution.

[Robert]

They don't necessarily want to do anything politically- they want to take matters into their own hands which is the cure for having a government signing up for loans through the IMF.

Maybe a few at the margins do. Most want their benefits to keep rolling in, unadjusted for anything.

Wait a second ... I just noticed this ... how is "they want to take matters into their own hands" compatible with "they don't necessarily want to do anything politically"?

Anything they do -- including taking matters into their own hands -- that upsets the existing power structure is political. Or do you mean they don't seek solutions through traditional parliamentary politics?

[Ocean Seal]

Lets see. First drop the argument that people are inherently lazy because that has not been proven. Second let's look at why some people are lazy? Can anybody tell me? You guessed right, capitalism makes them lazy. See in capitalism we are instructed to seek the greatest pay/work ratio that is "happiness". When we are rid of the false incentive of capital, people will realize that they are working towards a greater goal and they will be proud to contribute their labor.

[RGacky3]

I just don't think there will be a Revolution. For the most part those days are over.

You know what my definition of revolution is right? I don't mean actually bolshevik style french revolution style revolution, what I mean is thinkgs like strikes, occupations, protests, sit ins, boycotts, civil disobedience, there are many different things you can do, and everytime you are working outside and against the system, its a revolution.

Also, those days are not over, not for a long shot, all evidence points to the opposite of what your saying, worldwide that is.


Granted, there was some "demanding" back in the day but the unions are all gone now and all that's left is democratic institutions. No one is demanding anythiong anymore by threatening revolution. It's all done by the legislature.

Actually Unions have been making a large comeback in recent years, also unions ARE democratic institutions, also people are realizing now, that legislature does'nt work, we learned that with Obama, in a way, Obama was supposed to be the change, the progressive that, but now people are realizing that the so-called "Democratic institutions" are not democratic at all, they are corporatist.

Also, we are talking worldwide here, in much of the world people have very little trust in the democratic institutions, infact, the country I live in now, a social-democratic one, people have much more respect for the democratic instutions, and view them as such, most countries do not have that.

As I said before, social democracy will never happen without threat of revolution, big or small, thats just the way things work, what your suggesting is that essencially, out of the goodness of their hearts, the rulling class will become nice, just like BP will clean up the spill becuase "its the right thing to do," thats never happened, it never will happen, if legislators are not FORCED by the people, they will be forced by the ruling class, its the way politics works.


The banks lent money to Greece when they shouldn't have--and that produced for Greece (a backward little hole in the wall) and economy and a lifestyle that was equal tothe rest of Europe when they produced a lot less per capita. The Greek government wanted to say in power and gove its people more than they earned.

The banks should'nt have? THey made a buttload of money!!!!! Do you know how capitalism works? if you make money, then you SHOULD do it, even if it collapses an economy. By the way it had nothing to do with pay people too much, it had to do with assets being bought which were way way over valued, and valued by agencies that were controlled by the banks.

What your saying is akin to saying if you sell me a car saying its top notch, and rated as such by a guy you pay, and then I drive it, find out its a junker, then you blame me for driving it too much. Thats rediculous.

Whats to blame is ultimately capitalism.


If Anarchists or Communists get in they will default on their loans (the rest of Europe won't cover them) and the entire country will be in isolation and they well see how poor they really are. A Junta will take over and make nice with the rest of Europe and things will get back on track with a military dictatorship. It's best Greece stays the course and says democratic and pays its bills.

If Anarchists took control through neighborhood councils or workers unions, most likely it would be seperate from the government and be kind of a parrallel government, the government would probably still be nominally the ruling power and the anarchists would just let them hangout to dry, while building their own economy seperately.


Actually we just HAD the big economic collapse. That's what they look like these days.

Yeah, but before it became great depression material, the bubble was inflated again, next time there won't be anything to inflate the bubble with, also next time the banks will be much much bigger and the risks taken much much larger and the banks much much more powerful and the bubble will be much much much bigger.


They always do. That's what happened in America--some people got educated enough and made themselves valuable to capital enough so that they make very comfortable wages. That's the beginning of the American middle class. Of course there are those that don't get educated, or don't get educated with the correct skills--and they are in for a bit of a rough ride.

