Capitalism is better suited to human nature.

[sattvika]

[WARNING: LONG POST]Hi revleft, hopefully some of you can direct me towards thought-provoking answers to the arguments I'm about to pose, as I'm sure none of them are unique and that you've all had plenty of experience deflecting/avoiding/counter-arguing against them. If some sentences appear illegible, incomprehensible or riddled with grammatical errors, please excuse my English as it is not my first language.

Ok so here's my background: I was born in Moscow while it was still the USSR, moved to Canada in 90s, grew up in Toronto and am currently an undergraduate studying Commerce (50% Economics, 50% Accounting & Finance) at a top b-school with a minor in Poli Sci. I am politically active; I was arrested and detained in a compound for 16 hours at the G20 protests in Toronto last year because I protested our Prime Minister's ridiculous expenditures on jails and jet fighters; it was a double slap in the face for me as I voted Conservative in 2008. No doubt I saw some revleft'ers (or associated persons) at the protests/riots. I have read Marx's Communist Manifesto and Das Capital, as well as Hitler's Mein Kampf, several of Chomsky's books, Hobbes, Veblen, Locke, Machiavelli, and some other political works although I admit that I am far more well-read on economics and history than I am on politics. However, I choose to focus on reality and history as opposed to theory and pseudo-praxis.

First question: why have far-left leaning economic policies failed so miserably in the major countries that adopted them? I am specifically referring to the USSR, PRC, DPRK, Vietnam, etc. These supposedly "developed" countries weren't even able to prevent famines in the 20th century. Eastern Europe and China still have amongst the lowest levels of "national happiness" (whatever that is, and whether it can be trusted). My grandparents had to stand in line for hours just to get some toilet paper. My father was completely brainwashed, marched in the Red October parades, collected stamps and pictures of astronauts, idolized scientists, became an aerospace engineer "for the benefit of the nation and people" and was subsequently paid one third of that which my mother made selling shoes at a shoe store, a sequence of events that accrued profound psychological impact over the years prior to his fleeing the USSR.

That was a personal anecdote, but by no means an isolated or unique story. People died from hunger, were taken away and shot in the middle of the night, sent to the Siberian gulags for simply daring to express a contrary political opinion. My relatives can name unfortunates who they personally knew who fell into all of those categories. China had it even worse.

I visited Russia (Moscow) in 2006 as a young teenager and EVERYONE who was old enough told me how much better it was. A lot of kids my age had better cell phones than me (some even had two), girls looked sexy in proper looking clothes, expensive cars rolled down the streets at night while glowing advertisements lit them up, diverse music poured from all sides, a group of goth kids were discussing different brands of Japanese MP3 players on the subway, my grandparents were finally able to get their own car and cottage up north; everyone looked happier and healthier, in short.

The greatest example of the failure of communist economics is undoubtedly North Korea, a country who can't even feed its own people without literally begging for food from its Southern neighbors, despite being propped up and heavily supported by China.

The REASON behind all of this mainly stems from the fact that humans are strongly selfish beings who usually act in their own self-interest and strongly resent being told exactly what to do at all times by a central authority. Humans are social, but their interactions derive from each individual's desire to maximize his or her social utility in order to gain what he or she wants from the collective. Through doing so, but not through a generally conscious effort, a social hierarchy is established amongst groups and dictates what sorts of material indulgences and respect from other humans one commands. This social hierarchy has been seen throughout literally all of history: there have ALWAYS been social classes, and there will ALWAYS continue to be social classes, in much the same way that racism, drug use and prostitution have never been and will never be eliminated, no matter how much legislation or regulation is thrown at the problem, as they cannot counter-act the forces of human nature. Ex: I regularly speak to a friend in Singapore who works as a banker for a large financial institution there; he tells me that he can easily obtain a hooker or some drugs within minutes of ending the conversation (and, apparently, has done so with pictures included) even though the penalty for the provision of such goods/services is death. Ex: CCP elites live MUCH better than the average Chinese serf, even though millions died in the name of equality.

Second question: how is human equality feasible, on ANY level? We are all born different, with different strengths and abilities. I am not implying any sort of racial overtones here, but some humans are clearly superior to their peers in all respects. Example: two kids I knew in high school are both the same age, coming from similar socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. One plays team sports, has a 3.8 GPA in computer science, contributes to open source software projects, volunteers his time at the Salvation Army (even though he's an atheist), works out, writes eloquently, speaks gracefully, has a part time computer repair business, and generally contributes much to the happiness of all who know him. Although I'm happy with my life, he's the sort of man I look up to and want to be more like, even though we're roughly the same age. The other guy lives at home, smokes weed, plays guitar all day, and steals money/weed from his friends (I've been a victim) to finance his habits. All three of us used to hang out and get high together back in high school, now the differences between us are amazing. What can the shut-in possibly contribute to society? He is an addict, beyond rehabilitation, had an "accident" at work and now collects medical as well as employment welfare, making him a net DRAG on society instead of a benefit like my other friend, the one I strive to emulate. So why should these two men be treated as "equals" in ANY regard? Why SHOULDN'T the productive one be compensated more and allowed to live a more luxurious lifestyle? Why should the hippie even have a home?

At the risk of making this post too long too read, I'll cut it here, but I have more questions provided people are willing to engage in serious intellectual debate instead of "lol idiot"/"your questions have already been asked"/"please acquaint yourself with the search function"/etc. In closing, I'll state that I am by no means against government, that I believe a mix of government/free markets is ideal, and that I'm primarily concerned with what that mix should be, and that I believe in less socialism and more capitalism.

[Ostrinski]

[WARNING: LONG POST]
The REASON behind all of this mainly stems from the fact that humans are strongly selfish beings who usually act in their own self-interest and strongly resent being told exactly what to do at all times by a central authority.
This is absolutely right. And it's why people can't stand working all day for the profit of someone that isn't them. Under this premise, a system in which the manufacturer receives the full exchange value for their labor seems quite suited to humans with this nature, no?

[ComradeGrant]

I'll think you'll find that very few people here advocate what the USSR had late in its days. There are quite a few who don't advocate what it had at any point in time.

[Koba1917]

In my honest opinion the whole 'Human Nature' thing is overblown. Humans are naturally
born with many aspects and characteristics, but we are also products of our environment. If you a born in a society which tells you that self want and individuality is a good thing you are more likely to accept that philosophy on life. But if you are born in a society which co-operation and helping others is promoted and and individuality and self want are frowned upon is it not right to say that people are more likely to accept that philosophy on life? In my honest opinion I think 'Human Nature' has both characteristics of self want and co-operation. We see this in nature as well.
But what is better? Think about it. As a Marxist I look for a society in which the all the people hold the power and decide for themselves how they want to live. A society in which people help each other for the better cause. I do not want a society where people compete for food, shelter and other needs of a human being. I think Capitalism was needed to replace feudalism. Our technology was not yet well developed enough to produce the amount of food and other needs that we need. As technology rises the living standards of the people is most likely going to too. This is one reason USSR, China and many others had problems. The last true Communist leader which had power and was transforming a country was Hoxha in my opinion. He died in the mid 1980's and Albania was still wasn't a nation which had mass needs of the people. Life was much much better in Communist Albania than pre-Communist Albania and post-Communist Albania for the majority(working class). But it would be dumb to say Albania had no problems. I think it shares the same problem with all "Communist Nations" and that is they were isolated. They were cut off from world trade and the supplies they could not get from their nation were not available for them. This is why a Revolution NEEDS to happen in a world super-power (USA, England, ect). Marxism has always been brought about in underdevoleped countries which had mass starvation and disease. When Marxism was brought into these countries their living standards rose highly. But where do you see this with Capitalism? Where do you see a country that is in horrible condition in just a few decades become a much better country? You don't. My main point in this whole thing is that Marxism has never been tried in a super power. Capitalism has shown to help the minority and Socialism has been shown to help the Majority. I haven't read the whole post of yours. I will be honest with that.


BTW: North Korean isn't Communist. It never was and never will be. I agree with Hoxha on his view of Kim Il Sung.
Third Edit: Neither is modern China.

[Tim Finnegan]

First question: why have far-left leaning economic policies failed so miserably in the major countries that adopted them? I am specifically referring to the USSR, PRC, DPRK, Vietnam, etc. These supposedly "developed" countries weren't even able to prevent famines in the 20th century. Eastern Europe and China still have amongst the lowest levels of "national happiness" (whatever that is, and whether it can be trusted). My grandparents had to stand in line for hours just to get some toilet paper. My father was completely brainwashed, marched in the Red October parades, collected stamps and pictures of astronauts, idolized scientists, became an aerospace engineer "for the benefit of the nation and people" and was subsequently paid one third of that which my mother made selling shoes at a shoe store, a sequence of events that accrued profound psychological impact over the years prior to his fleeing the USSR.

That was a personal anecdote, but by no means an isolated or unique story. People died from hunger, were taken away and shot in the middle of the night, sent to the Siberian gulags for simply daring to express a contrary political opinion. My relatives can name unfortunates who they personally knew who fell into all of those categories. China had it even worse.
Well, the obvious answer is that the systems in question constituted no "socialism" or "communism" as the terms are traditionally underside of those circles who make it their rather pathetic mission to defend festering despotates such as those. Both terms imply the ownership and operation of the means of production by those who work them- and, in most expanded conceptions, some form of wider social organisation which includes those otherwise effected by them- while what we find in the USSR, the pre-reform PRC, and so forth, is in fact an elite bureaucratic class, the "nomeklatura", a term with you may be familiar, calling the shots. Now, understandings vary as to whether this system is defined as "state capitalist"- in essence, a society in which the state forms a giant corporation, or in some understandings a cartel of heavily interlinked corporations- or "bureaucratic collectivism", a system theoretically distinct from capitalism but similar in so far as it retains an exploitative ruling class and exploiting worker class, but that's all getting a bit theoretical, so I'll just leave it at this: outside of a the Stalin-fetishists, who in the Western world sit beyond the fringes of the broader left, nobody thinks that the Soviet model is anything to aspire to, and even most of them seem to lose interest after the early fifties.
Thus, criticisms of the USSR, while potentially able to contribute useful insights into the potholes faced by any post-capitalist economic system, must pay rather more reference to what is actually discussed and proposed by contemporary leftists if it has to act as a solid challenge to their ideas, rather than simply being proclaimed as is. If that was how things worked, I could simply nod meaningfully at the Irish Potato Famine- which, for the record, killed more than any Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese or North Korean famine, despite the fact that Ireland was growing more than enough food to feed its population for its entire duration- and dismiss capitalism as a self-evidently hopeless charade.


I visited Russia (Moscow) in 2006 as a young teenager and EVERYONE who was old enough told me how much better it was. A lot of kids my age had better cell phones than me (some even had two), girls looked sexy in proper looking clothes, expensive cars rolled down the streets at night while glowing advertisements lit them up, diverse music poured from all sides, a group of goth kids were discussing different brands of Japanese MP3 players on the subway, my grandparents were finally able to get their own car and cottage up north; everyone looked happier and healthier, in short.And that's great, if you're upper-middle class, but given that most people in my town- a fairly average mid-size British town- don't have access to such luxuries, I'm hugely sceptical that what you offer me here is a day in the live of the average 21st century Muscovite.


The greatest example of the failure of communist economics is undoubtedly North Korea, a country who can't even feed its own people without literally begging for food from its Southern neighbors, despite being propped up and heavily supported by China.Probably worth noting that even North Korea doesn't consider itself to be a Marxist state at this point. It's pretty much it's own sad, strange little beast, and has little bearing on anything beyond its own borders.


The REASON behind all of this mainly stems from the fact that humans are strongly selfish beings who usually act in their own self-interest and strongly resent being told exactly what to do at all times by a central authority.Right, which is why we propose communism, which represents the liberation of humanity to collectively pursue the interests of all, rather than capitalism, which represents the subjugation of the masses to a property-owning elite who call the shots.

But you probably mean that middle-class North Americans c.1985 were better off than middle-class Russians of the same period, which is largely accurate, but also largely irrelevant.


Humans are social, but their interactions derive from each individual's desire to maximize his or her social utility in order to gain what he or she wants from the collective. Through doing so, but not through a generally conscious effort, a social hierarchy is established amongst groups and dictates what sorts of material indulgences and respect from other humans one commands. This social hierarchy has been seen throughout literally all of history: there have ALWAYS been social classes, and there will ALWAYS continue to be social classes, in much the same way that racism, drug use and prostitution have never been and will never be eliminated, no matter how much legislation or regulation is thrown at the problem, as they cannot counter-act the forces of human nature.Well, this is simply nonsense. An introductory anthropology class would tell you humans originally lived in simple, classless, effectively communistic hunter-gatherer bands, and only developed the distinct social strata, let alone "classes" in the economic sense, as agricultural and pastoral developments allowed a significant surplus to develop, and so an exploiter-class to appropriate that surplus. How could a tribe of Cro-Magnons, exactly, support a distinct ruling class, numbering only a few dozen and surviving at only a little above subsistence level?
Furthermore, a look at the history of various communist, anarchist and otherwise communitarian movements would demonstrate that social class is not the inevitably you declare. While it is certainly true that all generalised modes of production since the emergence of tributary societies in the neolithic have been class based, that does not suggest that the economic and political hegemony of a particualr class over another or others was a given. Who were the ruling class among the free workers of Anarchist Catalonia, I wonder? Who among the citizens of the Paris Commune, the inhabitants of the Israeli Kibbutzim, the 17th century English "Digger" communes? You need to read more, if you are to think about making such declarations.
But let me ask you, lover of the class system, even if we accept your claim that class divisions are "natural", why should we infer from that the idea that they are necessary or desirable, rather than merely being the odious condition in which we find ourselves? Surely, you see the current form of class division, one based upon property ownership, control of capital, and so forth, as preferable to that present in pre-modern societies, which consisted largely of an armed aristocracy that spent its time beating up peasants and taking their crops? So why stop there? What it is about this particular incarnation of class society that makes you feel it to be the culmination of human social development?

Oh, and racism, in the proper sense, is more or less unrecorded before the 15th century. Ethnic bigotry, certainly, but the formalisation of human beings into monolithic biological blocs, rather their division in quasi-biological, quasi-cultural, quasi-linguistic groupings- "black and white", rather than "Saxon and Celt"- is a novelty which emerged alongside European colonialism. So that's another thing to read up on.


x: I regularly speak to a friend in Singapore who works as a banker for a large financial institution there; he tells me that he can easily obtain a hooker or some drugs within minutes of ending the conversation (and, apparently, has done so with pictures included) even though the penalty for the provision of such goods/services is death. Ex: CCP elites live MUCH better than the average Chinese serf, even though millions died in the name of equality.So capitalist allows the development of a grotesquely wealthy over-class who are in a position to both support obscenely powerful, authoritarian regimes, while simultaneously declaring themselves above the law- and let's not pretend that your dear banker friend stops at (in themselves, if not necessarily in practice) innocent things like drugs and prostitutes -and we're all supposed to tumble onto our backs, delirious with enthusiasm at the offer of such a system?
Well, I suppose that, as you've so helpfully pointed out, it's either that or a system in which a grotesquely wealthy over-class who are in a position to... support... err... Ok, I'm sorry, but I'm losing track: what exactly is the difference between contemporary Singapore and Soviet Russia? :confused:


Second question: how is human equality feasible, on ANY level? We are all born different, with different strengths and abilities. I am not implying any sort of racial overtones here, but some humans are clearly superior to their peers in all respects. Example: two kids I knew in high school are both the same age, coming from similar socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. One plays team sports, has a 3.8 GPA in computer science, contributes to open source software projects, volunteers his time at the Salvation Army (even though he's an atheist), works out, writes eloquently, speaks gracefully, has a part time computer repair business, and generally contributes much to the happiness of all who know him. Although I'm happy with my life, he's the sort of man I look up to and want to be more like, even though we're roughly the same age. The other guy lives at home, smokes weed, plays guitar all day, and steals money/weed from his friends (I've been a victim) to finance his habits. All three of us used to hang out and get high together back in high school, now the differences between us are amazing. What can the shut-in possibly contribute to society? He is an addict, beyond rehabilitation, had an "accident" at work and now collects medical as well as employment welfare, making him a net DRAG on society instead of a benefit like my other friend, the one I strive to emulate. So why should these two men be treated as "equals" in ANY regard? Why SHOULDN'T the productive one be compensated more and allowed to live a more luxurious lifestyle? Why should the hippie even have a home?I'm confused; what exactly do you think is proposed by the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", exactly? Neither literal material equality nor equality regardless of contribution is something that communists advocate, because that is quite evidently a stupid idea. Rather, what we pursue is the liberty of all to realise their full potential as individual human beings, something for which we see the necessity not of some abstract individual liberty, as declared sufficient by capitalist utopians of both left and right, but of a social liberty, a general liberty founded upon a concrete base of material security for all.


