Should a weak man be given more power than strong?

[Carlos-Marcos]

How about this : a man that is weak physically (say same strength as average woman) - should he be given extra rights/benefits etc.. in order to compensate?

[Armchair Partisan]

What.

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't really get how you got to that question. Women are not receiving benefits (affirmative action) because they are physically weaker than men (on average) but because women tend to face social obstacles that men do not face. It's a social issue, not one of physical strength.

[Carlos-Marcos]

ok, fair enough, it was a fairly random question:o

[Comrade Jacob]

I don't see how physically weak (unless spongebob weak) should matter.

[RA89]

Gulags for the weight lifters!

[BIXX]

You know, I knew that I'd regret clicking into this thread. I don't even know how to answer the question. Like, no, hebshoukdnt be given more rights, but the biggest thing is how did you get to that point?

[Rafiq]

Of course at least decades ago, the average worker was physically stronger than the average bourgeois.

[Bala Perdida]

Of course at least decades ago, the average worker was physically stronger than the average bourgeois.To bad these bourgeois started hitting the gym with all their free time. I hate seeing these punk ass rich kids who act like thugs and shit, while they don't even have to work. Some MTV inspired crap.

As the question goes, being just straight up weak doesn't immediately on it's own put someone at a disadvantage. In the case of wether or not make that person do something like stock cabinets or move a desk, it's easy to say that they shouldn't be made to without reasonable accommodation at least. While a bigger person could just be made to at least attempt it before they ask for help. If the weak person is working for a tech company or something, then I don't even see how they could be given extended rights.

[Rafiq]

Physical strength in present society literally has absolutely zero social relevance, outside of sexuality.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't think thats true, if you're poor you are way more likely to experience physical violence and need to protect yourself from it. I'm guessing I have a better chance of getting into a physical altercation today than Warren Buffet does. I'm not sure exactly what social relevance that has but I don't think it's just sexuality.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

A lot of physical labor you need physical strength for, I wish I was a little bit stronger like I was a few years ago, now when I do work like hedging just holding the hedger up for hours is a pain in the ass and afterwards my arms are so dead I can hardly pick up my phone!

Extra rights though like what/for what? Like am I given a strong man who follows me around lifting things? What about the average woman, do they also get extra rights?

[cyu]

When everyone has a sniper rifle, it's no longer about strength, but eyesight ;)

...then again, if it's really about going around shooting people, then it's not even about eyesight, but rather if you can convince people someone deserved to be shot.

This is why the media is always controlled by the ruling class. If the media is against the ruling class, then either it will become the voice of a new ruling class, or the old ruling class will find a way to destroy it in order to protect itself.

[Rafiq]

I don't think thats true, if you're poor you are way more likely to experience physical violence and need to protect yourself from it. I'm guessing I have a better chance of getting into a physical altercation today than Warren Buffet does. I'm not sure exactly what social relevance that has but I don't think it's just sexuality.

To elaborate: present relations of production and present social formations have absolutely nothing to do with physical strength, even if it is needed in this or that field.

[Carlos-Marcos]

I don't see how physically weak (unless spongebob weak) should matter.

because a physically weak man will generally be lower down the natural chain of male dominance, witness a school playground for example.

That situation can easily be extrapolated into the adult arena.

[Carlos-Marcos]

Of course at least decades ago, the average worker was physically stronger than the average bourgeois.

Perhaps, but how about the male worker who was physically weak, most likely he was the one that ended up having to clean the toilets.

[Carlos-Marcos]

Physical strength in present society literally has absolutely zero social relevance, outside of sexuality.

so should the weak and unattractive male or female, be given extra rights -as you have pointed out an area where they will be discriminated against - sexuality, that counts for a lot in making advance in a capitalist economy.

[Lily Briscoe]

What would it even mean to "be given more power" in this context, 'Carlos Marcos'? What sort of "power"? Magic power?