Thats what happened post FDR world, what happened post Raegen world is much much different. BTW, thats not what she was talking about.


The people in Greece can try to do whatever they want politically but in the end they have no money--and money is power. and without power they can do nothing.

Without those loans the Greeks won't have enough to eat and in no time they will be selling their political souls to some military Junta for a bowl of porrage.

They can do what many Argentinians did during the 2001 collapse, and I hope that they do that.

[Ele'ill]

Maybe a few at the margins do. Most want their benefits to keep rolling in, unadjusted for anything.

When the 'margins' (which I'd like to point out are massive numbers of people) are working in solidarity with Unions and Students everyone starts to listen to eachother. The 'margins' will compromise to an extent and the product might not be 'communism' or an 'anarchist state of existence' but it will be beyond progressive and into the realm of radical.

To comment on Bud's reply regarding revolution- we're not going to see the hollywood version of it in current times but we will see what RGacky3 described- which is what I envision as revolution.




Wait a second ... I just noticed this ... how is "they want to take matters into their own hands" compatible with "they don't necessarily want to do anything politically"?


They're not interested in being indoctrinated into the political process. They're tired of struggling to get 'a voice on the panel' so to speak. They don't want a few making decisions for the majority anymore. They're more interested in organization of the common people.



Anything they do -- including taking matters into their own hands -- that upsets the existing power structure is political. Or do you mean they don't seek solutions through traditional parliamentary politics?

Oh, yes. The latter here- as I stated above. Didn't see this until went to comment on it.

[Ele'ill]

Regarding Greece- They have no choice but to win- not only do they have Riot Dog but-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100526/ap_on_fe_st/eu_odd_greece_frog_closure


You can't fail when you have amphibians setting up roadblocks.






-we are everywhere :lol:

[RGacky3]

As has Revolution.

Except for civil rights, workers rights, hell even voting rights, weekends, 8 hour work days, the end of wars, thats just in the United States, a country that has one of the least amounts of revolutionary movements (by revolutionary I mean working outside and against the system). Think of the rest of the world, your dillusional, a-historical and out of touch with the way actual change happens.

[Bud Struggle]

Except for civil rights, workers rights, hell even voting rights, weekends, 8 hour work days, the end of wars, thats just in the United States, a country that has one of the least amounts of revolutionary movements (by revolutionary I mean working outside and against the system). Think of the rest of the world, your dillusional, a-historical and out of touch with the way actual change happens.

I'm not saying there isn't a bit of give and take--there should be in society. That's growing pains. As a matter of fact it's good business--the negotiations that unions did in the good old days for the things they won is just good business practice. You have something to sell--I want to buy it and then we haggle over the price. Labor is a commodity like anything else. I don't see that as "Revolution" at all--it's just business. That's why the American system works so well.

As far as the rest of the world--they don't understand the rules of good business so things often end up a lot messier.

[Robert]

Except for civil rights, workers rights, hell even voting rights, weekends, 8 hour work days, the end of wars

Gacky, all of that is true but it falls under the rubric of reform. Nobody's debating the righteousness of civil rights, but give the USA some credit for crying out loud. We got civil rights etc. notwithstanding capitalism and corporate masters and sellout politicians.

With revolution you're going to mess it all up.

[RGacky3]

I'm not saying there isn't a bit of give and take--there should be in society. That's growing pains. As a matter of fact it's good business--the negotiations that unions did in the good old days for the things they won is just good business practice. You have something to sell--I want to buy it and then we haggle over the price. Labor is a commodity like anything else. I don't see that as "Revolution" at all--it's just business. That's why the American system works so well.


Are you out of your mind? Do you know ANYTHING about American labor history? Union leaders were murdered, strikes were put down with guns, there was violence, occupations, union people were blacklisted, it was'nt buisiness, as in buisiness between 2 buisiness men, it was class warfare, civil rights, people were killed, it was'nt some market place deal, nor was it selling, it was revolutions.

Thats not give and take, thats like saying Vietnam was give and take. A strike is not just "normal buisiness," thats why buisinessmen do all in their power to make it not an option.

