Why conservative/right-wing/impierialist?

[Soldier Sam]

Ok, all you OI'ers, lets assume your in a debate with a leftist, how do you defend rightism/impierialism/ being conservative? Im very left and just have been finding it very hard to understand why you people think these OI's are better for the world then say, socailism or liberalism. Im just trying to understand other view points, thats all.

Thanks, Sam

[Y2A]

Possibly because resources are not infinite and with a constant growing in world populations, equally distrubuting resources would simply be illogical. Also the fact that attempting to establish such a system has failed in the past.

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

*points* It's SPOCK!

"But that would be illogical, Captain" :D

[Soldier Sam]

Jee thanks for the constructive post :angry: maybe i just dont know enough star trek to get it....

And what are you saying about resorces and distribution? That we should settle down and execpt the fact that a tiny fraction of people will always be wayy better off than the rest of the world? That some people havent had to work a day in thier lives and live extravagent wasteful life-styles, while some are having to resort to crime to feed themselves? Or some just have to lie down and starve and/or be poor because of advanced capitalist contries dumping in developing ones? Sure under a leftist system everyone wouldent be rich or living in big houses, quite opposite everyone would simply be getting thier fair share, a comfortable,liveable wage/salary.

[Nyder]

Equality doesn't work because if you earn the same amount regardless of the effort you produce, there is no real point in making any effort.

[all-too-human]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 03:17 AM
Equality doesn't work because if you earn the same amount regardless of the effort you produce, there is no real point in making any effort.
Where does this leave stock brokers and corporate management?

[Soldier Sam]

ok, what about those who have essentially put in ZERO effort and make millions? And about equal pay for inequal effort, i belive this is simply greed talking. why does everyone think the purpose of working hard and becoming a doctor (just one example) is to make more money than that other guy? what about healing and helping people, working for the good of your community?

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 01:17 PM
Equality doesn't work because if you earn the same amount regardless of the effort you produce, there is no real point in making any effort.
That is a misconception about socialism (not communism, as that is the utopia). Each individual is not paid the same amount, but rather "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." That is, what you are paid is determined by how much effort your job requires, how good (ability) you are at it, and then through welfare you are also paid if you do not meet the basic needs.

So everyone is paid the same. Put a politician on a nurses wage some say for example.

Bill gates would also probably earn something closer to what a nurse earns too.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Nyder+Aug 4 2004, 03:17 AM--> (Nyder @ Aug 4 2004, 03:17 AM)Equality doesn't work because if you earn the same amount regardless of the effort you produce, there is no real point in making any effort.[/b]

Karl Marx
It has been objected that on the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. According to this bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of it’s members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work.

It seems Marx dismissed that absurd "argument" 170 years ago.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Soldier [email protected] 4 2004, 04:51 AM
ok, what about those who have essentially put in ZERO effort and make millions?
If such people exist, good luck to them.


And about equal pay for inequal effort, i belive this is simply greed talking. why does everyone think the purpose of working hard and becoming a doctor (just one example) is to make more money than that other guy? what about healing and helping people, working for the good of your community?

It's all a smokescreen.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Aug 4 2004, 12:23 PM--> (Misodoctakleidist @ Aug 4 2004, 12:23 PM)
Karl Marx
It has been objected that on the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. According to this bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of it’s members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work.

It seems Marx dismissed that absurd "argument" 170 years ago. [/b]
You mean he refuted it, or waved it away in a "I've made up my mind- don't confuse me with the facts" fashion ?

Judging from how financially successful socialist regimes have been in the past (who have at least partially implemented Marx's economic theories), I'd say the latter.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Soldier [email protected] 4 2004, 04:51 AM
ok, what about those who have essentially put in ZERO effort and make millions? And about equal pay for inequal effort, i belive this is simply greed talking. why does everyone think the purpose of working hard and becoming a doctor (just one example) is to make more money than that other guy? what about healing and helping people, working for the good of your community?
People who make millions do so because they have the knowledge, skills and discipline to do so. You don't conjure up a million dollars out of thin air. You have to do a lot of research, and invest your money where you will earn a return. It takes time and a lot of patience but it can happen. For example, people can start off in the housing market and use their equity to acquire more land, buy it cheap then re-sell it for profit or rent it and use the money for passive income or to pay off the loan.