At the risk of making this post too long too read, I'll cut it here, but I have more questions provided people are willing to engage in serious intellectual debate instead of "lol idiot"/"your questions have already been asked"/"please acquaint yourself with the search function"/etc.Shoot. I don't claim to be an expert, here, but I think I have a handle on the basics at least well enough to flesh out our position.


In closing, I'll state that I am by no means against government, that I believe a mix of government/free markets is ideal, and that I'm primarily concerned with what that mix should be, and that I believe in less socialism and more capitalism.Socialism and capitalism are modes of production and therefore generalised. You can't have a "mix of both", as I would've thought anyone whose read Capital would be aware. (I suspect that you may have read more of Marx than you've actually learned from him...) Capitalism is a system of generalised commodity production, that is, a system in which the vast majority of people spend the majority of their productive time producing commodities to be traded on the market, while socialism is a system of communist production, in which all people spend all their productive time producing goods and offering services to fulfil the needs of themselves and others. The two cannot co-exist. What you mean refer to, rather, is a scale of more or less regulation within capitalism, which, I assure you, nobody here supports as anything more than an immediate measure.

[#FF0000]

The REASON behind all of this mainly stems from the fact that humans are strongly selfish beings who usually act in their own self-interest and strongly resent being told exactly what to do at all times by a central authority. Humans are social, but their interactions derive from each individual's desire to maximize his or her social utility in order to gain what he or she wants from the collective.I think most of us here would, sort of, kind of, in a way, agree with this. People are self-interested to an extent, and they're certainly social animals.

But to be clear, I wouldn't say people are "selfish", since, I think, selfishness implies an overemphasis on perceived self-interests to the point that it actually harms that person and/or others.

But, eh, what you're saying isn't necessarily at odds with socialism, I don't think. We don't want socialism because we're just nice people who want everyone else to be happy. We're socialists because we recognize that capitalism does not serve our best interests in the long run, and we recognize that workers like us everywhere are, in a general sense, in the same boat.

Last point here: We don't advocate for one person or some central authority ordering people around.


Through doing so, but not through a generally conscious effort, a social hierarchy is established amongst groups and dictates what sorts of material indulgences and respect from other humans one commands. This social hierarchy has been seen throughout literally all of history: there have ALWAYS been social classes, and there will ALWAYS continue to be social classesThis isn't true. Class systems came about after the Agricultural revolution. Prior to that, human societies were organized in a plethora of ways. Most, though, were largely egalitarian.


in much the same way that racism, drug use and prostitution have never been and will never be eliminated, no matter how much legislation or regulation is thrown at the problem, as they cannot counter-act the forces of human nature.We don't believe that legislation can get rid of these issues either. They are social issues based on an economic foundation.

[Kamos]

Second question: how is human equality feasible, on ANY level? We are all born different, with different strengths and abilities. I am not implying any sort of racial overtones here, but some humans are clearly superior to their peers in all respects. Example: two kids I knew in high school are both the same age, coming from similar socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. One plays team sports, has a 3.8 GPA in computer science, contributes to open source software projects, volunteers his time at the Salvation Army (even though he's an atheist), works out, writes eloquently, speaks gracefully, has a part time computer repair business, and generally contributes much to the happiness of all who know him. Although I'm happy with my life, he's the sort of man I look up to and want to be more like, even though we're roughly the same age. The other guy lives at home, smokes weed, plays guitar all day, and steals money/weed from his friends (I've been a victim) to finance his habits. All three of us used to hang out and get high together back in high school, now the differences between us are amazing. What can the shut-in possibly contribute to society? He is an addict, beyond rehabilitation, had an "accident" at work and now collects medical as well as employment welfare, making him a net DRAG on society instead of a benefit like my other friend, the one I strive to emulate. So why should these two men be treated as "equals" in ANY regard? Why SHOULDN'T the productive one be compensated more and allowed to live a more luxurious lifestyle? Why should the hippie even have a home?

Human equality =/= every human being a carbon copy of everyone else.

It is not the weed addict's fault that he is in that situation, for one. For one, you say he plays guitar all day? He may be a born guitarist for all I know, but capitalism doesn't care about the "substandard" people. Maybe he was born with the wrong genes for capitalism, maybe the stress-filled atmosphere of the capitalistic life just overcame him. But of course, as an upstanding upper middle class citizen (or above), how could you understand the problems of those who are less fortunate and do not just take everything as granted?

We, as humans, have evolved way further than any animal. One part of this is that we are responsible for each other, like a pack of animals who always live and hunt together. We do not let the outcasts just die.

And did you seriously just use "hippie" as an insult? I thought you wanted serious discussion?


My father was completely brainwashed, marched in the Red October parades, collected stamps and pictures of astronauts, idolized scientists, became an aerospace engineer "for the benefit of the nation and people" and was subsequently paid one third of that which my mother made selling shoes at a shoe store, a sequence of events that accrued profound psychological impact over the years prior to his fleeing the USSR.

Funny how you talk of brainwashing when it still happens in every "civilised" (capitalist) society today. Again, you, as the "cream of the crop" needn't worry - millions of poor people who have trouble getting their daily bread work for you so that you can live every day of yours in luxury. If they weren't brainwashed, they'd rise up and say, "Screw it, we want a fighting chance for ourselves as well. Give us some true democracy!".


The REASON behind all of this mainly stems from the fact that humans are strongly selfish beings who usually act in their own self-interest and strongly resent being told exactly what to do at all times by a central authority.

And yet you support a strong central authority who tells them exactly what to do at all times. Does not compute.


Humans are social, but their interactions derive from each individual's desire to maximize his or her social utility in order to gain what he or she wants from the collective.

Thanks to the system that specifically promotes this. Thankfully, an actual social feeling and compassion for others hasn't died out yet.[/QUOTE]


Through doing so, but not through a generally conscious effort, a social hierarchy is established amongst groups and dictates what sorts of material indulgences and respect from other humans one commands. This social hierarchy has been seen throughout literally all of history:False. This has already been explained above.


Ex: I regularly speak to a friend in Singapore who works as a banker

This is your problem. Find a metalworker or a cleaner who can do the same. The upper class can get away with almost anything.

And a few more gems:


Eastern Europe and China still have amongst the lowest levels of "national happiness" (whatever that is, and whether it can be trusted).Wouldn't this mean that it is the new system, the "free and democratic society" (in practice, rampant neo-nazism) that makes them unhappy? If the system worked, they would be, you know, happy. I'm from Hungary myself, so I should know. Our current prime minister violates every ideal of the Western parliamentary system, and from what I see, the biggest difference between us and the west is that he does so openly and without shame, only covering himself up with populist demagogy.


I visited Russia (Moscow) in 2006 as a young teenager and EVERYONE who was old enough told me how much better it was. A lot of kids my age had better cell phones than me (some even had two), girls looked sexy in proper looking clothes, expensive cars rolled down the streets at night while glowing advertisements lit them up, diverse music poured from all sides, a group of goth kids were discussing different brands of Japanese MP3 players on the subway, my grandparents were finally able to get their own car and cottage up north; everyone looked happier and healthier, in short.

And do you think this applies for the average as well? Because if you didn't know, the average person doesn't live on the level where he or she could afford this, in any capitalist country. I don't care what some rich kids who get $100 from their parents every day as pocket money can afford.

Finally, if "capitalism is better suited to human nature", how come that while the first societies on Earth were quite communistic (again, explained above about the hunter-gatherer societies), capitalism took thousands of years to achieve and there are still many dissenters? Not just from the left, also from the right (although for different and quite wrong reasons).

[RedSunRising]

Humanity lived under communism, albeit primitive communism, for far longer than it has lived under capitalism.

[Toppler]

Great, a reactionary Muscovite. How does it feel that around 1/3 of your countryman cannot afford food every time while you enjoy your luxuries? When you were born, late 1980s? I love these "I remember cummunism i was 6 when it fell i remember my mommy waiting for toilet paper then when i gone to school they taught me about gulags ans stuff" types. The same applies here in Slovakia. Old people who have grown up under Gottwald love communism while the biggest anticommunists are those who are like "I NOW ABOUT TEH HORRORS OF COMUNISM BECAUSE I SAW MY MUM WAITING FOR MEAT 5 MONTHS BEFORE THE COLLAPSE WHEN I WAS 4 YEAR OLD. IT WAS LIKE 1984!!!!!!!!!!" Like you've got any idea what the Soviet Union was for most of its existence.

Also, nice calling your parents brainwashed. You're a respectful kid for sure.

You Muscovites sure have it easy blabbering about young beautiful people with iphones and throwing shit at communism when the HDI of Moscow is higher than some Western European countries. I am from Slovakia, which is much richer than Russia, yet many old people have to eat trash from garbage bins to survive. Fuck off, reactionary. Try writing your little essay to Rasyte or Born in the USSR. Those countryman might say something to you.

[danyboy27]

The reason of the inneficiencies of the state capitalist governement was dirrectly linked to the contentration of power, and in that sense yea they didnt understood human nature at all.

but capitalism isnt suited by human nature either for the same reason and we currently witness worldwide the utter failure of this concentration in the hand of a fews landowner and property owner.


the best way to have a functionnal and stable economy is to share the power trought the population , and that why we must do away with economic monarchy and focus on a more modern, model.

Dictatorship, just like free market economics ignore human nature and the inherent risk it pose to society to concentrate power into the hand of the fews.

And that why power must be shared, beccause we understand human nature and know verry well that if we allow some sociopath to have that much power they will fuck up real bad, fuck up living conditions, fuck up the ressources, fuck up everything.

[graymouser]

The REASON behind all of this mainly stems from the fact that humans are strongly selfish beings who usually act in their own self-interest and strongly resent being told exactly what to do at all times by a central authority. Humans are social, but their interactions derive from each individual's desire to maximize his or her social utility in order to gain what he or she wants from the collective. Through doing so, but not through a generally conscious effort, a social hierarchy is established amongst groups and dictates what sorts of material indulgences and respect from other humans one commands. This social hierarchy has been seen throughout literally all of history: there have ALWAYS been social classes, and there will ALWAYS continue to be social classes, in much the same way that racism, drug use and prostitution have never been and will never be eliminated, no matter how much legislation or regulation is thrown at the problem, as they cannot counter-act the forces of human nature.
Social class, if you understand Marx - which you clearly don't - does not come from individual selfishness or self-interest, but from the social conditions of production. This whole screed fails on that alone. Capitalists don't exploit workers because they are greedy bastards - although, on the whole, the system certainly rewards and encourages greed. They do so because they are engaged in social relations that require them to exploit workers. If they fail to do so, then others who are willing to exploit will step in and take their place.

You are viewing diseased societies and making assumptions based on them how a healthy society, without the impersonal machinery of capitalism grinding most down and turning a select few into billionaires, would act. People in feudalism made assumptions that there would always be a nobility, that this was God's plan and the best it could possibly get - but they were wrong. And you will be as well.


Second question: how is human equality feasible, on ANY level? We are all born different, with different strengths and abilities. I am not implying any sort of racial overtones here, but some humans are clearly superior to their peers in all respects. Example: two kids I knew in high school are both the same age, coming from similar socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. One plays team sports, has a 3.8 GPA in computer science, contributes to open source software projects, volunteers his time at the Salvation Army (even though he's an atheist), works out, writes eloquently, speaks gracefully, has a part time computer repair business, and generally contributes much to the happiness of all who know him. Although I'm happy with my life, he's the sort of man I look up to and want to be more like, even though we're roughly the same age. The other guy lives at home, smokes weed, plays guitar all day, and steals money/weed from his friends (I've been a victim) to finance his habits. All three of us used to hang out and get high together back in high school, now the differences between us are amazing. What can the shut-in possibly contribute to society? He is an addict, beyond rehabilitation, had an "accident" at work and now collects medical as well as employment welfare, making him a net DRAG on society instead of a benefit like my other friend, the one I strive to emulate. So why should these two men be treated as "equals" in ANY regard? Why SHOULDN'T the productive one be compensated more and allowed to live a more luxurious lifestyle? Why should the hippie even have a home?
What does this have to do with capitalism? What will your clean cut friend even be able to do that will "contribute" to "society"? Write some programs for money to make other people rich? In a socialist society, he could do the open source programming and Salvation Army work as a full time gig. He wouldn't have to chip away at programs for other people to figure out how to more efficiently exploit workers for eight hours a day and come home not wanting to be arsed with programming. I'm a computer programmer and I hate the shit I have to do all day, so this one hits close to home for me.

And your friend - why shouldn't he have a home? Society can decide that values like everybody having a home are worthwhile. That's something worth fighting for, damn it.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm just saying, the line "they had better cell phones than me, sometimes TWO" just screams of someone not wanting to take the issue seriously.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Human nature is a capitalist myth, like scarcity.

[danyboy27]

Human nature is a capitalist myth, like scarcity.

i beg to differ with you on that.

One of our main goal in life is to aquire power and control over things, that how we evolved, by creating a plethora of ingenious device to master and control our surronding and environnement, and one of the product of this is surplus. our primitive state at the time unfortunately allowed a fews individual to appropriate this surplus for themselves and thrive on it for thousand of years.

Economical system are nothing more than human inventions to control the surplus.

Nietzche was right when he was saying that life is will to power, beccause without that we would still be chased in the jungle by wild annimals.

Communism to me is the most viable option to harness human nature so that everyone could truly be in control of their environnement, their work, and their spare time, finally being master of our own world.

[sattvika]

Thanks for your responses. Although I'd really like to debate everyone here on every single point made, due to time constraints I'll obviously be unable to, so please bear in mind that I've read and carefully considered all of your posts.

So, most of you (and with good reason) consider the USSR, China, and N. Korea to be incompatible with your idea of socialism/communism, claiming that they were all despotic bureaucracies. The point remains, however, that all of these societies vehemently rejected capitalism and strived to develop a society that at least somewhat paid homage to Marx's/Lenin's ideas of how a society should function. Apparently, along the way, all of them somehow strayed from the path.