Labor IS a commodity under Capitalism, and by Labor you mean people, if it was'nt for Labor not acting as a commodity but rebelling against that system so that they have rights (commodities don't have rights), we would still be working people to death.

American system works so well? Compared to what? The American system, dispite being THE world super power, works terribly for the majority of Americans, and that is WITH America being a world super power, the American system just collapsed and will collapse again, the American system is undemocratic to the point to where banks call it a plutocracy without shame, The "American system" (its not an American system at all) has led us to the point to where a few banks and major corporations control the country and are neccessarily tyrannical and rutheless in their wielding of power, also the American system, is'nt just the American system, its also the system that rules over much of the third world, except they have a different role to play, in a documentary about sweatshops and the garment industry there was this great line "America found that it was to decent to allow slavery, so they outsourced it." Which is exactly the case, the American system is the one that has cause American AND much of the third world desperate missery and tyranny.


As far as the rest of the world--they don't understand the rules of good business so things often end up a lot messier.

Which is why the few areas that are not economically controlled by the US are in a less financial hole than the US. In countries where unions are respected, and democracy comes before market power, you don't have the huge amount of crime and poverty as the US. You have no idea what your talking about. If thats how you define "good buisiness," the violent history, the class warfare almost entirely perpetrated by the ruling class, if you consider the civil rights movement and the workers movement as nothing more than "good buisiness," then I suppose the displacing of indians in America was just "good buisiness" or the Russian revolution was just a "buisiness transaction." Your so dillusional its almost amazing.

[Bud Struggle]

Are you out of your mind? Do you know ANYTHING about American labor history? Union leaders were murdered, strikes were put down with guns, there was violence, occupations, union people were blacklisted, it was'nt buisiness, as in buisiness between 2 buisiness men, it was class warfare, civil rights, people were killed, it was'nt some market place deal, nor was it selling, it was revolutions. That's just nonsense. People getting killed in strikes was an aberration same as people getting killed in business deal--but it sometimes happens. Companies stop doing business with other companies all of the time they use it as leverage to get higher prices, etc. If that was a Revolution then this afternoon I'm going out with one of my salesmen and cause some "Revolutions" of my own. :D

You have some idea that business is "pretty." It isn't.


ot give and take, thats like saying Vietnam was give and take. A strike is not just "normal buisiness," thats why buisinessmen do all in their power to make it not an option. Of course strikes are normal business--you don't think union negotiation time isn't figured into business forcasting? In the early daysit was a bit rough to be sure--but now a days union negotiation are just an elaborate courtship dance with ruffeled feathers and strutting and pouting and threats and jestures and then everyone settles down and makes a deal. There are VERY FEW strikes these days. It's a dance.


Labor IS a commodity under Capitalism, and by Labor you mean people, if it was'nt for Labor not acting as a commodity but rebelling against that system so that they have rights (commodities don't have rights), we would still be working people to death.
By labor I don't lean people--I mean the things that people have to sell. The Labor Movement was and always will be a part of the Capitalist system. As long as people have something to sell and as long as there are people who want to buy what they sell--there will be negotiations.


American system works so well? Compared to what? The American system, dispite being THE world super power, That would be an example of "working well." ;)


works terribly for the majority of Americans, and that is WITH America being a world super power, the American system just collapsed and will collapse again, the American system is undemocratic to the point to where banks call it a plutocracy without shame, The "American system" (its not an American system at all) has led us to the point to where a few banks and major corporations control the country and are neccessarily tyrannical and rutheless in their wielding of power, also the American system, is'nt just the American system, its also the system that rules over much of the third world, except they have a different role to play, in a documentary about sweatshops and the garment industry there was this great line "America found that it was to decent to allow slavery, so they outsourced it." Which is exactly the case, the American system is the one that has cause American AND much of the third world desperate missery and tyranny. Of course things need to improve--as they had in the US. And there certainly is injustice, but given time and education the lives of the rest of the world will be improved as they have in the US and Europe.