All millionaires/billionaires made their money by re-investing their profits. It is in fact very simple but not many people do it because they'd much rather spend their money then save it.

And this, little pinkos, is how wealth is created. It is a product of the ingenuity of human beings, not hard manual labour.

[Soldier Sam]

People who make tons of money with little effort- im talking about people like celebreties, or people who inherited lots of money, or even pro sports players, i mean damn, give teachers million dollar contracts, let athletes play because they enjoy the game? And making money with buying and re-selling realestate for profits? Seems more like greediness and profit mongering than human inginuity. Unless of corse you fix the property up, and even then, who is actually doing the work? I guess you yourself might if its small enough and you also happen to be an excellent handyman..

[YKTMX]

Judging from how financially successful socialist regimes have been in the past (who have at least partially implemented Marx's economic theories

How can a regime partially implement a policy? That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. The "socialist regimes" you speak off expropriated the capitalists (Marx's "idea") and then put the means of production in their own hands and not the workers (the opposite of Marx's idea). Clearly, anyone with any hint of intelligence can see that the second negates the first in this example. Therefore, NONE of Marx's economic theories have ever been adopted by ANY country (regrettably).

The tired, anachronistic assertion that it is the need for material gain which compels human endeavour is torn to shreds EVERY DAY when nurses, social workers, , helpers, care workers, firemen, paramedics, volunteers etc. wake up in the morning to do selfless deeds for little reward. They themselves contain the seeds of socialism, they change the world.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 03:24 PM
People who make millions do so because they have the knowledge, skills and discipline to do so. You don't conjure up a million dollars out of thin air. You have to do a lot of research, and invest your money where you will earn a return. It takes time and a lot of patience but it can happen. For example, people can start off in the housing market and use their equity to acquire more land, buy it cheap then re-sell it for profit or rent it and use the money for passive income or to pay off the loan.

All millionaires/billionaires made their money by re-investing their profits. It is in fact very simple but not many people do it because they'd much rather spend their money then save it.

And this, little pinkos, is how wealth is created. It is a product of the ingenuity of human beings, not hard manual labour.
Well Nyder, since one of the first steps is to centralize all credits into the statebank I daresay they have the means to create money out of thin air.

Eventually they'll get hyperinflation and worthless money thus they will abolish money alltogether and people start exchanging sheep for bread, or their daughters for milk.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 4 2004, 02:27 PM
You mean he refuted it, or waved it away in a "I've made up my mind- don't confuse me with the facts" fashion ?

Judging from how financially successful socialist regimes have been in the past (who have at least partially implemented Marx's economic theories), I'd say the latter.
How could anyone possibly implement Marx's economic theories? The very notion of doing so would contradict the basis of Marxism.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 03:24 PM
People who make millions do so because they have the knowledge, skills and discipline to do so. You don't conjure up a million dollars out of thin air. You have to do a lot of research, and invest your money where you will earn a return. It takes time and a lot of patience but it can happen. For example, people can start off in the housing market and use their equity to acquire more land, buy it cheap then re-sell it for profit or rent it and use the money for passive income or to pay off the loan.

All millionaires/billionaires made their money by re-investing their profits. It is in fact very simple but not many people do it because they'd much rather spend their money then save it.

And this, little pinkos, is how wealth is created. It is a product of the ingenuity of human beings, not hard manual labour.
So tell us how much money you've made so far from "re-investing," since you seem to be so knowledgable.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 06:47 AM
Equality doesn't work because if you earn the same amount regardless of the effort you produce, there is no real point in making any effort.
Exactly my point on farm subsidies, so why is the U.S. government on the front page of the New York Times buisness pages fighting to continue paying $300 million in farm subsidizes which obliverate opportunities for third world farmers, farmers producing at the lowest possible wage to be able to compete.
Can't compete with free can they?
Examples: Haiti, Jamaica, Brazil, the list goes on and on...
If you want a level playing field then end farm subsidies and make Old MacDonald face the market,
oh but then he couldn't compete could he :P

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 06:54 PM
People who make millions do so because they have the knowledge, skills and discipline to do so. You don't conjure up a million dollars out of thin air. You have to do a lot of research, and invest your money where you will earn a return. It takes time and a lot of patience but it can happen.
Sure just like Paris Hilton and the Olsen Twins! Yes I'm sure Paris was investing that penis in her mouth when she was making her video that got her a media frenzy to push her to the top.
Be real.