This is absolutely right. And it's why people can't stand working all day for the profit of someone that isn't them. Under this premise, a system in which the manufacturer receives the full exchange value for their labor seems quite suited to humans with this nature, no? Most people actually profit directly from their work, which endows them with the monetary resources necessary to purchase food, water, clothing, shelter, etc. Presumably you mean "excess" profit. Isn't it logical that the people who organized and enabled the entity of production in the first place gain the excess profit or suffer any losses? Without them, it is doubtful that the goods/services in question would have materialized to begin with. Laborers do not spontaneously organize to prospect and develop gold mines or refine the ore, much less assemble in multinational supply chains that trascend linguistic and cultural barriers for the commercial purpose of efficiently assembling modern automobiles and electronics. A central authority, be it the government or a private corporation, must arise to direct the progress of any complex industrial endeavor from stage one.


Well, this is simply nonsense. An introductory anthropology class would tell you humans originally lived in simple, classless, effectively communistic hunter-gatherer bands, and only developed the distinct social strata, let alone "classes" in the economic sense, as agricultural and pastoral developments allowed a significant surplus to develop, and so an exploiter-class to appropriate that surplus. How could a tribe of Cro-Magnons, exactly, support a distinct ruling class, numbering only a few dozen and surviving at only a little above subsistence level?
Furthermore, a look at the history of various communist, anarchist and otherwise communitarian movements would demonstrate that social class is not the inevitably you declare. While it is certainly true that all generalised modes of production since the emergence of tributary societies in the neolithic have been class based, that does not suggest that the economic and political hegemony of a particualr class over another or others was a given. Who were the ruling class among the free workers of Anarchist Catalonia, I wonder? Who among the citizens of the Paris Commune, the inhabitants of the Israeli Kibbutzim, the 17th century English "Digger" communes? You need to read more, if you are to think about making such declarations.
But let me ask you, lover of the class system, even if we accept your claim that class divisions are "natural", why should we infer from that the idea that they are necessary or desirable, rather than merely being the odious condition in which we find ourselves? Surely, you see the current form of class division, one based upon property ownership, control of capital, and so forth, as preferable to that present in pre-modern societies, which consisted largely of an armed aristocracy that spent its time beating up peasants and taking their crops? So why stop there? What it is about this particular incarnation of class society that makes you feel it to be the culmination of human social development? My analysis of human social organization began with the advent of the neolithic revolution. I am aware that "humans" lived in "tribes" for millions of years before that, though I disagree with the assertion that they were communistic. I don't dare to claim that they were capitalist, feudalist, or anything else, merely that they were "tribalistic" and that to attach any modern political doctrine to groups of humans and proto-humans that lived millions of years ago is a rather futile exercise in anachronism. How were decisions made on which location to journey to next in search of food, for example? Which animals to hunt? Who takes what bones? Somehow, I doubt that such decisions were made democratically. In all social mammals there exists an alpha male, a natural leader. Humans were no different in this respect, and in the same introductory anthropology teachings you proposed, we hear of tribal chieftains, shaman, medicine men, and other elevated social positions, even within small tribes.

I also vociferously disagree with your thoughts on racism, which you claim is different from "ethnic bigotry." I claim that such classification of discriminatory practices is deliberate obfuscation through semantics. How is racism different from ethnic bigotry? From the accounts I've read, Enlightenment and Renaissance sailors often discussed the discrepancies in social development of the people they met, wondering why, for example, the Chinese and Japanese were more advanced than North American natives and indigenous Caribbeans. Racism is the logical simplification of such observations. There were obvious differences between the Scots and the Slavs, the Hmong and the Han, the Bantus and the Tutsis, however, the considerable anthropoligic and cultural differences between these subgroups were far eclipsed by the differences between their respective supergroups, namely whites, asians and blacks.

Speaking of discrimination, I notice that a poster in this thread has a less-than-amicable opinion of Muscovites. That's ok, the truth is, even throughout the rest of Russia you won't find too many people who like us. The point is you are disciminating against me based on my geographic origin, and stating that I know nothing of the country I was born in. That's a bit arrogant, is it not? I have spoken at length with my great-grandfather, who is still alive and fought as a teenager in the second world war. He travelled around the country frequently (visiting Riga, Tallinn, Kyryzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Vladivostok, and Archangelsk amongst others) as a civil engineer afterwards (my entire father's line were engineers dating back to the 1900s). You say you are from Slovakia? My mother's father was posted there as a diplomat for a period of time, and almost married a Slovakian woman. I don't seem to recall him mentioning anything enviable about the place or its people.

Anyways, doesn't left-wing ideology teach against such discrimination? For the record, I don't consider myself a Muscovite, a Russian, or even a Canadian. If there was a war, I wouldn't support (much less fight for) either side, opting to flee to one of our properties in a small, capital-friendly nation south of the equator.


Socialism and capitalism are modes of production and therefore generalised. You can't have a "mix of both", as I would've thought anyone whose read Capital would be aware. (I suspect that you may have read more of Marx than you've actually learned from him...) Capitalism is a system of generalised commodity production, that is, a system in which the vast majority of people spend the majority of their productive time producing commodities to be traded on the market, while socialism is a system of communist production, in which all people spend all their productive time producing goods and offering services to fulfil the needs of themselves and others. The two cannot co-exist. What you mean refer to, rather, is a scale of more or less regulation within capitalism, which, I assure you, nobody here supports as anything more than an immediate measure.My bad bro, I should have defined the context in which I was using the word socialism. In this particular case, I was implying any sort of redistribution of income from the wealthy to the poor. Please keep in mind that I am a realist and sometimes have difficulty thinking in terms of pure idealistic abstraction. I disagree that the two systems cannot co-exist. As a superficial example (don't go too in-depth into this), consider the Canadian health care system, which is not-for-profit and exemplifies socialized medicine. You can have a capitalist mode of production for some goods and a socialist mode of production of other goods within the same society.



Again, you, as the "cream of the crop" needn't worry - millions of poor people who have trouble getting their daily bread work for you so that you can live every day of yours in luxury. Oh man. When my father arrived in Newfoundland, he came as a political refugee with less than $20 in his pocket. Worked as a fisherman for a couple of years. Brought us over to Newfoundland. Lived in a cockroach-infested apartment with an even worse infestation of particularly tasteless and unskilled crust-punks three rooms over. Went FAR into debt because he had to RETRAIN as an engineer. I won't bore y'all with any more of my life story, but suffice to say I know poverty, as I have lived through it. I am grateful every day for my newly acquired status as socially elite neo-bourgeoisie. My parents couldn't even afford school field trip activity fees when I was a child, much less an electronic wristwatch, playstation, n64, gameboy, decent tv, pokemon cards, new sneakers, pizza days, or anything else I wanted. Now I have several laptops, drive a 2011 bmw, go to the best business school in the country, and aspire to become an international financier. I am very grateful every single day for the system that enabled this transformation.



My main point in this whole thing is that Marxism has never been tried in a super power. Please, tell me more
If that was how things worked, I could simply nod meaningfully at the Irish Potato Famine- which, for the record, killed more than any Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese or North Korean famine, despite the fact that Ireland was growing more than enough food to feed its population for its entire duration- and dismiss capitalism as a self-evidently hopeless charade. Market failures sometimes happen. Overall though, it's a good system. Some must be sacrificed for the betterment of others


Ok, I'm sorry, but I'm losing track: what exactly is the difference between contemporary Singapore and Soviet Russia? One was a relatively obscure city-state that embraced capitalism from the very beginning and is now an advanced nation with a very high standard of living, contributing far above its weight to the global economy, especially in the fields of finance and consumer electronics, while the other was a global superpower that forcefully rejected capitalism and ended up with an oppressive, authoritarian regime which ultimately bankrupted the country and sent it down the path of collapse, fragmentation and degeneration into irrelevancy.


And did you seriously just use "hippie" as an insult? I thought you wanted serious discussion? Where did I use the term "hippie" as an insult? One who engages in the recreational consumption of narcotics, wears long hair, has strong socialist tendencies, advocates peace and love while peacefully resisting the system (through not working or other means) and has specific musical tastes can reasonably be referred to as a hippie, can he not? Perhaps this a freudian slip? :P


And yet you support a strong central authority who tells them exactly what to do at all times. Does not compute. If you don't like it, you are free to find a new job or, better yet, create your own. In a realistic communist system, you traditionally would be severely punished.


Social class, if you understand Marx - which you clearly don'tUnderstanding Marx does not mean advocating his ideas, or even agreeing with them. What I posted was an amalgamation of my own opinions mixed with theories espoused by several libertarian economists (I am not a libertarian).


You are viewing diseased societies and making assumptions based on them how a healthy society, without the impersonal machinery of capitalism grinding most down and turning a select few into billionaires, would act. Personal connections will always influence human decision.


People in feudalism made assumptions that there would always be a nobility The nobility still exists, under a different name. What has changed are the entrance requirements. People have a shot at making it. We attained status through my father's careful saving and investing in financial markets, “educated gambling,” if you will.


but they were wrong. And you will be as well. How prophetic. Unfortunately, unlike yourself, I am cynical realist, not a revolutionary idealist.


What does this have to do with capitalism? What will your clean cut friend even be able to do that will "contribute" to "society"? Write some programs for money to make other people rich? He contributes more to society than most other people, and is thereby blessed with a higher standard of living and more happiness. Writing programs contributes directly to society. Somebody wrote the code that enables forums such as this one, somebody wrote the game I played last week, somebody wrote the inventory systems that keep track of merchandise and facilitate/expedite global trade. The bum is a drag on society, using up resources that others deserve more. He should be a given a chance to amend and rectify his lifestyle, or material support (food/shelter/clothing) should be withdrawn by the state and he should fend for himself or die. Sounds brutal, but through the death of men such as him society benefits, becomes more competitive, and progresses. What if this man has children? The Canadian taxpayer will be forced to not only monetarily subsidize him in addition to the mother of his children and the children themselves but will also be subject to the negative externalities of crime and community degradation, as it is statistically proven that children born to those like him are much more likely to become uneducated criminals or drug addicts and thus perpetuate the cycle. Only the socialistic redistribution of income is keeping him alive.

Once again I'm forced to cut this short, but I have enjoyed reading your responses and responding in turn to them. I type exceedingly quickly, so the entire procedure of producing this post only takes around 15 to 20 minutes, time well spent as I enjoy debating and am getting a better picture at where you guys are coming from.

[Kamos]

So, most of you (and with good reason) consider the USSR, China, and N. Korea to be incompatible with your idea of socialism/communism, claiming that they were all despotic bureaucracies. The point remains, however, that all of these societies vehemently rejected capitalism and strived to develop a society that at least somewhat paid homage to Marx's/Lenin's ideas of how a society should function. Apparently, along the way, all of them somehow strayed from the path.

Khrushchev introduced capitalism to the USSR. Khrushchev, the 3rd of the General Secretaries of the USSR. That doesn't mean he just did a bad job of realising communism, he abolished it in all but name.


Most people actually profit directly from their work, which endows them with the monetary resources necessary to purchase food, water, clothing, shelter, etc. Presumably you mean "excess" profit. Isn't it logical that the people who organized and enabled the entity of production in the first place gain the excess profit or suffer any losses? Without them, it is doubtful that the goods/services in question would have materialized to begin with.

There is a saying for this... "A thousand workers can replace one capitalist but one capitalist cannot replace a thousand workers."


Laborers do not spontaneously organize to prospect and develop gold mines or refine the ore, much less assemble in multinational supply chains that trascend linguistic and cultural barriers for the commercial purpose of efficiently assembling modern automobiles and electronics.

Oh yes, they do. Workers can organise themselves just as well as anyone else can organise them. Why couldn't they? Think about the Paris Commune, a less-known but much better variant of communism. They organised themselves, and had it not been for the German counterrevolutionaries helping out France, the Commune would have been the first true manifestation of communism on Earth.


I am aware that "humans" lived in "tribes" for millions of years before that, though I disagree with the assertion that they were communistic. I don't dare to claim that they were capitalist, feudalist, or anything else, merely that they were "tribalistic" and that to attach any modern political doctrine to groups of humans and proto-humans that lived millions of years ago is a rather futile exercise in anachronism.

That's the point - the idea of communism is not modern. The name, more so, but it's not about the name.


How were decisions made on which location to journey to next in search of food, for example? Which animals to hunt? Who takes what bones? Somehow, I doubt that such decisions were made democratically. In all social mammals there exists an alpha male, a natural leader.

That's quite an impressive statement to make, especially since it's false.


Oh man. When my father arrived in Newfoundland, he came as a political refugee with less than $20 in his pocket. Worked as a fisherman for a couple of years. Brought us over to Newfoundland. Lived in a cockroach-infested apartment with an even worse infestation of particularly tasteless and unskilled crust-punks three rooms over. Went FAR into debt because he had to RETRAIN as an engineer. I won't bore y'all with any more of my life story, but suffice to say I know poverty, as I have lived through it. I am grateful every day for my newly acquired status as socially elite neo-bourgeoisie. My parents couldn't even afford school field trip activity fees when I was a child, much less an electronic wristwatch, playstation, n64, gameboy, decent tv, pokemon cards, new sneakers, pizza days, or anything else I wanted. Now I have several laptops, drive a 2011 bmw, go to the best business school in the country, and aspire to become an international financier. I am very grateful every single day for the system that enabled this transformation.

So you are happy that you are no longer poor, but ignore the plight of all those who suffer the same fate as you? Well, that means you're just completely selfish. Which, in turn, means that there is no point discussing, is there?


Please, tell me more Market failures sometimes happen. Overall though, it's a good system. Some must be sacrificed for the betterment of others

When you are on line to be sacrificed, will you still hail the system?


Where did I use the term "hippie" as an insult? One who engages in the recreational consumption of narcotics, wears long hair, has strong socialist tendencies, advocates peace and love while peacefully resisting the system (through not working or other means) and has specific musical tastes can reasonably be referred to as a hippie, can he not? Perhaps this a freudian slip? :P

Good call doctor, unfortunately you're wrong. You didn't mention that your friend has long hair, has socialist tendencies, advocates peace and love, resists the system and has specific musical tendencies so there was no way for me to discern that he was a "hippie". The first two aren't even requirements, and I don't think the last one is, either. Finally, "hippie" is a pretty stupid word to use since today it's just used in a derogatory way for the most part.


If you don't like it, you are free to find a new job or, better yet, create your own. In a realistic communist system, you traditionally would be severely punished.

No. Why would I be severely punished? I might not be able to find a new job either (the worker class faces quite large problems in many of the big countries), and creating one's own job is rarely an option.


The nobility still exists, under a different name. What has changed are the entrance requirements. People have a shot at making it. We attained status through my father's careful saving and investing in financial markets, “educated gambling,” if you will.

Not a great chance though. Not enough to raise a significant percentage of poor people out of poverty. Sounds like the wrong mindset for a "cynical realist".


He should be a given a chance to amend and rectify his lifestyle, or material support (food/shelter/clothing) should be withdrawn by the state and he should fend for himself or die. Sounds brutal,

Sounds like social darwinism. And we don't have anything to say to that kind of people here.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I tell you one thing thats not part of the human nature, and that is to be chained towards a assembly line for 10 hours in a night shift doing the same monotomous tasks for somebody elses profit, just to survive.

[Technocrat]

I'll think you'll find that very few people here advocate what the USSR had late in its days. There are quite a few who don't advocate what it had at any point in time.

People frequently point to the Soviet Union as an example of how socialism doesn't work.