Which is why the few areas that are not economically controlled by the US are in a less financial hole than the US. In countries where unions are respected, and democracy comes before market power, you don't have the huge amount of crime and poverty as the US. You have no idea what your talking about. If thats how you define "good buisiness," the violent history, the class warfare almost entirely perpetrated by the ruling class, if you consider the civil rights movement and the workers movement as nothing more than "good buisiness," then I suppose the displacing of indians in America was just "good buisiness" or the Russian revolution was just a "buisiness transaction." Your so dillusional its almost amazing.

The Civil Rights movement has nothing to do with class warfare--most of the people that fought AGAINST racial change were Proletarians. The movement was a top down movement instituted by the "rich people" in government inforcing laws that were on the books since the inception of the US.

And the Russian Revolution was NOT business as usual--it was an aberration that after it played out returned Russia to a normal course of Capitalism. And yea it wasn't real Communism, I understand that--but the interesting thing is that it never grew and BECAME real Communism--it just stayed the same until it ended up as Capitalism. Same with China, and unlike the SU they actually tried to become really Communist in the Great Leap Forward--and you see how that all ended up.

This IS how history and freedom is moving forward. I agree though that we need to decentralize banks a bit.

It seems that you think that there is world out there "outside" of the Capitalist system--that the unions and strikes and civil rights movements and such are outside of the Capitalist norm--they aren't. All that is how Capitalism progresses. Capitalism changes every day. What we have now wouldn't make a bit of sense to John D. Rockefeller. What we'll have in 100 years won't make a bit of sense to me. Capitalism grows and expands and takes in new ideas and changes to mee those ideas. Which is EXACTLY what places like the Soviet Union did not do. Once it was set on its path it ossified and eventually died. It could easily (or maybe not so easily) morphed from its initial steps into Socialism into Communism over time. The people, the leaders could have changed it over time to move in a more "soviet" or Marxist or Communist direction--and nothing like that happened. Nothing at all. You don't see a real problem with that? They had their vanguard (the CPSU) they certainly had their theorists--and nothing happened.

Judging how Communist Revolutions have come and gone in the past and what Communist societies are like--one could make a case that Communism is also a part of the way Capitalism grows and changes movingto the future. That's an interesting thought, right?

Gack--it just may be you and people like you: RevLeft, Eidleweiss, TaT, Jazz, Mao, Kim, Stalin, Rosa, etc. create the internal dialectic that keeps Capitalism functioning so well. You provide the mechanisms that commerce needs to grow on.

Thanks.

Think outside the box, Brother. ;)

[RGacky3]

That's just nonsense. People getting killed in strikes was an aberration same as people getting killed in business deal--but it sometimes happens. Companies stop doing business with other companies all of the time they use it as leverage to get higher prices, etc. If that was a Revolution then this afternoon I'm going out with one of my salesmen and cause some "Revolutions" of my own. :D

You have some idea that business is "pretty." It isn't.


People get killed in drug deals, not in buisiness deals, and people getting killed in strikes was NOT abberrations, they were routine, which is why companies regularly hired goons and used police forces to violently put down strikes and break unions, they regularly happened.

Companies negotiating prices is not at all the same, because they are both working to benefit their profits, it is not to survive, also they are both owners of capital and are making deals over capital, labor is compleatly different, it is people, who need to work to survive, and it is'nt a matter of profits, its a matter of wages, also your forgetting the class system, kings negotiating with each other and waging war on each other is not a revolution, when their underlings who's role in the system is to benefit the king and obay him go against that, it is a revolution.


Of course strikes are normal business--you don't think union negotiation time isn't figured into business forcasting? In the early daysit was a bit rough to be sure--but now a days union negotiation are just an elaborate courtship dance with ruffeled feathers and strutting and pouting and threats and jestures and then everyone settles down and makes a deal. There are VERY FEW strikes these days. It's a dance.


Strikes are normal buisiness for those that are forced to make it normal buisiness. As far as union negotiation nowerdays, depends what your talking about, first of all we are NOT just talking europe and the US here, second of all, many unions have essencially become arms of the boss.

But strikes are not Normal buisiness, they are included in the same way earthquakes, terrorist acts and the such are included in a budgetary system of a country, but to call it Normal buisiness is disingenous. Its class war, thats why so much union busting goes on.