MOST WEALTH IS INHERITED!
Let's see at $6.50 an hour paying out $900 for rent and expenses a month I can save $150 a month,

oh wait I can't invest until i have afew thousand, and then the most I make is 6%
So when am i going to get rich!
Never bro, i won't even keep up with inflation,
I've noticed 20% inflation on software on some programs in three days,
Now look at other things.

Fact is my income is going down, as is most people's and if I lose my job I'll make even less.

Get real.

[Nyder]

Yes but why is Paris Hilton rich? Because of the efforts of her father in setting up a multi-million dollar hotel chain. What he does with his money he earned is his perogative. Of course I won't rule out her efforts to procure her fame and popularity. ;)

Value is something not as easily definable as the amount of labour put into something. The reason the Olsen twins are so rich and popular is because people love them and are willing to spend a lot of money on products they promote. It works because that's what people want - they see far more inherent value in it.

You can act the nihilist lefty cynic all day but that is the fact of the matter. Value is not something you decide is what every individual decides which adds up collectively.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 08:52 PM
Let's see at $6.50 an hour paying out $900 for rent and expenses a month I can save $150 a month,

oh wait I can't invest until i have afew thousand, and then the most I make is 6%
So when am i going to get rich!
Never bro, i won't even keep up with inflation,
I've noticed 20% inflation on software on some programs in three days,
Now look at other things.

Fact is my income is going down, as is most people's and if I lose my job I'll make even less.

Get real.
Solution: find a job that pays more or try and lower your living costs. Whinging about capitalism won't do anything.

[Danton]

Make lot's of lovely lolly :) £££ Lifes better that way, forget these peasants...

[Hot Dog Day #84]

Originally posted by Soldier [email protected] 4 2004, 12:05 AM
Ok, all you OI'ers, lets assume your in a debate with a leftist, how do you defend rightism/impierialism/ being conservative? Im very left and just have been finding it very hard to understand why you people think these OI's are better for the world then say, socailism or liberalism. Im just trying to understand other view points, thats all.

Thanks, Sam
not socialist. not imperialist who the fuck is this isnt the 1700's.

just btw socialism doesnt neccessarily mean liberal. nor right wing conservative.

there is progressives who are economically free market, and conservatives who are left wing.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by all-too-[email protected] 4 2004, 03:31 AM
Where does this leave stock brokers and corporate management?
Youve obviously never been a stock-broker or a corporate manager.

To suggest they have it easy is ignorant pap. I mean, you're not just wrong, but you're shooting 180 degrees from the target. I would surmise by your ill-informed assertion that you have litle idea about the skills required to be succesful in business.

I've done plenty of both kinds of work, and they both take different talents and effort. Believe me, white-collar usually takes more talent, experience, and capacity. Blue-collar requires a pulse and no major medical problems.

Actually, the market itself is a good metric for this. The reason that stock-brokers and corporate soldiers get paid more is because their talents are in higher demand as a function of their greater rarity relative to blue-collar work. Swinging a hammer or shovel all day is hard work, no doubt about it, but lets not kid ourselves, most able bodied persons can do it. However, far less people have the accumen to successfully trade stocks or be leaders of business.

I think many leftists here focus too much on physical exertion as the only component of valuable labor, when in fact intellectual capacity is just as important. And, my friends, the latter is in much greater demand. Essentially, the ability to "work smart" is just as important as, and more valuable than, the ability to "work hard".

Again, the market itself is proof of this, it's simple supply and demand.