The simplest answer to this argument is that the USSR and states like them were never really socialist, except in name. People always point to the soviet union as an example of how socialism doesn't work, but the soviet union was not really socialist.

How many dictatorships have there been with the words "democracy" or "republic" in their name? Just because something is called "democratic" doesn't make it so. The same is true for socialism.

As far as the "human nature" argument goes, Marx answered that with the concept of "Enlightened self-interest."

One also has to look at how the "human nature" argument is established. Capitalists argue that people are naturally greedy and competitive, but then our society actively rewards greed and competition. People are raised in an environment that rewards greed and competition, and then it is concluded that greed and competition are human nature. Seems like a circular argument to me.

We know from anthropological studies that there exists groups of people that have almost no hierarchy of power or wealth. In some groups there is no identifiable leader at all. This was probably the most common form of social organization prior to the invention of agriculture. Agriculture was developed about 10,000 years ago. Humans have existed for more than 200,000. In other words, the amount of time in which humans have lived in stratified societies is a tiny blip compared to the stretch of time under which humans lived in egalitarian bands of hunter-gatherers.

[#FF0000]

Human nature is a capitalist myth, like scarcity.

No.

[Tim Finnegan]

Most people actually profit directly from their work, which endows them with the monetary resources necessary to purchase food, water, clothing, shelter, etc. Presumably you mean "excess" profit. Isn't it logical that the people who organized and enabled the entity of production in the first place gain the excess profit or suffer any losses? Without them, it is doubtful that the goods/services in question would have materialized to begin with. Laborers do not spontaneously organize to prospect and develop gold mines or refine the ore, much less assemble in multinational supply chains that trascend linguistic and cultural barriers for the commercial purpose of efficiently assembling modern automobiles and electronics. A central authority, be it the government or a private corporation, must arise to direct the progress of any complex industrial endeavor from stage one.
You do realise that this an argument against democracy in all its forms, rather than just as it pertains to the workplace, don't you? After all, it's not as if the common people spontaneously organise nation-states, no, so why should they be given a say in their running? Better to leave it to a political elite, free of the burden of accountability to those they dominate... Right?


My analysis of human social organization began with the advent of the neolithic revolution.Wait, I thought you were talking about "human nature"? That's biologically inherited, surely, not something that emerges alongside agriculture? :confused:


I am aware that "humans" lived in "tribes" for millions of years before that, though I disagree with the assertion that they were communistic. I don't dare to claim that they were capitalist, feudalist, or anything else, merely that they were "tribalistic" and that to attach any modern political doctrine to groups of humans and proto-humans that lived millions of years ago is a rather futile exercise in anachronism.In this case, "communism" is not used to suggest a particular political ideology, but simply as a description of the material form that society took, which is to say, a propertyless, classless system in which material goods were distributed on an as-need basis. It's a well documented aspect of anthropology, not some romantic invention on our part.


How were decisions made on which location to journey to next in search of food, for example? Which animals to hunt? Who takes what bones? Somehow, I doubt that such decisions were made democratically. In all social mammals there exists an alpha male, a natural leader. Humans were no different in this respect, and in the same introductory anthropology teachings you proposed, we hear of tribal chieftains, shaman, medicine men, and other elevated social positions, even within small tribes.You're conflating two distinct forms of social organisations. Early "band" organisations lacked formal leadership, instead organising themselves in what is called an "adhocratic" manner, in which no individual held consistent power, but was deferred to in matters in which they were understood to be a superior mind, e.g. the best hunter took the lead when hunting. To the extent that consistent positions of authority they emerge, they follow the "Big Man" model, in which one or more senior tribe-members- sometimes exclusively male, sometimes of both genders, depending on the society in question- possess an informal position of leadership, one which is based on leadership skills and intellect, rather than hereditary or propertarian right, and in which they act more notably as an arbiter of internal discussion and a mediator of other bands, than as a "chief" in the usual sense of the word. A detailed comparison is offered by the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins in his landmark 1963 essay "Poor Man, Rich Man, Big Man, Chief: Political Types in Melanesia and Polynesia", in which he compares the "Big Man" systems of the Papuan hunger-gatherers with the more sophisticated, authoritarian systems of chieftainship found among the Polynesian agriculturalists.

(And while we're on Sahlins, a recently read [/URL][URL="http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/588294/the_western_illusion_of_human_nature/index.html"]an essay of his (http://prickly-paradigm.com/titles/western-illusion-human-nature) that observe that the one seemingly universal aspect of pre-modern human society is what he called " kinship groups", relationships in which humans are "members of one another", experiencing the world in a social, intersubjective fashion, rather than an individual, purely subjective fashion. What would you make of that?)


I also vociferously disagree with your thoughts on racism, which you claim is different from "ethnic bigotry." I claim that such classification of discriminatory practices is deliberate obfuscation through semantics. How is racism different from ethnic bigotry? From the accounts I've read, Enlightenment and Renaissance sailors often discussed the discrepancies in social development of the people they met, wondering why, for example, the Chinese and Japanese were more advanced than North American natives and indigenous Caribbeans. Racism is the logical simplification of such observations. There were obvious differences between the Scots and the Slavs, the Hmong and the Han, the Bantus and the Tutsis, however, the considerable anthropoligic and cultural differences between these subgroups were far eclipsed by the differences between their respective supergroups, namely whites, asians and blacks. Firstly, those "supergroups" are themselves novel constructs, dating back no further than the 16th century, and illogical even today. The delineations are inevitably clumsy- where do "South Asians" end and "East Asians" begin? When does a "white European" become a "Middle Easterner"?- and based entirely on the colonial experiences of European nations, not on any objective biological distinctions. To see this one only needs to look at the knots that Victorian "race scientists" tied themselves in trying to figure out which "race" peoples like the Tuaregs, Armenians or Burmese were, sitting as they did at the borders between the declared monoliths.
Secondly, the generalisations made in regards to these are almost universally dishonest, again based on certain limited- often self-conciously limited- colonial experiences, rather than anything approaching even the most amateur anthropological survey. There were technologically advanced, highly literate civilisations in Africa, and backwards tribal societies in Europe; my own country, for example, was mostly inhabited by illiterate tribesmen until the late 18th century, while by the 13th century Timbuktu in modern-day Mali was home to the University of Sankore, the single largest educational institution in the entire world at that time.
You should read texts such as How the Irish Became White or The Invention of the White Race that further explain the development of these conceptual constructs.


My bad bro, I should have defined the context in which I was using the word socialism. In this particular case, I was implying any sort of redistribution of income from the wealthy to the poor. Please keep in mind that I am a realist and sometimes have difficulty thinking in terms of pure idealistic abstraction. I disagree that the two systems cannot co-exist. As a superficial example (don't go too in-depth into this), consider the Canadian health care system, which is not-for-profit and exemplifies socialized medicine. You can have a capitalist mode of production for some goods and a socialist mode of production of other goods within the same society.No you can't. "Modes of production" are, as I said, generalised. What you're dealing with is a state monopoly, which is something that exists entirely within the terms of capitalism.
Now, two systems can co-exist to an extent, in a revolutionary period (e.g. the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe), but that's not at all what you're talking about. Such system are oppositional, generating a social conflict that can only be resolved by the destruction of one or the other, not a pair that can amble along in nominally perpetual harmony, as in the case of the welfare state.


Oh man. When my father arrived in Newfoundland, he came as a political refugee with less than $20 in his pocket. Worked as a fisherman for a couple of years. Brought us over to Newfoundland. Lived in a cockroach-infested apartment with an even worse infestation of particularly tasteless and unskilled crust-punks three rooms over. Went FAR into debt because he had to RETRAIN as an engineer. I won't bore y'all with any more of my life story, but suffice to say I know poverty, as I have lived through it. I am grateful every day for my newly acquired status as socially elite neo-bourgeoisie. My parents couldn't even afford school field trip activity fees when I was a child, much less an electronic wristwatch, playstation, n64, gameboy, decent tv, pokemon cards, new sneakers, pizza days, or anything else I wanted. Now I have several laptops, drive a 2011 bmw, go to the best business school in the country, and aspire to become an international financier. I am very grateful every single day for the system that enabled this transformation.And you never think to wonder why you were so very poor in the first place? That would've been my starting point.


Please, tell me more Market failures sometimes happen. Overall though, it's a good system.But the Irish Potato Famine wasn't a market failure. It was capitalism working normally. That was the whole problem.


Some must be sacrificed for the betterment of others."All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?"


One was a relatively obscure city-state that embraced capitalism from the very beginning and is now an advanced nation with a very high standard of living, contributing far above its weight to the global economy, especially in the fields of finance and consumer electronics, while the other was a global superpower that forcefully rejected capitalism and ended up with an oppressive, authoritarian regime which ultimately bankrupted the country and sent it down the path of collapse, fragmentation and degeneration into irrelevancy.Well, your hopelessly reductive non-analysis aside, that doesn't really answer my question. All it illustrates is the respective success of each national ruling class, rather than any fundamental distinction between the two.

[Born in the USSR]

Sattvika tries to prove that capitalism is better than socialism.Let's examine his (or her?) arguments.


First question: why have far-left leaning economic policies failed so miserably in the major countries that adopted themActually no one can claim this without serious arguments.Here are his arguments:


These supposedly "developed" countries weren't even able to prevent famines in the 20th centuryProves?Here are they:


My grandparents had to stand in line for hours just to get some toilet paper.It is strange.Did he eat the toilet paper? :scared:


My father was completely brainwashed, marched in the Red October parades, collected stamps and pictures of astronauts, idolized scientists, became an aerospace engineer "for the benefit of the nation and people" and was subsequently paid one third of that which my mother made selling shoes at a shoe store, a sequence of events that accrued profound psychological impact over the years prior to his fleeing the USSR.Another strange argument.What does it all have to do with economics?

Ant another argument of this sort:


People died from hunger, were taken away and shot in the middle of the night, sent to the Siberian gulags for simply daring to express a contrary political opinion. My relatives can name unfortunates who they personally knew who fell into all of those categories.At first,this is too has nothing to do with economics.At second,to argue that there were hunger and repressoins during all 70 years in the USSR is the same as to argue that in France for 200 years dominates the Jacobin Terror.It is true that socialism was carried out through violence and bloodshed - but as well as capitalism was.So your argument doesn't prove anything.

There is the only way to prove the superiority of capitalism : to prove that the standard of living and social protection in the Russian Empire and post-Soviet Russia are higher than in the USSR.Capitalism had 20 post-Soviet years tp prove it's superiority in Russia.All his "achievments" in short can be expressed in two words:deindustrialization and depopulation.No comment.


The REASON behind all of this mainly stems from the fact that humans are strongly selfish beings who usually act in their own self-interest It's the same old story:"socialism is against human nature", "a human being is guided by feelings of fear,hunger and sex".Sorry, but it is an animal is guided only by feelings of fear,hunger and sex, the human has also ideas of love,honor, conscience ,etc.Communists appeal precisely to these qualities, that is, to the human basis - adherents of capitalism appeal to animal basis.Feel the difference.

And some more about "the imperfect human nature".Every living being can change to adapt to the changed conditions of existence.Change conditions of life of the people and you'll change the human being.


Second question: how is human equality feasible, on ANY level?People are equal in their rights for work,medicine,education and dwelling - that's the talk is about.And you know how capitalism provides this rights.

[Toppler]

Anyways, is satvikka really from Moscow? His name sounds Baltic. Many Baltic people rock, but unfortunately, some are rabid nationalists. He reminds me of urmas from soviet-empire.com forum.

[graymouser]

He contributes more to society than most other people, and is thereby blessed with a higher standard of living and more happiness. Writing programs contributes directly to society. Somebody wrote the code that enables forums such as this one, somebody wrote the game I played last week, somebody wrote the inventory systems that keep track of merchandise and facilitate/expedite global trade.
But they aren't being rewarded for how well their work contributes to society, but rather by how much profit people gain from it. The people who get richest frequently aren't the same people who do the hard work, which is simply a fact. The richest people in the world are primarily bankers who do nothing but shuffle money around in an attempt to gain by manipulating the system, and periodically fuck up and ruin the lives of thousands or millions of people. If every single banker on Wall Street were to play "Atlas Shrugged" and go disappear tomorrow, society would quickly be able to get up and run itself without them. They contribute less than your stoner friend; at least when he fucks up, people don't starve to death or lose homes or jobs.

What good are inventory management systems? I mean, seriously, I write this kind of shit for money. I'd rather be writing software to help teach children - but that's not lucrative enough, so I'm stuck doing programs for insurance companies or helping local businesses spam their client lists. Inventory management doesn't contribute anything useful to society, it doesn't improve the lives of people. Why should it be rewarded over writing open source software that actually could? In a socialist society, a really democratic one, we could decide that open source software is what's worth doing, and have people with full-time jobs contributing openly to it. Why not do that instead of only having social utility be a side effect of creating more profit? That way we could focus on things that matter, like health and education, instead of things that don't, like shifting money around and keeping inventory for businesses.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

Hey, just thought I'd throw in my two cents :)

First question: why have far-left leaning economic policies failed so miserably in the major countries that adopted them? I am specifically referring to the USSR, PRC, DPRK, Vietnam, etc.
There is a large group of people on this site that do not advocate the policies of these countries in any way. In fact, one of the universally agreed things around here is communism is stateless and classless (you've read Marx, you probably already know that). Were either of those heading towards this state? Nope.

So, most of you (and with good reason) consider the USSR, China, and N. Korea to be incompatible with your idea of socialism/communism, claiming that they were all despotic bureaucracies. The point remains, however, that all of these societies vehemently rejected capitalism and strived to develop a society that at least somewhat paid homage to Marx's/Lenin's ideas of how a society should function. Apparently, along the way, all of them somehow strayed from the path.
Just because something rejects capitalism, doesn't mean it's good. Just because something takes a word or two from Marx or Lenin, doesn't mean it's good. Just look at Cambodia.

The REASON behind all of this mainly stems from the fact that humans are strongly selfish beings who usually act in their own self-interest and strongly resent being told exactly what to do at all times by a central authority.
Balderdash. Your argument that humans are social further undermines this. Using your own argument, humans are keyed to work together for the greater good, we're tribal creatures. Worked for millions of years. And you... um... realise that under capitalism human beings are being told what to do every minute of every day? Told to work by the capitalist classes, told to remain quiet and pacified by the bourgeois governments. This. Is. Not. What. Humans. Are.

Second question: how is human equality feasible, on ANY level?
We don't argue all people should be equal. We argue all people should start out equal, and be treated equally throughout their lives. Of course people will not be identical. We don't want sameness, we want equality - that's an important distinction. There are probably reasons behind your friend's behaviour (though I won't presume and begin to guess), and I for one believe that his problem should be solved, not cut away from the majority of society.

[RadioRaheem84]

Why is the human nature argument so important to people when defending capitalism?

Any social scientific look at a society will tell you that the human nature argument is pure religious leftover dogma.

[Tim Finnegan]

Why is the human nature argument so important to people when defending capitalism?

Any social scientific look at a society will tell you that the human nature argument is pure religious leftover dogma.
The thing to remember is that the ideological cappies don't get their social science from sociologists, anthropologists, historians, or what have you, but from laissez faire economists, evo-pysch quacks and right-political talking heads. That tends to produce certain intellectual mutations.

[Imposter Marxist]

At least he doesn't want us to kiss his free and democratic ass.

[mikelepore]

The REASON behind all of this mainly stems from the fact that humans are strongly selfish beings who usually act in their own self-interest and strongly resent being told exactly what to do at all times by a central authority.