By labor I don't lean people--I mean the things that people have to sell. The Labor Movement was and always will be a part of the Capitalist system. As long as people have something to sell and as long as there are people who want to buy what they sell--there will be negotiations.

But labor IS people. THe labor Movement is against the Capitalist system because what it does is try to take the power away from Capital and put it into labor, the whole point of Capitalism is property and trade, if you own something you have the power to use it to make profit and get more, the whole point of labor (as in actual syndicalist labor) is to subvert that and to make it not a Capitalists economy but a workers economy.

Guess what, slave revolts have always been part of the slave system too, riots have always been part of the state system, that does'nt make it part of it.


The Civil Rights movement has nothing to do with class warfare--most of the people that fought AGAINST racial change were Proletarians. The movement was a top down movement instituted by the "rich people" in government inforcing laws that were on the books since the inception of the US.


You don't know a goddamn thing about history do you? First of all, I did'nt say the civil rights movement was about class warfare (although in a way it was), what I said was that it was not done by asking politicians, it was done by essencially revolutionary activity, the government did'nt start enforcing laws because they felt like it, they did it becaus there was a mass black movement in the south that was gaining support from regular people, it was close to revolutions, the government tried extreamly hard to stop it (this is documented), and when they could'nt they had to give in.

As far as proletarians being against it and rich people being for it, your just full of it, you have no historical evidence nor is there of that.


Same with China, and unlike the SU they actually tried to become really Communist in the Great Leap Forward--and you see how that all ended up.

How was that trying? How did they try?


It seems that you think that there is world out there "outside" of the Capitalist system--that the unions and strikes and civil rights movements and such are outside of the Capitalist norm--they aren't. All that is how Capitalism progresses. Capitalism changes every day. What we have now wouldn't make a bit of sense to John D. Rockefeller. What we'll have in 100 years won't make a bit of sense to me. Capitalism grows and expands and takes in new ideas and changes to mee those ideas. Which is EXACTLY what places like the Soviet Union did not do. Once it was set on its path it ossified and eventually died. It could easily (or maybe not so easily) morphed from its initial steps into Socialism into Communism over time. The people, the leaders could have changed it over time to move in a more "soviet" or Marxist or Communist direction--and nothing like that happened. Nothing at all. You don't see a real problem with that? They had their vanguard (the CPSU) they certainly had their theorists--and nothing happened.


They are a part of Capitalism in the sense that class warfare is a part of Capitalism, yeah its inevitable that in a class system you'll have classwarfare.

Capitalism changes only in the sense that it maximises profits, that system is unsustainable, obviously so are totalitarian systems with red pain, socialism, as has ALWAYS been said by libertarian and anarchist socialists can never happen through non-democratic structures, we've always known that.

But Capitalism as we have seen, has never gotten better by relying on the market, or the government, when the capital market is relied on we get what is happening today, when the government is relied apon we get what we have in Obama, change only happens when things are demanded and disruption or revolution is threatened, now you can say that those things are part of Capitalism, but the majority of capitalists would disagree with you, your just playing with semantics.


Judging how Communist Revolutions have come and gone in the past and what Communist societies are like--one could make a case that Communism is also a part of the way Capitalism grows and changes movingto the future. That's an interesting thought, right?


Not really, its a bunch of horseshit, thats like saying that during slavery, slave revolts were just a part of the slave system, or that during the British empire, indigenous autonomy movements were just part of the imperial process. If by communist revolutions you mean the dictatorships that wear red hats to try and gain moral support then yeah, they are part of Capitalism, but genuine socialists are not and have not been working for that.

Let me define what Capitalism is, a system of private (land and capital) property which are traded in a market.


Gack--it just may be you and people like you: RevLeft, Eidleweiss, TaT, Jazz, Mao, Kim, Stalin, Rosa, etc. create the internal dialectic that keeps Capitalism functioning so well. You provide the mechanisms that commerce needs to grow on.

Thanks.

Think outside the box, Brother.

Mao, Kim and Stalin were dictators, I don't see what your doing including them. But what your saying is akin to saying that the anti-slave activists during the slave era were just part of the slave system, or the anti-imperialists were just providing mechanicsm that keep imperialism going.