[Hot Dog Day #84]

The reason that stock-brokers and corporate soldiers get paid more is because their talents are in higher demand as a function of their greater rarity relative to blue-collar work. Swinging a hammer or shovel all day is hard work, no doubt about it, but lets not kid ourselves, most able bodied persons can do it. However, far less people have the accumen to successfully trade stocks or be leaders of business.

agreed. what so many left wingers and marxists especially dont seem to realise is that the labout market works just like any other goods/service market, prices will be based primarily on supply and demand.

[FarfromNear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 08:48 PM
Exactly my point on farm subsidies, so why is the U.S. government on the front page of the New York Times buisness pages fighting to continue paying $300 million in farm subsidizes which obliverate opportunities for third world farmers, farmers producing at the lowest possible wage to be able to compete.
Can't compete with free can they?
Examples: Haiti, Jamaica, Brazil, the list goes on and on...
If you want a level playing field then end farm subsidies and make Old MacDonald face the market,
oh but then he couldn't compete could he :P



The US makes stupid policies in the name of "free markets", when in reality they are only condradicting it.

The US should stop subsidizing that industry. It only creates a huge deficit in the budget. They are spending tax payers money to try to "boost" the agriculture economy. We only end up paying more for agriculture products, due to, taxes, and import tariffs. If it is not efficient to cultivate certain things then they shouldnt be cultivated. We can get them cheaper some where else.

[Hot Dog Day #84]

you're right. protectionist policies - the US subsidising fully developed industries, and in europe the CAP - are horrible wastes of money, costing the public money to fund subsidies, and then costing them again when they have to pay more for the goods. maybe not in the US, but in europe you can thank the trade unions for that lovely market distortion.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Hot Dog Day #[email protected] 6 2004, 02:38 AM
agreed. what so many left wingers and marxists especially dont seem to realise is that the labout market works just like any other goods/service market, prices will be based primarily on supply and demand.
Actualy free-market advocate's don't undersatand that the labour market works in the opposite way to most other markets. The prices of most commodities are set at somehwere just above their production costs becuase (most of the time) there are several companies competing for customers. You presume that wages just below the value produced by the employee becuase companies are competeing for them, however, this is the opposite of reality. Workers compete for jobs which drives their wages down to level of the lowest amount of money any of them will work for, usually the level of substinance or the minimum wage.

[Sabocat]

Blue-collar requires a pulse and no major medical problems.

Complete fabrication.

Isn't a machinist a highly trained skilled profession?
Isn't a jet aircraft mechanic a trained skilled profession?
Isn't an iron worker (you know...the guys building the ivory towers you work in) skilled professionals?
Electricians?
Plumbers?
Carpenters?
etc.
etc.

Most of these jobs require years of learning and apprenticeship.

To say that blue collar requires only a pulse and no medical issues displays not only your disdain over the working class, but your lack of knowledge with respect to the trades.

[Soldier Sam]

While im thrilled the OI'ers havent ignored my post, none seem to answer two of my points- conservatism (hell I dont know what you call it..being conservative!) and impierialism? Why would you not support abortion and hate gay people? Why would you think its ok to take advantage of and dominate another land and its people, whether economically or militarily? Yall are just attacking communism..

[Hot Dog Day #84]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 03:36 PM
Actualy free-market advocate's don't undersatand that the labour market works in the opposite way to most other markets. The prices of most commodities are set at somehwere just above their production costs becuase (most of the time) there are several companies competing for customers. You presume that wages just below the value produced by the employee becuase companies are competeing for them, however, this is the opposite of reality. Workers compete for jobs which drives their wages down to level of the lowest amount of money any of them will work for, usually the level of substinance or the minimum wage.
I disagree. You seem to be thinking wages and labour value are different thing, this isnt the case. If the market is offering jobs in an industry at price x, then that is its value. If the labour was worth more, then workers could go to other firms offering better wages. If labour was worth less, then no firms would offer to employ the workers at price x to begin with.

I am not seeing how the labour market works the opposite way other markets.
In both high supply = low price. In both low supply = high price. High demand = high price. Low demand = high price. It appears fairly simple.


conservatism (hell I dont know what you call it..being conservative!) and impierialism? Why would you not support abortion and hate gay people?
I do not see how this talk of imperialism fits in, but yes conservative = socially traditional. It is not linked to economics.