[Carlos-Marcos]

Magic power would be good and well, but no, I was thinking of some kind of anti-lookism discrimination laws - for example, don't you think it's discriminatory that many jobs only tend to employ good looking women/men or tough guys (eg: hotel receptionist, cabin crew, bar staff, teachers at private institutes etc..)?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

because a physically weak man will generally be lower down the natural chain of male dominance
There's nothing "natural" about it. You seem to have some pretty conservative views of gender.

[cyu]

Is someone going to call Troll on this guy?

[Carlos-Marcos]

The nature of humanity is Conservative, and it is up to us to try and change that.

Or have you never wondered why, in primitive societies it is the tougher male who runs the roost?

[Carlos-Marcos]

Is someone going to call Troll on this guy?

So do you also, deny the sordid reality of human existence - who ran the Soviet Union and Cuba?

Tough guys or weak ones?

Who throws rocks at the police and fascists, tough guys or weak ones?

[cyu]

Lol, you do realize military men are just useful fools for the brass don't you?

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-military-men-are-dumb-stupid-animals-to-be-used-as-pawns-for-foreign-policy-henry-kissinger-346019.jpg

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The nature of humanity is Conservative, and it is up to us to try and change that.
And now "human nature"?

[Carlos-Marcos]

CYU:
So you use a bourgois politician to make your point? :confused: , ok , so how important are looks, status and social conformity to the Western leader?

[cyu]

Who do military men serve?

[Carlos-Marcos]

And now "human nature"?

This is what the thread is about.

[cyu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_stacking is basically how the military gets soldiers to follow their policies - they present basically only one side of the story (ie. whatever the brass wants), until the grunts believe there is only one side of the story.

[Carlos-Marcos]

the thread can be boiled down now to this point: 'how far must equality be taken?'

(and, I would say that the military and politicians serve each other)

[cyu]

Every anarchist decides for himself. If they think the rich guy has too much, they take it. If they think an idiot is getting carried away, anybody who feels strongly about it, takes matters into their own hands.

Anarchism is as if every person were their own sovereign nation, complete with army and foreign ministry. Any rights claimed by any government is a right anarchists also claim.

[Rafiq]

so should the weak and unattractive male or female, be given extra rights -as you have pointed out an area where they will be discriminated against - sexuality, that counts for a lot in making advance in a capitalist economy.

Why would they be? To claim being sexually unattractive is a matter of discrimination is to trivialize actual discrimination. Perhaps sexaul standards would change, of course, and the basis of hypersexualization (something outside of sexuality in the immediate sense of experiencing it) destroyed, but there will always likely be some kind of standard of attractiveness.


The nature of humanity is Conservative, and it is up to us to try and change that.


Humanity has no nature. If your'e saying that people are, on average socially conservative, this has nothing to do with any kind of innate nature but their level of direct association with, for example, changes in the social order. The fact of the matter is that such connotations of sexuality are relative. So much so that even if we look at the past fifty years, you will not find two decades alike where sexual standards for attractiveness have remained constant.


the thread can be boiled down now to this point: 'how far must equality be taken?'


It is a false question. The idea that we see equality as some abstraction that we ought to mold the world to is a bourgeois fantasy, it has nothing to do with Communism. So to answer an already false question: Not far at all. With the abolition of private property, and the free association of individual workers, questions of "equality" become rendered pointless. Because for Communists egalitarianism does not concern everyone being the same in every way. Inequality concerns relationships of actual power, not inconsequential differences people have that are beyond any control.

[#FF0000]

The nature of humanity is Conservative, and it is up to us to try and change that.

I think we can agree that humans typically prefer safety and the familiar to change and the unknown, but capitalism can't guarantee that forever. We don't have to change anything -- capitalism cuts the legs out from under everyone, once in awhile.


Or have you never wondered why, in primitive societies it is the tougher male who runs the roost?

That actually isn't the case -- primitive societies varied in structure and hierarchy (or lack thereof), but typically they were extremely egalitarian.


the thread can be boiled down now to this point: 'how far must equality be taken?'