Thinkin out side the box is a good idea, thats what I do, but that does'nt mean giving up logic and facts as you do.

[#FF0000]

That's just nonsense. People getting killed in strikes was an aberration same as people getting killed in business deal--but it sometimes happens. Companies stop doing business with other companies all of the time they use it as leverage to get higher prices, etc. If that was a Revolution then this afternoon I'm going out with one of my salesmen and cause some "Revolutions" of my own. :D

If you want a better example of people being murdered for business interests, see, uh, all of Latin American history from about 1900 onwards.

[Robert]

But Capitalism as we have seen, has never gotten better by relying on the market, or the government, when the capital market is relied on we get what is happening today, when the government is relied apon we get what we have in Obama, change only happens when things are demanded and disruption or revolution is threatened, now you can say that those things are part of Capitalism, but the majority of capitalists would disagree with you, your just playing with semantics.



That's a good post, Gack, for real. But while improvements in working conditions are not "part of Capitalism" they are part of a liberal democracy, of a free political environment, in which our current version of capitalism operates. It works, see?

Labor conditions drastically improved in the USA, notwithstanding the brutality Gacky describes, and without communist revolution. Which means the ee-vil corporations do not always get their way in America. I honestly don't know any capitalist who thinks they are free these days to disregard labor laws or break strikes with armed goons.

As for Latin American massacres, they're undeniable but it's hard to measure how much of all that was political and how much business.

[Ele'ill]

That's a good post, Gack, for real. But while improvements in working conditions are not "part of Capitalism" they are part of a liberal democracy, of a free political environment, in which our current version of capitalism operates. It works, see?

Capitalism right now operates through neo-liberalism and the helping hand via loans lowers working conditions, the right to organize and destroys the planet through systematic softening of our physical and mental environment- this is done for profit not for justice. Each helping hand is only reaching to grab hold while the other hand makes a fist and strikes. It's fucking bullshit.


Labor conditions drastically improved in the USA, notwithstanding the brutality Gacky describes, and without communist revolution. Which means the ee-vil corporations do not always get their way in America. I honestly don't know any capitalist who thinks they are free these days to disregard labor laws or break strikes with armed goons.

That's because they've discovered it's easier to export exploitation than it is to cook it up at home. Corporations are ravaging the third world.


As for Latin American massacres, they're undeniable but it's hard to measure how much of all that was political and how much business.

If you want, I will create a separate thread detailing the atrocities of the first world corporate circus and their proxy the WTO IMF/WB.

[Bud Struggle]

People get killed in drug deals, not in buisiness deals, and people getting killed in strikes was NOT abberrations, they were routine, which is why companies regularly hired goons and used police forces to violently put down strikes and break unions, they regularly happened. People DID get killled in strikes and in business deals. Not any more. It was part of the growing process of Capitalsim.


Companies negotiating prices is not at all the same, because they are both working to benefit their profits, it is not to survive, also they are both owners of capital and are making deals over capital, labor is compleatly different, it is people, who need to work to survive, and it is'nt a matter of profits, its a matter of wages, also your forgetting the class system, kings negotiating with each other and waging war on each other is not a revolution, when their underlings who's role in the system is to benefit the king and obay him go against that, it is a revolution. I think the workers at GM make something like $60 an hour with everythng added up. That's the kind of thing unions negotiate. And they do a good job for the worker--now all that brings the price of the goods up so then the worker needs to get another pay increase to stay even--but that's how society works. Unions are part of the Capitalist system.


Strikes are normal buisiness for those that are forced to make it normal buisiness. As far as union negotiation nowerdays, depends what your talking about, first of all we are NOT just talking europe and the US here, second of all, many unions have essencially become arms of the boss. I've seen plenty of strikes. My dad was in the Rubber, Linolium and Cork Workers Union and they went out on strile like clockwork every 4 years. Everybody got ready for it--my mom stacked up on food and got a part time job--the companies stocked up on product. It's just the way things went.