Why would you think its ok to take advantage of and dominate another land and its people, whether economically or militarily? Yall are just attacking communism..
Ok so I dont really know what you mean.

[Soldier Sam]

Ok....I think we all realise being conservative is not related to any economic idealolgy, but hey its still a damn OI! So im asking about it, now I think everyone would appreciate it if you changed that annoying-as-hell avatar.

And by my last comment- everyone against the left is just posting why leftist states (theres never even been a communist one, and many socaliasms are despotic and dictatorships) have failed. They are not addressing the issue that under capitalism, in order to work, there has to been some people in poverty, some people un-employed (you cant have more jobs than people, can you?) They havent mentoined that it is inhearently degrading, as there are the rich well off, the middle, and then the dirt poor. And about imperialism? Fucking forget it, it is just pure greed and racism and evil in my mind.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Soldier [email protected] 7 2004, 04:28 AM
They are not addressing the issue that under capitalism, in order to work, there has to been some people in poverty, some people un-employed (you cant have more jobs than people, can you?)
Yes you can have more jobs then people. If there aren't enough people to fill a certain occupation, the wage goes higher so people will become attracted to those jobs. Occupations which attract a lot of people have the price driven down because of labour market competition. So it all balances out. The reason unemployment exists is because of Government intervention. For example, a price floor for labour will prevent others from gaining employment. There would be unemployment in a totally free market, but only from people moving between jobs or due to the business cycle (this of course would be a lot less then the kind of unemployment rate we are used to).

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Hot Dog Day #[email protected] 7 2004, 01:27 AM
If the labour was worth more, then workers could go to other firms offering better wages.
Why would other firms offer better wages when they could pay the same or maybe even less, which they could since there are plenty of unemployed workers who would jump at the chance.


You seem to be thinking wages and labour value are different thing, this isnt the case. If the market is offering jobs in an industry at price x, then that is its value.
I meant the value to the employer, there would be no point in employing someone if their value to you wasn't more than what you paid them.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 07:19 AM
The reason unemployment exists is because of Government intervention.
:lol:

Even free-market economists don't believe that.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 10:27 AM
Why would other firms offer better wages when they could pay the same or maybe even less, which they could since there are plenty of unemployed workers who would jump at the chance.


Because when the greedy capitalist entrepreneur has better skilled employees than his neighbour he can make more profits, believe it or not.


Even free-market economists don't believe that.

Yes they do. Only in the short term you can have friction unemployment. Even socialist economists can tell you that if you impose taxes on income or set a minimumwage, unemployment will appear and rise.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 03:59 PM

Complete fabrication.

Isn't a machinist a highly trained skilled profession?
Isn't a jet aircraft mechanic a trained skilled profession?
Isn't an iron worker (you know...the guys building the ivory towers you work in) skilled professionals?
Electricians?
Plumbers?
Carpenters?
etc.
etc.

Most of these jobs require years of learning and apprenticeship.

To say that blue collar requires only a pulse and no medical issues displays not only your disdain over the working class, but your lack of knowledge with respect to the trades.

Well excuse me!!!

I agree, Disgustipated, you're absolutely right. I wasn't very clear in my definition, I meant unskilled labor.

Skilled labor is very different, though, and I would actually classify there workers closer to white collar than unskilled blue-collar, because it emphasises mental faculties, usually pays well, and doesn't fall into many leftist's "wage slave" arguments. With skilled labor, it is more about working smart that working hard (actually, a combination of both, but more emphasis on knowledge and experience, both mental components).

I wouldn't skilled laborers as an exploirted calss, as they make a very good living, and by good I mean at least 50k/ year.

An I do understand and respect the trades. My father was a skilled laborer, and I grew up in one of the world's largest commercial fishing communities.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Soldier [email protected] 6 2004, 08:42 PM
While im thrilled the OI'ers havent ignored my post, none seem to answer two of my points- conservatism (hell I dont know what you call it..being conservative!) and impierialism? Why would you not support abortion and hate gay people? Why would you think its ok to take advantage of and dominate another land and its people, whether economically or militarily? Yall are just attacking communism..
Actually, it is this site that is attacking capitalism.