Correction:

Humans are strongly selfish beings who usually MAKE USE OF OPPORTUNITIES TO act in their own self-interest, IF THEY CAN FIND any such opportunities.

Socialism would remove those opportunities. Those strongly selfish human beings would grow up in an environment in which there is no such thing as an employer, landlord, or stock market speculator, those social roles having gone to the same ashbin of history as the monarch, knight, and patrician.

Extend this point a step further. The whole idea of establishing a society, a civilization, is precisely to make "human nature" more irrelevant to outcomes. When we get angry at our neighbors, we want so strongly to kill them, but we are not permitted to do so. It's the same situation with the greedy" individuals after socialism is adopted. No one needs to care about those urges -- all that matters is that dangerous individuals will be denied permission.

[cogar66]

I'd argue that Socialism puts people in a situation where the actions that are in your self-interest are actions that benefit the whole.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

'First question: why have far-left leaning economic policies failed so miserably in the major countries that adopted them? I am specifically referring to the USSR, PRC, DPRK, Vietnam, etc.'
In which ways have they 'failed'?

The Early USSR was capable of reforming itself from being Semi-Feudal and suffering under periodic famines similar to what had occurred in China before the GLF into a Industrial Power with a massive amount of Industrial Production stemming from it.

China was capable of reforming itself from a Semi-Feudal Nation that suffered from Periodic Famines into a massive Industrial Nation as well under the policies and guidance of Mao.


And the DPRK during the 1980's under Kim Il Sung had more Industrial Growth and was by far 'better off' than the ROK to the South.

'These supposedly "developed" countries weren't even able to prevent famines in the 20th century.'
Nor were the 'developed' countries such as India capable of preventing famine during the Twentieth Century... India had and still suffers from periodic famine and starvation which have claimed well over 73,000,000 lives at a minimum.
'Eastern Europe and China still have amongst the lowest levels of "national happiness" (whatever that is, and whether it can be trusted).'
The majority of Africa and the developing world do as well under Capitalistic Systems, yet you're not accusing this to be due to Capitalistic Systems of Labor Value when it so obviously is due to it.
'My grandparents had to stand in line for hours just to get some toilet paper.'
You're referring to Stagnation which had occurred during Brezhnev's rule over the USSR.
Similar issues have occured in the United States and various countries that have effected the Working Class in which these type of lines have had happened.
IE: Several recessions and a depression in which these type of lines have developed.

If anything however, this is to be blamed on Brezhnevite State-Capitalism.
'My father was completely brainwashed, marched in the Red October parades, collected stamps and pictures of astronauts, idolized scientists.'
I fail to see the issue in this situation. As this isn't 'brainwashed' it is simply engaging in the same form of Nationalism that various other countries engage in. As well, what is the issue of collecting stamps and pictures of astronauts and idolized scientists as opposed to various other grotesque, violent and sexual artwork? If anything this is a positive.
'Became an aerospace engineer "for the benefit of the nation and people" '
Yet again, a positive effect.
'And was subsequently paid one third of that which my mother made selling shoes at a shoe store'
Yet again, goods were highly subsidized within the USSR even during Brezhnev's time and ultimately what should have occured (Under a proper model of Socialism as opposed to State-Capitalism) is Wealth being transitioned in the hands of the Working-Class and your father for his positive work in Sciences having received the payment he required to live by, while being in control over his own labor.
'A sequence of events that accrued profound psychological impact over the years prior to his fleeing the USSR.'
Yet again, I fail to see the impact that him being paid 'less' than your mother would put upon him, as she was performing productive labor and due to this was compensated more than your fathers scientific contributions. As opposed to it being based upon your Mother received IE: 30,000 USD per year and your Father receiving 140,000 USD per year due to having had a profession in which he could be considered a financial aristocrat, where as-- Your mother could have easily have made 40,000 USD per year and your Father could have made 10,000 USD per year. As you see while the two differentiate massively the Income Gap has by far been closed and along with other Public Functions that the State is centered around on the majority of this wealth isn't required to begin with and is being transitioned out.

'That was a personal anecdote, but by no means an isolated or unique story.'
Oh I see where this is going!

'People died from hunger.'
During the early 1930's due to disastrous effects of famine which was caused by natural disasters and the destruction of farming crops by Kulaks, not to mention the Fascist destruction of crops and livestock during their invasion of the USSR in the 1940's.
'Were taken away and shot in the middle of the night.'
During the early 1930's and 1940's. Particularly Fascists and Trotskyists of the Left Opposition variety whom were attempting to gain power in the USSR. Not to mention the various executions of Fascists during the 1950's in the aftermath of the Second World War.
'Sent to the Siberian gulags for simply daring to express a contrary political opinion.'
I find it interesting how you use 'Daring' and 'Express'.

While the methods used during the early GULAG system were ill used by a Humanist Perspective, the imprisonment of Fascists was a necessity, along with the imprisonment of various others.

Fascism is neither 'Daring' or is it an 'Expression.'

'My relatives can name unfortunates who they personally knew who fell into all of those categories.'
Your Family was connected with Fascists? Perhaps they should have been the ones in the GULAG due to their crimes that subsequently weren't punished.
'China had it even worse.'
No, China previously was suffering under systematic periodic famines that had claimed the lives of millions prior to the GLF and the Cultural Revolution.

After Mao's rule, China was converted into an Industrialized Nation that no longer suffered under the periodic famine with a massive Industrial Output.

'I visited Russia (Moscow) in 2006 as a young teenager and EVERYONE who was old enough told me how much better it was.'
You're referring to the Russian Middle Class. However, for the majority Post-State Capitalism suffer themselves under a system of Oligarchical Capitalism with a quality of life that doesn't even compare with the former State Capitalist USSR.

While it is 'better' for them as they're able to easily consolidate wealth among themselves for the majority of the Working Class however it is not 'better'.
'A lot of kids my age had better cell phones than me (some even had two), girls looked sexy in proper looking clothes, expensive cars rolled down the streets at night while glowing advertisements lit them up, diverse music poured from all sides, a group of goth kids were discussing different brands of Japanese MP3 players on the subway, my grandparents were finally able to get their own car and cottage up north; everyone looked happier and healthier, in short.'
Yet again, the you're referring to the Moscowvite Middle Class and not recognizing the fact that for the majority the Quality of Life has massively declined, malnutrition is common place.

Speaking of which-- What are 'proper' clothes? I wasn't aware that those type of clothes were proper in the sense that they're to be commonly expected. Rather Sexist attempting to parade females around as over-sexualized object to be used for your imagination. Over Sexualization is hardly 'proper'.


'The greatest example of the failure of communist economics is undoubtedly North Korea, a country who can't even feed its own people without literally begging for food from its Southern neighbors, despite being propped up and heavily supported by China.'
Nor can the majority of countries of the Developing World whom will continue to starve off at a rate of a minimal of Five Million per year, which compared to this rate, the DPRK's annual starvation will remain lower.

From 1990 - 2011, at a minimum 105 Million will have starved due to the consolidation of Wealth and Capitalist Economics. Which make both Stalin's and Mao's policies look rather humanistic.

'The REASON behind all of this mainly stems from the fact that humans are strongly selfish beings who usually act in their own self-interest and strongly resent being told exactly what to do at all times by a central authority.'
When the Self-Interest negatively effects others, this self-interest must be quelled and converted into the Interest of the Collective Masses which the Individual is apart of. IE: One Individual cannot be allowed to subjugate wealth while the collective masses continually don't have a near proportion of this wealth.

Nor is there a continual human nature as the historical human nature has continually changed throughout various cultures and time periods. Especially when as far as Natural Behavior is to go, Humans have continually been based upon mutual survival which is a time period known as 'Pre-Communism'.

Humans strongly resent what to to when told at all times by a Central Authority? Which is the proposal for the direct abolishment of Capitalism, when Capitalism itself directly inserts itself into a individuals life and continually changes the individuals opinion and massively controls the individual. Not to mention, Capital Accumulated Governments directly controlling others through Imperialist policies and economics.
'Humans are social, but their interactions derive from each individual's desire to maximize his or her social utility in order to gain what he or she wants from the collective.'
In which the individual takes what they require from the collective and all of those within the collective benefit from these relations.

'Through doing so, but not through a generally conscious effort, a social hierarchy is established amongst groups and dictates what sorts of material indulgences and respect from other humans one commands.'
You're actively implying Fascist esque policies then based upon Survival of the Fittest and allowing the weaker to die off and should be Banned for Fascism.


And this is as much as I care to contribute.

Obviously judging by the next part though, you're blatantly Fascist with racist tendencies.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Anyways, is satvikka really from Moscow? His name sounds Baltic. Many Baltic people rock, but unfortunately, some are rabid nationalists. He reminds me of urmas from soviet-empire.com forum.
If you were directly to analyze Satvikka's statements towards the end, you would easily notice the increasing Fascist tendency towards them, which means especially if he were to be Baltic that this wouldn't be surprising especially with the likely case of Nationalism in the Capitalistic sense to go along with this. :lol:

[Meridian]

i beg to differ with you on that.

One of our main goal in life is to aquire power and control over things, that how we evolved, by creating a plethora of ingenious device to master and control our surronding and environnement, and one of the product of this is surplus. our primitive state at the time unfortunately allowed a fews individual to appropriate this surplus for themselves and thrive on it for thousand of years.

Economical system are nothing more than human inventions to control the surplus.

Nietzche was right when he was saying that life is will to power, beccause without that we would still be chased in the jungle by wild annimals.
What you are saying still does not prove there exists a human nature.

[sattvika]

We know from anthropological studies that there exists groups of people that have almost no hierarchy of power or wealth. In some groups there is no identifiable leader at all. This was probably the most common form of social organization prior to the invention of agriculture. Agriculture was developed about 10,000 years ago. Humans have existed for more than 200,000. In other words, the amount of time in which humans have lived in stratified societies is a tiny blip compared to the stretch of time under which humans lived in egalitarian bands of hunter-gatherers. Why did people switch to the sedentary agriculturalist lifestyle, then. Why didn’t they go back to being hunters and gatherers, once they saw how evil, oppressive and unfair the institutions of private property and social classes were?



You do realise that this an argument against democracy in all its forms, rather than just as it pertains to the workplace, don't you? After all, it's not as if the common people spontaneously organise nation-states, no, so why should they be given a say in their running? Better to leave it to a political elite, free of the burden of accountability to those they dominate... Right? It’s debatable as to how much power people actually have whilst running their “democracies.” Chomsky once said something actually worthwhile about the mechanics of modern democracy, namely that you give the people a few parties, a few choices, confine the topics of discussion to a narrow spectrum in order to encourage the illusion of debate…I don’t remember the exact words. In any case, half the people in my electoral district couldn’t be bothered to vote at all. I personally oppose democracy; the allocative inefficiency of such a system is made clear in almost all introductory economics textbooks.


And while we're on Sahlins I’ll admit that while I have taken your arguments into account, I’ve bookmarked but not yet read your suggested readings due to time constraints.


but was deferred to in matters in which they were understood to be a superior mind….possess an informal position of leadership, one which is based on leadership skills and intellect, rather than hereditary or propertarian right, and in which they act more notably as an arbiter of internal discussion and a mediator of other bands Informal or not, this is still leadership, and thus confers authority and status upon the individual, for however brief a period of time or however limited a scope. Internal discussions could have hypothetically concerned the distribution of resources. Should disagreements have arisen (as I’m sure they did countless times), an arbitrator would have been forced to make a decision which ostensibly could have led the involved parties to become dissatisfied with its result. This is all hypothetical, of course, but such dissatisfied parties might become more inclined to question what qualified the “leader” to ascertain his powers of mediation in the first place. Anyways, gatherer and hunter type societies are dead, supplanted and destroyed by agricultural, industrial, imperial etc. civilizations. Proposition that adoption of supposed egalitarian principles as seen in early hunter-gatherers would lead to destruction and exploitation by rival societies that maintain a strict organizational hierarchy and thusly achieve greater industrial output through doing so, especially in the case of a localized (ie non-simultaneously-global) revolution that would inevitably create initial turbulence and thereby opportunities for foreigners to step in and benefit.


Firstly, those "supergroups" are themselves novel constructs…while by the 13th century Timbuktu in modern-day Mali was home to the University of Sankore, the single largest educational institution in the entire world at that time. While I do not wish to discuss race further after this post:
1) While race science/eugenics ran into snags as it developed (as does any science as it evolves, or any pseudo-science before it dies), towards the end of the 1800s advanced explanations were developed. I specifically remember one (can’t remember who) proposing the idea that, just as tigers and lions are of completely different species but are able to produce mixed-species offspring known as ligers or tiglons, and that horses and donkeys can produce mules, different races of humans can produce mixed-race offspring that inherit the characteristics of both parents. The theory was then applied to peripheral regions between civilizations.
2) University of Sankore was not an indigenous African construct; it was an accumulation of knowledge from the Arab world, an uplifting diffusion of culture and knowledge from another ethnic group. A huge amount of Arab knowledge was, in turn, derived from Ancient Greek advances.


No you can't Going to have to disagree with you here, and leave it at that



And you never think to wonder why you were so very poor in the first place? That would've been my starting point. Everyone in the whole country was poor! Except for the nomenklatura, and the bastards who stole everything during the application of shock doctrine (they are now oligarchs). This was due to the flawed implementation of Marxism/Leninism, and flawed transition (by design?) into capitalism. Regardless, most people are doing better. This is a quantitative, not a qualitative statement, supported by hard statistics such as GDP/capita.


"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?" The entire point I’m trying to make is, no animal is perfectly equal, nor is it born equal, nor is it presented with equal opportunities, nor does it react equally to common situations, nor does it develop equally, nor does it become equal or exist as a perfect equal to any other organism at any point during its lifetime.


Well, your hopelessly reductive non-analysis aside, that doesn't really answer my question Honestly can’t see how I could have answered better than that.


People are equal in their rights for work,medicine,education and dwelling - that's the talk is about.And you know how capitalism provides this rights. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Medicine, education, and dwellings are all scarce goods produced by other people – why do you think you are entitled to such goods without first contributing something of value to society (unless you’re a child)?
The only thing ANYONE is entitled to is what they make through their own labor with their own resources, and what they attain through trade with others.


nyways, is satvikka really from Moscow? His name sounds Baltic. Many Baltic people rock, but unfortunately, some are rabid nationalists. Type my user name into Wikipedia or Google; I can't link stuff here, apparently. I am agnostic atheist but am fascinated with Hindu mythology and culture (ex-girlfriend in high school was Indian and her household contained many statues of Vishnu, Ganesh, and other beautiful Indian artwork, etc.)
As I’ve stated, my entire father’s line were engineers, living in Moscow since the 1800s.


But they aren't being rewarded for how well their work contributes to society, but rather by how much profit people gain from it. The people who get richest frequently aren't the same people who do the hard work, which is simply a fact. Profit is an (admittedly imperfect) measure of contribution to a society. I’m doing extremely hard and exhausting work right now, banging my head with frightening force off of the table as I type this. Unfortunately, I am not contributing anything to anyone, and thus I am unlikely to get rich off of such an activity.
The people who become the richest are those who allow their resources to be used for enterprises that others consider to be worthwhile or productive.