I think that you're mistaking equality for sameness. Everyone ought to be equal socially, but no one is saying that everyone must be the same.

[Bala Perdida]

So do you also, deny the sordid reality of human existence - who ran the Soviet Union and Cuba?

Tough guys or weak ones?

Who throws rocks at the police and fascists, tough guys or weak ones?
http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/multimedia/photo-gallery/2015/4/photos-protests-in-baltimore-turn-violent/_jcr_content/slideShowImages/slide1/image.adapt.960.high.baltimore_freddie_gray_01a.jp g
http://rt.com/files/news/chile-clashes-students-tear-gas-170/students-riot-police-protest-638.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/21/article-2251765-169D0BE0000005DC-72_634x423.jpg

These don't look to be 'tough guys'. Go to your local cop clash and I can guarantee you'll see similar peeps, doing similar things.

[Mr. Piccolo]

I always thought the stereotype of the most powerful people in the world was that they were a bunch of rich, fat, white guys, not Olympic strongmen.

More seriously though, I don't think it matters outside of certain jobs where physical strength is needed. Power in most historical societies has more to do with your power over production and the means of production. A physically powerful peasant would be socially and politically weaker than his landlord, no matter how puny the landlord was.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah, you'll find lots of strong men digging ditches, in trades like pipefitting, or down a mineshaft, or on a commercial fishing boat, or unloading shit on a dock somewhere, or working on a farm...

You know, the higher privileged echelons of society, where all physically strong people and "tough guys" naturally gravitate

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Communism will be like that vonnegut story where attractive people will have to wear masks and the strong will be made to carry weights all the time. Such is communism

[Tim Cornelis]

So do you also, deny the sordid reality of human existence - who ran the Soviet Union and Cuba?

Tough guys or weak ones?

The powerful ones, and usually they are NERDS! Because they read and stuff.


The nature of humanity is Conservative, and it is up to us to try and change that.

Or have you never wondered why, in primitive societies it is the tougher male who runs the roost?

What primitive societies? Kings and chiefs didn't have to be physically stronger per se, although sometimes they were the great warriors and whatnot. But today, power is not connected to physical strength whatsoever.

[John Nada]

The nature of humanity is Conservative, and it is up to us to try and change that.There is no "us". You are not a revolutionary leftist. You are a reformist fascist.
Or have you never wondered why, in primitive societies it is the tougher male who runs the roost?I've never wondered why, because this isn't true.
So do you also, deny the sordid reality of human existence - who ran the Soviet Union and Cuba?Women and men who ruthlessly destroyed reactionaries such as JayBro47 aka Carlos-Marcos.
Tough guys or weak ones?Gals tough as nails. It need not be something quantifiable as physical "toughness".
Who throws rocks at the police and fascists, tough guys or weak ones?It doesn't take much strengh to pull a trigger.
CYU:
So you use a bourgois politician to make your point? :confused: , ok , so how important are looks, status and social conformity to the Western leader?They're quoting a genocidal rightist. Someone you'd look up to.
This is what the thread is aboutNo, it about you spamming this forum with your asinine bullshit.
the thread can be boiled down now to this point: 'how far must equality be taken?'Not far. You can never be equal to us. Nothing can be done to remedy it.
(and, I would say that the military and politicians serve each other)And I say that you serve them.

[Rafiq]

I mean no one can deny that it is the strong, and only the strong that will be able to lead the revolution. But what constitutes strength or weakness? Undoubtedly to reduce spiritual strength to such worldly trivialities as physical prowess is barbaric. Strength is dedication, strength is faith in the face of darkness, strength is the spirit of self-sacrifice for the cause of Communism. Yes it is the strong who will lead. But at the same time it is only the strong who can be incorruptible.

[Carlos-Marcos]

. Inequality concerns relationships of actual power, not inconsequential differences people have that are beyond any control.

ok, great post, this clears things up well:)thanks