I support a woman's right to choose. I hope she chooses life, but ultimately it is her choice. I just don't like that the man has no choice whether to pay 18 years of child support if the woman does choose to have the baby without his input.

I don't hate gays. I don't like them either. Their sexual orientaton is their business, and does not predispose them to judgement by me.

It seems that you are subscribing to a some stereotypes associated with "conservative".

I don't think the US "takes advantage" of anyone economically. The US enters into markets and improves local economies, jobs created by US interests are highly coveted in all regions. Anyone doing business with America does so of their own volition, and usually benefits from the arrangement.

Military? Hey, we are doing what all nations of all ideologies have done since the beginnning of history, just trying to get the biggest pirece of a finite cake. We just happen to be the best at it right now, so we have a lot of player-haters that are hating the player instead of the game.

[Hot Dog Day #84]

So im asking about it, now I think everyone would appreciate it if you changed that annoying-as-hell avatar.

aww yeah its gross you can see a guys chest!!!!



They are not addressing the issue that under capitalism,
1. in order to work, there has to been some people in poverty, some people un-employed (you cant have more jobs than people, can you?)
2. They havent mentoined that it is inhearently degrading, as there are the rich well off, the middle, and then the dirt poor.
1. No you're wrong, the lower unemployment is, the better. It means better efficiancy and increased production. And if you look in countries such as the UK yes there is more job opportunies than people availible.
2. You might feel that money is the most important thing in your life, but many people do not feel the need to 'beat' others and have the highest wage. I personally have not been affected at all by possible wage rates when deciding what career path to follow. The few that do care about wages often tend to be the middle classes i have found, anyway.


Why would other firms offer better wages when they could pay the same or maybe even less, which they could since there are plenty of unemployed workers who would jump at the chance.

Because by offering more, they have more chance of getting the labour over their rivals. Giving them a production advantage, as they will have more labour resources. And in many industries there is not many unemployed workers with the right abilities, you assume that labour is infinite, when really it is scarce just like any other good.


meant the value to the employer, there would be no point in employing someone if their value to you wasn't more than what you paid them
Yes there is. It allows the employer to produce more goods, spreading out fixed costs causing the average cost to fall. Resulting in either a lower priced good(and more sales) or higher profits.

[Pale Rider]

I guess I have to jump in somewhere, so here is as good a place as any...I have to say that I believe the idea of equality is an illusion...No matter how hard you try, you simply can not make people equal...it may look nice on paper, but in reality, it simply isn't going to happen.

If by some magical formula you could gather up all the wealth in the world and distribute it equally among all of the citizens of the earth, in a couple of years. we would be right back here again..people simply are different..some are smarter..some have stronger work ethics, some are more driven to success, some are simply better able to predict trends and build success out of that...these attributes are what make some more successful than others and such attributes simply can not be doled out equally among us.

Equality, in my opinion, only exists only at the lowest common denominator and bringing us all to that point doesn't seem a worthy goal for any political ideology...

[Vinny Rafarino]

No matter how hard you try, you simply can not make people equal

You must be one of those confused capitalists that thinks communism works to create a race of drones marching around all day.

Communism simply rejects the idea of class distinction both ecomomic and social.

We do not advocate (and never have!) the removal of the individual identities of the masses. You have been watching way to much television esse.


If by some magical formula you could gather up all the wealth in the world and distribute it equally among all of the citizens of the earth, in a couple of years

There is no such communist policy as "distributing wealth equally" as there is not such thing as "wealth" in a communist society.


people simply are different..some are smarter..some have stronger work ethics, some are more driven to success, some are simply better able to predict trends and build success out of that

You are confused; there are no genes in the human genome that control if a person will be "more driven to success" or "have stronger work ethic". You are simply talking nonsense.

Intelligence will equate to what duties one individual can perform over another, that does not mean that one is "more important" than another.

"To each according to his ability, to each according to his need.


these attributes are what make some more successful than others and such attributes simply can not be doled out equally among us.


There are indeed many attribute that one individual may possess over another, who ever said they would be distributed "equally"?

Again, too much television.


Equality, in my opinion, only exists only at the lowest common denominator and bringing us all to that point doesn't seem a worthy goal for any political ideology...