The richest people in the world are primarily bankers who do nothing but shuffle money around in an attempt to gain by manipulating the system, and periodically fuck up and ruin the lives of thousands or millions of people. As someone who studies Finance and Economics and is actually planning on becoming an investment banker, I’d like to register my disappointment at this gross oversimplification of what bankers actually do. While bashing Wall Street is all the rage at most dinner parties, forums and financial blogs, bankers are the people who transfer capital from where it is immobile to where it is needed. For example, you open an account and deposit $50,000 into a bank. While I’m giving an oversimplified (but more explanatory) answer of my own, the bank can then utilize the fractional reserve principle to produce much more money from that deposit and consequently loan it out to others, for instance to a computer engineer in China who’s considering starting his own high-tech business. Without bank-provided capital, the engineer would not have had the resources necessary to start up. With the loan, the engineer could perhaps build a successful business, paying the bank back in full (+ interest), enabling it to make more loans while the engineer’s corporation goes on to contribute greatly to society by not only employing workers but by producing tablet computers (or whatever) that lead others to enjoy their lives and increase their productivity by that much more.

Bankers “fuck up” when asinine regulation is introduced into the equation, for example the policies from the Clinton era that MANDATED that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the US (both GSEs or government-sponsored enterprises) give mortgage loans to MINORITIES, most of them automatically qualifying as sub-prime the second the documents are signed. Banks are not bereft of intellectual capacity; they have thousands of highly trained mathematicians, lawyers, accountants, financial analysts, actuaries (they even hire nuclear physicists and aerospace engineers, putting them to work as quants) at their disposal. They know the probability and profit ramifications of a non-performing loan; such knowledge undoubtedly contributes to risk-taking in other areas to help offset the (government-induced) losses. Another example; securities sales through initial public offerings (IPOs). Government regulation stipulates that corporations of a certain size MUST have their securities (stocks, bonds) underwritten by an investment bank, who then collects a commission from doing so. A 2% commission off of a $500,000,000 sale of stock amounts to $10,000,000, making some bankers very rich.
I could write more but enough about bankers


nd I for one believe that his problem should be solved But at what cost? Should it mean that thousands of people should enjoy their lives just a little less so that resources (potentially in the form of taxes) can be diverted towards his rehabilitation? One of the reasons my friend’s family maintains an expensive armada of tax lawyers and accountants assisting them in tax avoidance (tax avoidance is not tax evasion; the latter is illegal, the former involves offshoring) is precisely because they DON’T want ANY portion of their money going towards such wasteful and useless expenditures such as “diversity coordinators” at high schools or subsidies to low-income parents for each child (no money? Instead of taking mine, how about you don’t have kids?) The only reason we don’t have our own posse is because we’re not big enough yet, but you can be sure that I seethe whenever I think of how much of my family’s tax money is lost due to government corruption and inefficiency. That’s money that could have hired scientists, engineers, other useful people to do useful things for us.


Why is the human nature argument so important to people when defending capitalism?

Any social scientific look at a society will tell you that the human nature argument is pure religious leftover dogma. Or how about economics, a very important social science, which claims the complete bloody opposite. Human nature is important because obviously going against our natural inclinations as animals is going to produce considerable inefficiency in any endeavor. You’d agree that it’s much harder to sail against a current rather than with it, no?


The thing to remember is that the ideological cappies don't get their social science from sociologists, anthropologists, historians, or what have you, but from laissez faire economists, evo-pysch quacks and right-political talking heads. That tends to produce certain intellectual mutations. I’m actually very embarrassed at the state of right-wing talk radio and refuse to listen to it for obvious reasons. Sociologists, Historians and Anthropologists, especially the ones who do “research” (just how many times can you re-interpret Shakespeare or the Battle of Lepanto in the wider geopolitical context of the 16th century?) are often found in universities, many of which depend on the state for funding. Enough said…
I and many of my friends in Finance read quite a bit of history. It’s an unfair generalization to claim that we all get our social science from laissez-faire economists. A lot of us do read history but come to our own conclusions and opinions.
For instance, the claim that capitalists’ ideologies have been intellectually mutated by laissez-faire economists can be rebutted effortlessly by counter-claiming that irrational leftists’ ideologies have been corrupted by severely flawed Marxist economic theories, the last of which were soundly destroyed by the Austrian School of Economics decades ago. Labor Theory of Value? Don’t make us laugh!


When we get angry at our neighbors, we want so strongly to kill them, but we are not permitted to do so Now that’s just straight up violent, b. Whenever I become aggravated with my neighbors, I politely suggest ways in which they may better themselves and the community at the next social function.



Humans are strongly selfish beings who usually MAKE USE OF OPPORTUNITIES TO act in their own self-interest, IF THEY CAN FIND any such opportunities. Opportunities to benefit at others’ expense while avoiding detection arise at all times. No legal or political system will prevent this. As I’ve said before, Singapore has ridiculous laws with regards to hookers and drugs, and yet my friend regularly (assuming his boasting is truthful…) gets around them.


At least he doesn't want us to kiss his free and democratic ass. …thank you? :S

Lunacharsky, you’ve written too much for me to dissect today. I should have done your post first, but I will get around to it, hopefully this week. I am not fascist…unless believing in a capitalistic mode of production with an autocratic government makes me a fascist. I approach the subject of race purely through an academic perspective, one of my ex’s was Indian and my current gf is Chinese; would a fascist enjoy race-mixing? I tried starting an intellectual debate over at the Opposing Views section of Stormfront (because I oppose their views) and got 5 pages of “RACE TRAITOR!!” thrown at me. I laughed.

[Revolution starts with U]

While I do not wish to discuss race further after this post:
I can see why...


1) While race science/eugenics ran into snags as it developed (as does any science as it evolves, or any pseudo-science before it dies), towards the end of the 1800s advanced explanations were developed. I specifically remember one (can’t remember who) proposing the idea that, just as tigers and lions are of completely different species but are able to produce mixed-species offspring known as ligers or tiglons, and that horses and donkeys can produce mules, different races of humans can produce mixed-race offspring that inherit the characteristics of both parents. The theory was then applied to peripheral regions between civilizations.
Mulatto children can still reproduce. That throws a major stick in your spokes buddy.
It's called speciation. If you're going to talk science, I implore you to know wtf you're talking about.

2) University of Sankore was not an indigenous African construct; it was an accumulation of knowledge from the Arab world, an uplifting diffusion of culture and knowledge from another ethnic group. A huge amount of Arab knowledge was, in turn, derived from Ancient Greek advances.
:rolleyes:
And Greek advances were largely derived from Sumerian and Egyptian advances...




How did you arrive at this conclusion? Medicine, education, and dwellings are all scarce goods produced by other people – why do you think you are entitled to such goods without first contributing something of value to society (unless you’re a child)?
The only thing ANYONE is entitled to is what they make through their own labor with their own resources, and what they attain through trade with others.

First... why is a child entitled to them? Nice logic, bro.
Second, the bolded part, that's what we're all about.

[sattvika]

I can see why...


Mulatto children can still reproduce. That throws a major stick in your spokes buddy.
It's called speciation. If you're going to talk science, I implore you to know wtf you're talking about.

Haha, your condescending nature puts a smile on my face. Do you presume to talk down to a millionaire who is currently attending the best university in his country? What have YOU done for society? I've spent time in jail for my political activism - you are probably a keyboard warrior. I'm here to learn more about your beliefs, not listen to sarcastic condescension from a prole who believes he is somehow superior to me just because of the ludicrous and discredited ideology he subscribes to.Your point about mulatto children reproducing proves nothing, as I did not state I advocate race theory (was just bringing it up as an example of early [pseudo?]scientific progress) and human DNA is much more similar than tigers and lions.

As someone who has taken university-level courses in Physics & Engineering and has an active subscription to Nature, your suggestion to "know what I'm talking about" elicited much laughter. Man, you commies are a self-righteous bunch. I'm going to take your reference to speciation as an attempt to throw about big words in an effort to sound intelligent, but actually coming off as a charlatan as your revelations bore no relevance to the discussion. Basic biology question: can you tell me if human speciation was an example of sympatric or allopatric speciation? Bonus points for not using google.



:rolleyes:
And Greek advances were largely derived from Sumerian and Egyptian advances...No, not largely, not in the way Malinese "advances" were. I'd suggest you familiarize yourself more thoroughly with the contribution to society of all three civilizations. The Greeks were somewhat influenced (the extent of influence is debatable), yes, but much of their insights were produced domestically, especially in the fields of mathematics, architecture, military organization, etc. Claiming they "largely derived" is akin to claiming European science was "largely derived" from the Indians, for they provided the Arabic numeral system that was used as the foundation for mathematics. Malinese knowledge (most of it pertaining to Islamic scholarship) was, in fact, "largely derived" -one could say it was almost "wholly derived" from the Arabs.




First... why is a child entitled to them? Nice logic, bro.
Second, the bolded part, that's what we're all about.When I said "entitled," I was making the inference that parents should at least make a cursory effort to provide their progeny with resources necessary for sustenance.

[SpineyNorman]

Ladies and gents, what we have here is a fantasist.

[Revolution starts with U]

Haha, your condescending nature puts a smile on my face. Do you presume to talk down to a millionaire who is currently attending the best university in his country?
Yes.

What have YOU done for society? I've spent time in jail for my political activism - you are probably a keyboard warrior
I keep myself informed on the legal system and hire good lawyers. I've been arrested for destruction of government property, but yet here I am.
One more thing, do you think either of these have any bearing on the truth value of our claims? Nice logic bro... sounds like the best university in your country is terrible.

. I'm here to learn more about your beliefs, not listen to sarcastic condescension from a prole who believes he is somehow superior to me just because of the ludicrous and discredited ideology he subscribes to
Whether or not I am superior to you (I am) is irrelevant to the truth value of our claims.
.Your point about mulatto children reproducing proves nothing, as I did not state I advocate race theory (was just bringing it up as an example of early [pseudo?]scientific progress) and human DNA is much more similar than tigers and lions.
That's the point. Our "races" are not speciated. To claim any kind of similarity to ligers is ludicrous at best.


As someone who has taken university-level courses in Physics & Engineering and has an active subscription to Nature, your suggestion to "know what I'm talking about" elicited much laughter.
Please know wtf you are talking about. You can take all the courses you want (I have a degree in Anthropology btw). It doesn't mean you're not talking out your ass. Nice appeal to authority fallacy tho. Do they teach logic at your "best university in the country?

Man, you commies are a self-righteous bunch
No, we're an interpersonal righteous bunch
And Im not a communist.

I'm going to take your reference to speciation as an attempt to throw about big words in an effort to sound intelligent, but actually coming off as a charlatan as your revelations bore no relevance to the discussion. Basic biology question: can you tell me if human speciation was an example of sympatric or allopatric speciation? Bonus points for not using google.
Based on your prior responses, I am guessing you learned this when you googled speciation :rolleyes:
That's actually a contentious debate. Tho most evolutionary biologists suggest it was, at least mostly, sympatric. Something like 90%+ of our genes come from a population of >10k females at the most, derived from some Homo Erectus or Cro Magnon group in africa. I think we have found evidence that like 6% comes from Neandertal, and 3% from those other guys whose name has escaped me.

N
o, not largely, not in the way Malinese "advances" were. I'd suggest you familiarize yourself more thoroughly with the contribution to society of all three civilizations. The Greeks were somewhat influenced (the extent of influence is debatable), yes, but much of their insights were produced domestically, especially in the fields of mathematics, architecture, military organization, etc. Claiming they "largely derived" is akin to claiming European science was "largely derived" from the Indians, for they provided the Arabic numeral system that was used as the foundation for mathematics. Malinese knowledge (most of it pertaining to Islamic scholarship) was, in fact, "largely derived" -one could say it was almost "wholly derived" from the Arabs.
I will admit I am not familiar with the Malinese (and wouldn't claim to be).
But it seemed to me you were saying, and still kind of are, that the Greeks developed their knowledge independantly. They didn't.



When I said "entitled," I was making the inference that parents should at least make a cursory effort to provide their progeny with resources necessary for sustenance.
When we said "entitled" (even tho we never did) we were making the inference that workers should at least be given a cursory effort to provide for their progeny with the resources necessary for sustenance, and the full value of their labor.
Again, nice logic bro. You may want to try actually paying attention in that "best university in the country" next time.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

all communist countries have failed because of corruption: ussr, wealthy rulers cared little for working class
and because of movements toward capitalism: china has terrible problems, because they introduced themselves to capitalists who want to pay the workers the least they can to make grande profits

people died from famine because the soviet union didn't unleash it's grain reserves for some reason i do not know

its not possible, but a solution to your friends problem is work (as guaranteed jobs available if socialism takes over) or starve

does that make sense?

[narcoticnarcosis]

Haha, your condescending nature puts a smile on my face. Do you presume to talk down to a millionaire who is currently attending the best university in his country?

yes. i don't give a flying fuck who you are, what you do, or how much money you have.

you didn't earn that money. according to your own logic, you don't deserve that money. the fact that you're flaunting your unearned status only serves to prove our point.


I'm here to learn more about your beliefs, not listen to sarcastic condescension from a prole who believes he is somehow superior to me just because of the ludicrous and discredited ideology he subscribes to.

then quit trolling and STFU.

you don't learn anything about something by going in with the mindset that what you're about to learn is wrong. it makes you look like a pretentious ass. if you're truly in university, try pulling the same shit there that you're doing here. i guarantee that any professor worth their salt will flunk you into the bronze age.


As someone who has taken university-level courses in Physics & Engineering and has an active subscription to Nature, your suggestion to "know what I'm talking about" elicited much laughter. Man, you commies are a self-righteous bunch.

oh, the ironing.



When I said "entitled," I was making the inference that parents should at least make a cursory effort to provide their progeny with resources necessary for sustenance.


but adults doing that for other adults is somehow wrong...

[mikelepore]

First question: why have far-left leaning economic policies failed so miserably in the major countries that adopted them? I am specifically referring to the USSR, PRC, DPRK, Vietnam, etc.

Lack of democracy.

As Marx observed, "... all forms of the state have democracy for their truth, and for that reason are false to the extent that they are not democracy." ---- "Democracy is the resolved mystery of all constitutions." (*) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/ch02.htm)

[Makaru]

Do you presume to talk down to a millionaire who is currently attending the best university in his country?I think we would all gladly do such a thing.

This forum is not the place for you to wage a pissing contest with people, asserting your superiority based upon wealth or status. Why should it make any difference if you were a poor man attending a technical school with the same ideas and opinions?

You have expressed throughout this thread an idea that capitalists are not essentially greedy people who are maximizing their own personal wealth over others. While the intent may not be nefarious, you go far beyond this to assert that people like you are providing a vital contribution to society, by moving capital from immobile areas to areas where it may grow and thrive.

Yet, at whose expense? And better, what gives YOU (or people at the top like you) the right or authority to make these decisions? You allude to the possibility for us to entertain that your father acquired wealth through "educated gambling" - how is this at all something valuable for the rest of us? You promote authoritarianism because you would not be hurt by it. You promote capitalism because you benefit from it. Yes, you may have lived your childhood and teen years in poverty, but you have escaped it through "educated gambling" (your insinuation, not mine) and seemingly forgotten that the system is inherently designed to place people in poverty, if not keep them there.

My basic point is that you promote the very things from which you are protected, because money in a capitalist system is the very same thing as security. We are concerned with the quality of life of the very least among us, who struggle day in and day out to acquire that ounce of security. Regular people soldier on struggling to survive in a system that thrives upon them being stuck in dead-end jobs with no long-term security. We are concerned with the equality of all people, engaged in work based upon what they can contribute.