But strikes are not Normal buisiness, they are included in the same way earthquakes, terrorist acts and the such are included in a budgetary system of a country, but to call it Normal buisiness is disingenous. Its class war, thats why so much union busting goes on. Call it whaever you like but everybody know when a srike was comming and was ready for it. Over all considering the loss of wages over a month or two whatever gains my dad got were washed away by the lack of a paycheck for that time. He never felt it was worth the effort.


But labor IS people. THe labor Movement is against the Capitalist system because what it does is try to take the power away from Capital and put it into labor, the whole point of Capitalism is property and trade, if you own something you have the power to use it to make profit and get more, the whole point of labor (as in actual syndicalist labor) is to subvert that and to make it not a Capitalists economy but a workers economy. Do you know anything about unions? They are PART of the Capitalist system. They don't want any change--they exist in the system as it is now. Unions are and have always been anti Communist.


Guess what, slave revolts have always been part of the slave system too, riots have always been part of the state system, that does'nt make it part of it. Yes they were. You have to look at the system as a whole--not just in parts.


You don't know a goddamn thing about history do you? First of all, I did'nt say the civil rights movement was about class warfare (although in a way it was), Well then I misunderstood you there.


what I said was that it was not done by asking politicians, it was done by essencially revolutionary activity, the government did'nt start enforcing laws because they felt like it, they did it becaus there was a mass black movement in the south that was gaining support from regular people, it was close to revolutions, the government tried extreamly hard to stop it (this is documented), and when they could'nt they had to give in. Desegragation was enforced by the Federal Government upholding Federal Laws. The States were against it. The Crackers down South were against it. MLK and all of that was worth nothing without Federal Law and the courts the upheld those laws. It was a social change that came about quite in line with the American system of jurisprudence.


As far as proletarians being against it and rich people being for it, your just full of it, you have no historical evidence nor is there of that. Well yes it was more complicated than that--but the rural white South was against Civil Rights for the most part.


They are a part of Capitalism in the sense that class warfare is a part of Capitalism, yeah its inevitable that in a class system you'll have classwarfare. Well yes if you BELIEVE there is such a thihg as Class warfare. Personally I don't. I'm not at war with my brother workers. (That's a little something I learned from my time inthe IWW--almost everyone at my place calls each other "brother" and "sister.")


Capitalism changes only in the sense that it maximises profits, that system is unsustainable, obviously so are totalitarian systems with red pain, socialism, as has ALWAYS been said by libertarian and anarchist socialists can never happen through non-democratic structures, we've always known that. It'sbecome pretty obvious to the most successful Capitalists that if you treat people well--they do a better job and make more money for themselves and the company. The best way to maximize profits is to treat people well and to pay them well. Really.


But Capitalism as we have seen, has never gotten better by relying on the market, or the government, when the capital market is relied on we get what is happening today, when the government is relied apon we get what we have in Obama, change only happens when things are demanded and disruption or revolution is threatened, now you can say that those things are part of Capitalism, but the majority of capitalists would disagree with you, your just playing with semantics. Capitalism is a messy thing--it always has been. It's never been smooth. But the way Capitalism has worked itself out over the years--in conjuction wih government really works out well for everyone.


Not really, its a bunch of horseshit, thats like saying that during slavery, slave revolts were just a part of the slave system, or that during the British empire, indigenous autonomy movements were just part of the imperial process. If by communist revolutions you mean the dictatorships that wear red hats to try and gain moral support then yeah, they are part of Capitalism, but genuine socialists are not and have not been working for that. But as far as I can see--Communism, the kind you are talking about, is just a theort. A dream. It WOULD be nice. I'd buy into it myself, but I just don't think it could ever come about on any sort of scale or for any length of time. It will always end up unto something much more nasty. I really just don't see it working out.


Thinking out side the box is a good idea, thats what I do, but that does'nt mean giving up logic and facts as you do. As I said before--I like your Anarchism. I wish it could happen, but I just don't think it could ever happen and even if it did--it coun't sustain itself so we have to deal with what we have in reality.

I wish things were different.

[#FF0000]

As for Latin American massacres, they're undeniable but it's hard to measure how much of all that was political and how much business.

I don't really think you have to separate the two in most cases.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't really think you have to separate the two in most cases.

Well, in the 19th century there were over 100 Revolutions in South America. Most did not turn out well.