Fortunately enough, your opinon is wrong.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 11 2004, 09:31 PM

You must be one of those confused capitalists that thinks communism works to create a race of drones marching around all day.

Communism simply rejects the idea of class distinction both ecomomic and social.

We do not advocate (and never have!) the removal of the individual identities of the masses. You have been watching way to much television esse.



There is no such communist policy as "distributing wealth equally" as there is not such thing as "wealth" in a communist society.



You are confused; there are no genes in the human genome that control if a person will be "more driven to success" or "have stronger work ethic". You are simply talking nonsense.

Intelligence will equate to what duties one individual can perform over another, that does not mean that one is "more important" than another.

"To each according to his ability, to each according to his need.



There are indeed many attribute that one individual may possess over another, who ever said they would be distributed "equally"?

Again, too much television.



Fortunately enough, your opinon is wrong.

You must be one of those confused capitalists that thinks communism works to create a race of drones marching around all day.

Have you ever seen video of soviet-era Russia? It seemed pretty close


Communism simply rejects the idea of class distinction both ecomomic and social.

As usual with communnism, theory and application seem diametricaly opposed


We do not advocate (and never have!) the removal of the individual identities of the masses. You have been watching way to much television esse.

Remove individual sovereignty, and you compromise identity and individualism, holmes.


There is no such communist policy as "distributing wealth equally" as there is not such thing as "wealth" in a communist society.

For the proletariat that is, they all settle (are forced to anyway) for shared mediocrity, the party elite, on the other hand...


You are confused; there are no genes in the human genome that control if a person will be "more driven to success" or "have stronger work ethic". You are simply talking nonsense.

Come on, RAF, lets be realistic. We haven't really isolated every gene and their traits, but lets not kid ourselves, people vary greatly with regards to their ability, patience, and cognitive capacity, all (among other things) which contribute to work ethic


Intelligence will equate to what duties one individual can perform over another, that does not mean that one is "more important" than another.

In theory, I can agree to a certain extent.

"
To each according to his ability, to each according to his need.


Again, sounds good, but how many will sign for "rock star" and "fighter pilot", and how many will sign up for "janitor" and "ditch digger"?

Inevitably, individual sovereignty will be compromised.



Fortunately enough, your opinon is wrong.

This statement is a logical impossibility. By definition, true opinions can't be inherently "wrong".

[Pale Rider]

Communism simply rejects the idea of class distinction both ecomomic and social.

You may reject them on a theoretical basis, but in the real world classes are quite necessary...when you remove the distinctions between people, that is, when you attempt to put them all into one class, the vaccum left will inevetably be filled by oligarchs. And suggesting that I watch too much TV doesn't enhance your IQ.

If you can't dismantle the point, the personal insult is wasted..it makes you look impotent and angry.


You are confused; there are no genes in the human genome that control if a person will be "more driven to success" or "have stronger work ethic". You are simply talking nonsense.

Actually, I am quite well versed in genetics...tell me, exactly how much do you know about the genome...I was under the impression that we had just finished mapping it but to date, we don't have any real idea how much of what we are is genetic...My guess is that damned near everything we are will turn out to be in our genes...

не скажите вздор потому что вы не понимаете


To each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

If you are going to quote Marx in an attempt to look intelligent, or intimidate me with your vast knowledge, at least get the quote right.

"от каждого, согласно его способности, к каждому, согласно его потребности." Karl Marx


Fortunately enough, your opinon is wrong.

Care to demonstrate that or is the simple fact that you said it supposed to suffice?