You have shown an Ayn Rand-like disregard for these people, forgetting that if you were ever thrown back at the bottom of the social hierarchy that currently exists, your banker friends would eat you for lunch, and take your plate too.

You wanted an honest and intellectual debate. Apparently being a millionaire attending the best university in his country can make a man forget the purpose of his entire endeavor.

[☭The Revolution☭]

According to a poll done in '06, 66% or so of the population of Russia regrets the USSR having been dissolved. :unsure:

[sattvika]

Whether or not I am superior to you (I am) Lmao! And this from a prole, too! Seeing as you had the courage to confide your Anthropology degree, I have no doubt that I have exceeded you in every material respect, be it travel to other countries, women, material possessions, intellectual achievements, quality of life experiences, memories, etc. Since I view idle political discussion as a merely a hobby (until a revolution happens), no, you don’t get to claim your “purity of character” or “respect/concern for humanity” or whatever. As a Hedonistic materialist I don’t really care much for such things anyways; political debates are merely an enjoyable mental exercise


Nice logic bro... sounds like the best university in your country is terrible. Thank you! And we are actually ranked within the top 50 in the world, my program being a bit more prestigious and ranked slightly higher. By the way, I had to meet entrance requirements like everyone else, and they consisted of (amongst other things) a minimum 95% in Grade 12 Calculus, having a long list of extra-curriculars, and two reference letters. I’m very proud.


Based on your prior responses, I am guessing you learned this when you googled speciation Actually, it came from a university-level Environmental Science textbook, specifically “Environment: The Science Behind the Stories” , p.67, by Withgott and Brennan. You could probably find it on the internet; I have a print copy. I enjoy buying and reading textbooks, even for classes that I’m not taking or planning to take, the bookshelves in my apartment are full of them, and I download quite a few e-books/texts as well.


all communist countries have failed because of corruption: ussr, wealthy rulers cared little for working class Exactly…seeing how communism et al. are so contradictory to human nature, any attempt at their implementation on a wide scale will inevitably result in corruption.


yes. i don't give a flying fuck who you are, what you do, or how much money you have… then quit trolling and STFU. .
Does it make you feel like a big man to talk like that? I bet you just wish you could say such things to the people you hate in real life, don’t you? Heheheh. And no, I didn’t earn what I started with, but I’m putting that capital to work and getting some pretty decent returns. Why shouldn’t parents be able to transfer wealth to their children? How is this different from any other “gift”? (Oh, I forgot, such gift-giving would probably be banned in a communist system). For future reference, I will simply not respond to such idiotic, rude, and blatantly inflammatory posts, vomited out by unrefined and uncultured proles, no doubt (this one in particular, if I judged the username correctly, appears to take pride in his consumption of illicit narcotics. Wow...)


Lack of democracy. Exactly! Now I feel like this thread is getting somewhere. Read Milton Friedman’s essays entitled Capitalism and Freedom. He claims, and you will see why if you read it, that political freedom is impossible without economic freedom, and that any sort of socialist/communist mode of production in unable to provide this freedom. They have all been attempted, and they have all failed. As we speak, “Communist” China is rapidly increasing the role of markets and decreasing the role of centralized planning in its economy. What are modern China’s most recognizable and important cities? Hong Kong (one of the purest market systems in the world, asides from Singapore/S.Korea/Japan) and Shanghai. The Pudong district of Shanghai contains all of those pretty and impressive skyscrapers you see, financed by foreign capital. Pudong is a Special Economic Zone, a capitalist enclave within a communist metropolis, and has a GDP of 16,500 USD/capita, providing it with a MUCH higher standard of living and quality of life than the surrounding neighbourhoods/cities.
Perfect democracy is a myth, almost impossible to attain or sustain. Corporations do a much better job than the government at providing the people with what they want and maximizing efficiency.
People, please. Marxism has failed EVERYWHERE because it is an extremely flawed ideology that has been discredited numerous times, most evidently in the nations in which it has been attempted. It concentrates power even more than capitalism, runs completely contrary to human behavior and has never worked or will ever work. Violent revolutionaries are a danger to society; instead of bettering themselves, they seek to justify ways in which to take that which never belonged to them, invoking all sorts of fallacious arguments and outlandish thinking.

[☭The Revolution☭]

Вы предали нас, Кулаг

[Revolution starts with U]

]Lmao! And this from a prole, too! Seeing as you had the courage to confide your Anthropology degree, I have no doubt that I have exceeded you in every material respect, be it travel to other countries, women, material possessions, intellectual achievements, quality of life experiences, memories, etc. Since I view idle political discussion as a merely a hobby (until a revolution happens), no, you don’t get to claim your “purity of character” or “respect/concern for humanity” or whatever. As a Hedonistic materialist I don’t really care much for such things anyways; political debates are merely an enjoyable mental exercise
Trolling doesn't make your arguments any more logical bro :rolleyes:
That would be like me responding to this with "ya, but I could kick your ass. Therefore, my argument wins."


Thank you! And we are actually ranked within the top 50 in the world, my program being a bit more prestigious and ranked slightly higher. By the way, I had to meet entrance requirements like everyone else, and they consisted of (amongst other things) a minimum 95% in Grade 12 Calculus, having a long list of extra-curriculars, and two reference letters. I’m very proud.
How proud you are adds no truth value to your claims.
Again... nice logic troll.


Actually, it came from a university-level Environmental Science textbook, specifically “Environment: The Science Behind the Stories” , p.67, by Withgott and Brennan. You could probably find it on the internet; I have a print copy. I enjoy buying and reading textbooks, even for classes that I’m not taking or planning to take, the bookshelves in my apartment are full of them, and I download quite a few e-books/texts as well.
Hey, then we share something in common :D
The only difference is that I learn and try to use logic. You just spit out of your mouth whatever crap your brain produces.


Does it make you feel like a big man to talk like that? I bet you just wish you could say such things to the people you hate in real life, don’t you? Heheheh. And no, I didn’t earn what I started with, but I’m putting that capital to work and getting some pretty decent returns. Why shouldn’t parents be able to transfer wealth to their children? How is this different from any other “gift”? (Oh, I forgot, such gift-giving would probably be banned in a communist system). For future reference, I will simply not respond to such idiotic, rude, and blatantly inflammatory posts, vomited out by unrefined and uncultured proles, no doubt (this one in particular, if I judged the username correctly, appears to take pride in his consumption of illicit narcotics. Wow...)
Says the guy who said "mullatos are like ligers. My evidence is that I go to university."


completely contrary to human behavior and has never worked or will ever work. Violent revolutionaries are a danger to society; instead of bettering themselves, they seek to justify ways in which to take that which never belonged to them, invoking all sorts of fallacious arguments and outlandish thinking.
OMFG the irony! If you're not a troll, I'll shit my pants :laugh:
YOU are trying to lecture us one fallacies and outlandish thinking? YOU are trying to talk to us about taking things that don't belong to you? You have got to be fucking kidding me.

[Tim Finnegan]

Why did people switch to the sedentary agriculturalist lifestyle, then. Why didn’t they go back to being hunters and gatherers, once they saw how evil, oppressive and unfair the institutions of private property and social classes were?
Stability. Hunter-gatherers can lead pretty pleasant lives when times are good- often better than primitive agriculturalists- but times are not always good. Agriculture and pastoralism offer some degree of year-to-year continuity of lifestyle. You can see this in some of the at semi-agricultural peoples encountered during European expansion, such as the Native Americans of the South-West who maintained a loose, relatively uninvolved system of maize-farming alongside more traditional forms of sustenance, because it provided a consistent base-line of food underneath the less predictable sources of game and wild flora.


It’s debatable as to how much power people actually have whilst running their “democracies.” Chomsky once said something actually worthwhile about the mechanics of modern democracy, namely that you give the people a few parties, a few choices, confine the topics of discussion to a narrow spectrum in order to encourage the illusion of debate…I don’t remember the exact words. In any case, half the people in my electoral district couldn’t be bothered to vote at all. I personally oppose democracy; the allocative inefficiency of such a system is made clear in almost all introductory economics textbooks.So, the answer is that, yes, you do realise this, and carry it to its full conclusion? Good, at least we know where we stand.


I’ll admit that while I have taken your arguments into account, I’ve bookmarked but not yet read your suggested readings due to time constraints.Fair enough.


Informal or not, this is still leadership, and thus confers authority and status upon the individual, for however brief a period of time or however limited a scope.
I never denied that it was leadership, but you can't conflate leadership with class, in either the sociological or economic sense. That implies a very different social dynamic.


Internal discussions could have hypothetically concerned the distribution of resources. Should disagreements have arisen (as I’m sure they did countless times), an arbitrator would have been forced to make a decision which ostensibly could have led the involved parties to become dissatisfied with its result. This is all hypothetical, of course, but such dissatisfied parties might become more inclined to question what qualified the “leader” to ascertain his powers of mediation in the first place.
Of course. Big Man positions were not hereditary or permanent, and could switch between individuals as and when necessary. I don't see what point you're making, here.


Anyways, gatherer and hunter type societies are dead, supplanted and destroyed by agricultural, industrial, imperial etc. civilizations.
Well, for the record, in most cases agricultural and pastoralism are believed to have spread through contact-diffusion. Only in the last four centuries was agriculture frequently introduced by gunpoint, and those were, self-evidently, exceptional circumstances.


Proposition that adoption of supposed egalitarian principles as seen in early hunter-gatherers would lead to destruction and exploitation by rival societies that maintain a strict organizational hierarchy and thusly achieve greater industrial output through doing so, especially in the case of a localized (ie non-simultaneously-global) revolution that would inevitably create initial turbulence and thereby opportunities for foreigners to step in and benefit.
Probably, which is why nobody here is proposing anything like that, or at least not as such.


While I do not wish to discuss race further after this post:
1) While race science/eugenics ran into snags as it developed (as does any science as it evolves, or any pseudo-science before it dies), towards the end of the 1800s advanced explanations were developed. I specifically remember one (can’t remember who) proposing the idea that, just as tigers and lions are of completely different species but are able to produce mixed-species offspring known as ligers or tiglons, and that horses and donkeys can produce mules, different races of humans can produce mixed-race offspring that inherit the characteristics of both parents. The theory was then applied to peripheral regions between civilizations.As I said, "tied themselves in knots".


2)
University of Sankore was not an indigenous African construct; it was an accumulation of knowledge from the Arab world, an uplifting diffusion of culture and knowledge from another ethnic group. A huge amount of Arab knowledge was, in turn, derived from Ancient Greek advances.Well, to the same extent that the universities of Paris, Oxford or Salamanca represented similar "accumulations", yes, and that the original bodies of knowledge possessed by the Arabs, Greeks, and so forth were similarly borrowed from their predecessors, such as the Phoenicians, Babylonians, and so on and so forth back into pre-history. This isn't a robust line of reasoning.

But, as you say, the issue of race is getting off-topic.


Going to have to disagree with you here, and leave it at thatCheap.


Everyone in the whole country was poor! Except for the nomenklatura, and the bastards who stole everything during the application of shock doctrine (they are now oligarchs). This was due to the flawed implementation of Marxism/Leninism, and flawed transition (by design?) into capitalism. Regardless, most people are doing better. This is a quantitative, not a qualitative statement, supported by hard statistics such as GDP/capita.I meant your poverty in Canada. There was no good reason for you to be so impoverished as compared to the other inhabitants of the country, at least not unless we are to assume some sort of karmic forces that leads young people to be thrust into disenfranchisement and poverty in retribution for some wicked past life.


The entire point I’m trying to make is, no animal is perfectly equal, nor is it born equal, nor is it presented with equal opportunities, nor does it react equally to common situations, nor does it develop equally, nor does it become equal or exist as a perfect equal to any other organism at any point during its lifetime."Equality", in the sense of a moral and social principal, is traditionally taken to demand none of those things. Liberty is necessarily found in diversity.


Honestly can’t see how I could have answered better than that.By addressing the qualitative social and political distinctions between the Soviet and Singaporean ruling elites, rather than simply noting that the two states are different, and so have different histories. What about the authoritarian, bureaucratic regime of the People's Action Party is so laudable absent from that of the former CPSU? As far as I can tell, your interest lies in their relative economic successes in the period 1960-1990, which you attribute to a vague discussion of "accepting" and "rejecting" "capitalism".

[Lanky Wanker]

Second question: how is human equality feasible, on ANY level? We are all born different, with different strengths and abilities. I am not implying any sort of racial overtones here, but some humans are clearly superior to their peers in all respects. Example: two kids I knew in high school are both the same age, coming from similar socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. One plays team sports, has a 3.8 GPA in computer science, contributes to open source software projects, volunteers his time at the Salvation Army (even though he's an atheist), works out, writes eloquently, speaks gracefully, has a part time computer repair business, and generally contributes much to the happiness of all who know him. Although I'm happy with my life, he's the sort of man I look up to and want to be more like, even though we're roughly the same age. The other guy lives at home, smokes weed, plays guitar all day, and steals money/weed from his friends (I've been a victim) to finance his habits. All three of us used to hang out and get high together back in high school, now the differences between us are amazing. What can the shut-in possibly contribute to society?


Well, as you said, "we are all born different, with different strengths and abilities", so there is not much we can do to change this. It's like saying a mentally disabled and crippled person shouldn't have a home because he/she is unable to contribute the same "level of work" as, for example, a mentally and physically-abled person such as a doctor. I'm sure we can agree that these people should be looked after under any system, but the point still remains. As for your lazy hippie story, it's like a lazy boss who earns more than his employees who work much harder than him. If it's unfair that a lazy hippie doesn't contribute equally and has a home, then why should a lazy boss who doesn't contribute equally be above his workers and earn more?



He is an addict, beyond rehabilitation, had an "accident" at work and now collects medical as well as employment welfare, making him a net DRAG on society instead of a benefit like my other friend, the one I strive to emulate. So why should these two men be treated as "equals" in ANY regard? Why SHOULDN'T the productive one be compensated more and allowed to live a more luxurious lifestyle? Why should the hippie even have a home?


First off, did I read something wrong or are you implying he's addicted to marijuana on such a level that it makes him unable to work? Weed doesn't make a person lazy, it emphasises their already lazy personality. Also, the reason he stays like this is because he wants to, not because he'll have heroin withdrawal symptoms if he doesn't smoke a joint. Onto the next point, communism works on the idea of contributing to society as much as you can (i.e. working hard), and in return having the right to a home, food and other basic needs. Communism doesn't appreciate people who don't work purely because they are too lazy to get a job. Also, there would ultimately be no money in an anarchist/communist society, so he wouldn't really be able to steal money from people to feed his "habit", and there would be more help available to him if he's too much of a pussy to put down his bong and do some work.

I've probably repeated what some other people have said but I didn't read all of the posts, so sorry if I repeated anything.

[SpineyNorman]

I can't believe people are actually taking the time to respond to this clown. To what end? He'll only go and have another wank over pictures of victorian slums when you're finished - it's rediculously time consuming - arguments so full of fallacies and inaccuracies always take longer to deconstruct than they do to write. Far better to just relentlessly insult the pillock. He is, after all, a basement dwelling fantasist whose only real interraction with wealth is to masturbate over photocopies of £50 notes and the Sunday Times rich list.

[Tim Finnegan]

I can't believe people are actually taking the time to respond to this clown. To what end? He'll only go and have another wank over pictures of victorian slums when you're finished - it's rediculously time consuming - arguments so full of fallacies and inaccuracies always take longer to deconstruct than they do to write. Far better to just relentlessly insult the pillock. He is, after all, a basement dwelling fantasist whose only real interraction with wealth is to masturbate over photocopies of £50 notes and the Sunday Times rich list.
Don't know about yerself, I was raised to be polite, and to limit myself to one reference to masturbation per paragraph. That means that, if people approach me in a reasonable, open manner, then I feel that I should respond in kind, and not simply dismiss them with a barrage of wanking-based non-jokes because they happen to disagree with me. You'll never convince anybody of anything by demanding agreement first, explanation later.

[SpineyNorman]

Don't know about yerself, I was raised to be polite, and to limit myself to one reference to masturbation per paragraph. That means that, if people approach me in a reasonable, open manner, then I feel that I should respond in kind, and not simply dismiss them with a barrage of wanking-based non-jokes because they happen to disagree with me. You'll never convince anybody of anything by demanding agreement first, explanation later.

Polite? I was raised to speak my mind and to call a spade a spade, or in this case a wanker a wanker. Reasonable open manner? Give me a break. And grow a backbone. I don't want to convince him - he's the enemy (or rather he is in his deluded fantasies)

He quite clearly does wank far too much. To mention it only once would be disproportionate.

[graymouser]

Profit is an (admittedly imperfect) measure of contribution to a society. I’m doing extremely hard and exhausting work right now, banging my head with frightening force off of the table as I type this. Unfortunately, I am not contributing anything to anyone, and thus I am unlikely to get rich off of such an activity.
The people who become the richest are those who allow their resources to be used for enterprises that others consider to be worthwhile or productive.
Profit is a measure of exploitation of labor, and the people who become the richest are the people who exploit it the hardest. That's the idea within volume 1 of Marx's Capital, and this world is littered with factories and workplaces that demonstrate this point aptly.


As someone who studies Finance and Economics and is actually planning on becoming an investment banker, I’d like to register my disappointment at this gross oversimplification of what bankers actually do. While bashing Wall Street is all the rage at most dinner parties, forums and financial blogs, bankers are the people who transfer capital from where it is immobile to where it is needed. For example, you open an account and deposit $50,000 into a bank. While I’m giving an oversimplified (but more explanatory) answer of my own, the bank can then utilize the fractional reserve principle to produce much more money from that deposit and consequently loan it out to others, for instance to a computer engineer in China who’s considering starting his own high-tech business. Without bank-provided capital, the engineer would not have had the resources necessary to start up. With the loan, the engineer could perhaps build a successful business, paying the bank back in full (+ interest), enabling it to make more loans while the engineer’s corporation goes on to contribute greatly to society by not only employing workers but by producing tablet computers (or whatever) that lead others to enjoy their lives and increase their productivity by that much more.

Bankers “fuck up” when asinine regulation is introduced into the equation, for example the policies from the Clinton era that MANDATED that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the US (both GSEs or government-sponsored enterprises) give mortgage loans to MINORITIES, most of them automatically qualifying as sub-prime the second the documents are signed. Banks are not bereft of intellectual capacity; they have thousands of highly trained mathematicians, lawyers, accountants, financial analysts, actuaries (they even hire nuclear physicists and aerospace engineers, putting them to work as quants) at their disposal. They know the probability and profit ramifications of a non-performing loan; such knowledge undoubtedly contributes to risk-taking in other areas to help offset the (government-induced) losses. Another example; securities sales through initial public offerings (IPOs). Government regulation stipulates that corporations of a certain size MUST have their securities (stocks, bonds) underwritten by an investment bank, who then collects a commission from doing so. A 2% commission off of a $500,000,000 sale of stock amounts to $10,000,000, making some bankers very rich.
I could write more but enough about bankers
There are many false assumptions in here; it's clear that you are being initiated into the mysteries of the religion that is called "economics" by its high priests (who dress up as professors so they can get state funding, ironically).

Bankers don't move capital to where it is productive; they move capital to where they can receive a return on their investment. Sometimes that means productivity, but there is an entire world full of counter-examples to this. For instance, commodity speculation: the price of extracting a barrel of light sweet crude has not actually jumped over 50% in the past year, but the markets have acted like it is, because there is some volatility and the speculators are out there with loose cash to invest. So they buy oil and it goes up, and people are ruined because they can no longer afford to get to work or school when the gas prices go up (and the US already destroyed its public transportation infrastructure as a gift to the auto manufacturers, the tire manufacturers and the oil companies). Asshole commodity traders decide to stick a bunch of money in grain, and people in third-world countries start to starve for no reason other than somebody at Goldman figured out that he could get a hell of an ROI on grain futures. That's the proximate cause of the Egyptian revolution, among other things.

Your racist discussion of the credit meltdown is little different. The problem wasn't that minorities had to be lent to; it's that banks started handing out subprime loans like they were candy, and then selling them to be part of CDOs. The investment banks were allowed to invest in CDOs, and then to do credit default swaps against them, and they could hold them as liquidity! So you had firms like Lehman that were effectively out 42 times what they actually held as assets, because they were allowed to hold these worthless CDOs instead of t-bills. And then they were allowed to buy credit default swaps against them, which didn't have to be backed with hard currency either! It was a fucking racket, that basically stole over 50% of the wealth in the African American community by selling them mortgages that they could never afford, and packaging them up and then letting banks buy them at unthinkable rates. Literally, the credit crunch was a tremendous transfer of wealth from African Americans to white investment bankers. It tanked the economy but the scumbags who did it are still living large, for the most part. Hell, most of the criminals haven't even been prosecuted!

You say you're thinking of becoming an investment banker? Why can't you just be a silver thief? At least that's more of an honest living, and you're just taking it from people who can afford the insurance.

[Tim Finnegan]

Polite? I was raised to speak my mind and to call a spade a spade, or in this case a wanker a wanker. Reasonable open manner? Give me a break.
The fact that you consider civility and honesty mutually exclusive says a lot about your approach to social interaction, I think.


And grow a backbone. I don't want to convince him - he's the enemy (or rather he is in his deluded fantasies).
So are most people, if we're going by contemporary ideology alone, and especially if we're going by the standards of somebody who thinks that those who number firmly among their fellow travellers "must die". You can have your lonely little barricade if you want, for all the good it'll do you, but it's really just another way of engaging in the masturbatory practices that you find so deeply offensive.

[SpineyNorman]

The fact that you consider civility and honesty mutually exclusive says a lot about your approach to social interaction, I think.

They aren't necessarily - the must be considered, like everything else, in context. And when you have a plum like this honestly necessitates a response that you may consider unpolite. Tough. Of course this is just because I've pissed you off on another thread but hey ho.



So are most people, if we're going by contemporary ideology alone, and especially if we're going by the standards of somebody who thinks that those who number firmly among their fellow travellers "must die". You can have your lonely little barricade if you want, for all the good it'll do you, but it's really just another way of engaging in the masturbatory practices that you find so deeply offensive.

1) Laurie Penny is not one of my fellow travellers - she's a liberal pluralist and does, indeed, need to die. Self-elected spokespersons of "the yoof movement" aren't my thing. 2)I'm not the one in the "barricade". Interesting that you consider someone who claims to be a millionaire and who thinks talking to proles is beneath him is someone worth persuading. Not much of a Marxist, are you?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

1) Laurie Penny is not one of my fellow travellers - she's a liberal pluralist and does, indeed, need to die. Self-elected spokespersons of "the yoof movement" aren't my thing. 2)I'm not the one in the "barricade". Interesting that you consider someone who claims to be a millionaire and who thinks talking to proles is beneath him is someone worth persuading. Not much of a Marxist, are you?

Have you ever considered that debates held in public forums such as these are as much for the benefit of the spectators as the participants?

You might not convince the millionaire son even with a really good argument, but that same good argument may do wonders for the fence-sitters and new people who are following the discussion.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Why did people switch to the sedentary agriculturalist lifestyle, then. Why didn’t they go back to being hunters and gatherers, once they saw how evil, oppressive and unfair the institutions of private property and social classes were?


you cant be serious.

even if you are ill just focus on this.

When moving from a primitive hyper-scarcity form of communism to agrarian society, there is a boost in production and actual time for human leisure. Yes along with it came class stratification and private party and the patriarchy but before then it was just a classless propertyless and matriarchal society. there has never before been a different type of social and economic structure. Because of that, the consciousness of humans was pretty limited and also, it was developed to fit the time. Only after the institutions of private property, the patriarchy, and the state had taken hold did consciousness again follow and human society thought along new lines.

You cant just go up to something, not knowing what it is, and claim it to be oppressive and "evil." It must be experienced first. And humanity had not yet experienced class society.

in the history of humanity, the development of classes was necessary to further develop the means of production and move away from scarcity. the primitive communism of thousands of years ago is no ideal. A communism grounded in the well developed industries and infrastructure brought on by the earlier stages(including at some point socialism) of humanity is the ideal and also the only logical end. Capitalism cannot go on forever and neither could feudalism. Neither will socialism and who knows what would come after communism if anything. The matriarchy didnt last and neither will the patriarchy.

tl;dr you were begging the question.

[graymouser]

Another point on agricultural vs nomadic lifestyle: who says humans didn't go back and forth between these things? Periodic fluctuations in ancient societies caused a number of false starts at moving from being hunter/gatherers to being sedentary, and much of history is filled with the violent clashes between these groups. Over time, sedentary agricultural groups developed higher technology and were able to conquer neighboring groups. It's hardly as if people just decided to do class society one day, that's not a Marxist perspective at all. Class society was formed by force.

[Tim Finnegan]

They aren't necessarily - the must be considered, like everything else, in context. And when you have a plum like this honestly necessitates a response that you may consider unpolite. Tough.
And what do you think that repeating the same childish cries of "aw fook off" that about three dozen people had already offered achieves, exactly?


Of course this is just because I've pissed you off on another thread but hey ho.What, the "working class is the bestest" thread? Yer silly blether hardly "pissed me off", mate, and it speaks to a rather pitiful self-importance that you think I actually give a toss about you!:laugh:


1) Laurie Penny is not one of my fellow travellers - she's a liberal pluralist and does, indeed, need to die. Self-elected spokespersons of "the yoof movement" aren't my thing.Aye, right enough, Jughashvili, everyone who disagrees with you is The Enemy, and must be Eliminated. That's the way to win the masses.


2)I'm not the one in the "barricade". Interesting that you consider someone who claims to be a millionaire and who thinks talking to proles is beneath him is someone worth persuading. Not much of a Marxist, are you?It's more "I'm bored and have nothing better to do", but, yeah, I don't see why we shouldn't at least take an opportunity to set somebody right, even if they're not exactly likely to change sides.

[ZombieRothbard]

I tell you one thing thats not part of the human nature, and that is to be chained towards a assembly line for 10 hours in a night shift doing the same monotomous tasks for somebody elses profit, just to survive.

In all fairness, before people were "chained" to an assembly line, they were having to go out and farm, or go hunting day after day. No matter what kind of economy you live in, SOMEBODY has to work, or else you are going to die. Nobody should be forced to feed anybody else. You have to work for what you get in this world.

[cogar66]

In all fairness, before people were "chained" to an assembly line, they were having to go out and farm, or go hunting day after day. No matter what kind of economy you live in, SOMEBODY has to work, or else you are going to die. Nobody should be forced to feed anybody else. You have to work for what you get in this world.
Having to work to feed yourself is different than having to work UNDER the rule of someone else. The same could be said for slavery "Well, they have to work anyway!" Bullshit. Basically, the subjugation of man to nature doesn't justify the subjugation of man to man.

[ZombieRothbard]

Haha, your condescending nature puts a smile on my face. Do you presume to talk down to a millionaire who is currently attending the best university in his country? What have YOU done for society? I've spent time in jail for my political activism - you are probably a keyboard warrior. I'm here to learn more about your beliefs, not listen to sarcastic condescension from a prole who believes he is somehow superior to me just because of the ludicrous and discredited ideology he subscribes to.Your point about mulatto children reproducing proves nothing, as I did not state I advocate race theory (was just bringing it up as an example of early [pseudo?]scientific progress) and human DNA is much more similar than tigers and lions.

You spent 16? hours in a makeshift jail. And you are a millionaire, so you don't really have to worry about a criminal record, since you probably don't actually need to work a job. You sound rather pretentious, as if you are attempting to pull rank because you feel like wealth and University are accurate measurements of intelligence.


As someone who has taken university-level courses in Physics & Engineering and has an active subscription to Nature, your suggestion to "know what I'm talking about" elicited much laughter. Man, you commies are a self-righteous bunch. I'm going to take your reference to speciation as an attempt to throw about big words in an effort to sound intelligent, but actually coming off as a charlatan as your revelations bore no relevance to the discussion. Basic biology question: can you tell me if human speciation was an example of sympatric or allopatric speciation? Bonus points for not using google.

I agree that *some* revlefters (commies as you put it) are quite self-righteous. However, I don't feel like you have made any effort to prove yourself to be above that kind of rhetoric or attitude yourself. In fact, your mention of your education shows that you yourself are quite self-righteous.

[Die Rote Fahne]

In all fairness, before people were "chained" to an assembly line, they were having to go out and farm, or go hunting day after day. No matter what kind of economy you live in, SOMEBODY has to work, or else you are going to die. Nobody should be forced to feed anybody else. You have to work for what you get in this world.

I love this argument, because it ignores the fact that you are also being fed by your work.

[ZombieRothbard]

I love this argument, because it ignores the fact that you are also being fed by your work.

I don't believe I ignored that at all? And other than the third world, which is being starved out by the interventionism of the first world, who doesn't have enough money to eat? In the first world, even the willfully unemployed who literally do not wish to seek work can live off of our garbage. You can actually go without working here in the United States, and still survive through private charity and dumpstering.

I don't mean offense, but the socialistic position seems to be that "monotony" and "work" wouldn't exist in a socialistic society. There is talk that it is against human nature to do work on this topic. Have these people ever farmed before? Have they ever considered what a socialistic industrialized society would look like? You would still have assembly lines, and you would still need to work to eat. The only difference, is that the perceived "exploitation" wouldn't exist.

Reminds me of this topic I saw, where this revlefter said he was going to join the army because he was being exploited at burger joints, and he was just sick and tired of having to work for a living. As if the army doesn't exploit you, while also taking part in mass murder and unapologetic savagery. It is disturbing to me, that you have these masses of inbred redneck hillbillies that join the army to go kill brown people. But at least they have the excuse of being barely sentient. What pisses me off more is when somebody who is actually versed in the imperialism and butchery of the U.S. military is willing to enlist because flipping burgers is just too damn boring.

[Nofuture]

There is no human nature. The idea of human nature is a convention that supports capitalism, which is why capitalism seems so great for human nature.

[IvanDrago]

Capitalism is a lie. Plain and simple. The elitist use it as a tool to oppress working class society. They exploit these people for there own personal gain. The working class is always used to fight wars as well. All the while the elitist sit back and fill their pockets of the blood of these same people. Capitalism is not equality, it is another tool for oppression. Communism is the only answer to capitalistic nature. The worker is the one who suffers in a capitalistic society. For instance, worker unions, they have supplanted. The worker has lost his voice, without that he is nothing more then a slave.

[TheCommunist]

Capitalism is better suited to human nature

Not true. The first stage of human 'instinct' (as I like to put it) is primitive communism/tribal communism. A small community of people each sign a few people to different tasks and they all share the produce. This is seen in tribes all across the world where you often have a group of people who hunt, a group of people who fish, a group of people who farm, etc etc