[Krogher]

While I am not an imperialist, I am conservative (Republican, Capitalist) because I believe that people should have choice. I believe that people should earn and reap the full fruits of their labor. However, being a Christian, I believe that it is my Christian duty to help the poor, the orphaned, and the widowed. However, I do not believe that my government should tell me. If I were to make $1,000,000 a year, I'd give 100,000 to charity because I tithe 10% of my earnings. On top of that, I'd give at least 360,000 to the government, which would in turn help the poor, because of my taxes. And, if I made that much money, I'd definitely be in the highest tax braket! Like I've stated, capitalism without saftey nets or morals is not something for which most people would argue. I am for a smaller government because the government doesn't spend money in the best of ways. President Bush raised education spending by 50%. So, 50% more money goes to education than it did during Clinton. However, with that 50% raise, only 12% gets to the children. Why is that? Because government is inefficient. A Communist government would be the same way. I don't hate government, I just don't think that giving it complete control would be good.
~Michael

[Pale Rider]

My apologies comrade, maybe I shouldn't have come across quite so hard. I enjoy the debate and your response was somewhat dissapointing so I got a bit frustrated...I enjoy a discussion with someone who can actually challenge the ideas being put forth, not simply challenge the person.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Have you ever seen video of soviet-era Russia? It seemed pretty close


You mean the Soviet military?

Have you ever seen videos of the US military? It seems pretty close too. :lol:


As usual with communnism, theory and application seem diametricaly opposed


How can they be "diametrically opposed" when communism has never existed?


Remove individual sovereignty, and you compromise identity and individualism, holmes.


This statement makes absolutely no sense at all, esse. You just like using the word "sovereignity".


For the proletariat that is, they all settle (are forced to anyway) for shared mediocrity, the party elite, on the other hand...


Are you expecting me to disagree? I completly accept that all of the socialist models of the past have not abolished class distinction; that would have made them communist, jack.


Come on, RAF, lets be realistic. We haven't really isolated every gene and their traits, but lets not kid ourselves, people vary greatly with regards to their ability, patience, and cognitive capacity, all (among other things) which contribute to work ethic


Are you going to attempt to argue that greed is a basic instinct as well? :lol:


Again, sounds good, but how many will sign for "rock star" and "fighter pilot", and how many will sign up for "janitor" and "ditch digger"?


If one job has no more monetary value then another, It is acceptable to assume that the only people that will want to be "rock stars" are those that have a love and affinity to music.

In addition, do you somehow think there is something wrong with being a janitor?
With no monetary and pseudo social status "systems" in place, working as a janitor is no more "embarrassing" than any other position.

Your neurological disfunction makes it so you will never be able to quantify a janitor's position in society.



Inevitably, individual sovereignty will be compromised.


I am fairly certain that you are confused as to the meaning of this word.


This statement is a logical impossibility. By definition, true opinions can't be inherently "wrong".

Nonsense. You should know better than to say something this absurd.

Do I really have to explain why? :lol:


You may reject them on a theoretical basis, but in the real world classes are quite necessary

You meant to say in a "capitalist world". To say that class distinctions are "completely necessary" for the survival and progression of the human race is so astonishingly absurd that it forces me to express concern over your mental capacities.


that is, when you attempt to put them all into one class, the vaccum left will inevetably be filled by oligarchs

Interesting theory; quite unique in its "quaintness". :lol:


And suggesting that I watch too much TV doesn't enhance your IQ.


Considering the content of your posts hitherto, I can see why you were unable to fashion an insult beyond this typical cliche.


If you can't dismantle the point, the personal insult is wasted..it makes you look impotent and angry.


There is no need to "dismantle" absurdity; it is only necessary to point out the folly and have a laugh.


Actually, I am quite well versed in genetics...

Apparantly not.


tell me, exactly how much do you know about the genome

I know an amount that is bigger than a breadbox yet smaller than a house, sweetie. ;)


I was under the impression that we had just finished mapping it but to date, we don't have any real idea how much of what we are is genetic

Only "under the imression"? So much for your claim of being "well versed" in genetics.

I believe you are confused about what a mapped human genome actually is. I suggest you read up on it.


My guess is that damned near everything we are will turn out to be in our genes

With the exception of socially constucted behaviours of course. :lol:



Care to demonstrate that or is the simple fact that you said it supposed to suffice?

Sufficient of course.


A Communist government would be the same way

You are confused Krogher, there is no such thing as a communist governement.


I enjoy a discussion with someone who can actually challenge the ideas being put forth, not simply challenge the person.

Agreed, Tweedle Dee would have been nothing without Tweedle Dum.

[Pale Rider]

You mean the Soviet military?
Have you ever seen videos of the US military? It seems pretty close too.


I have seen the US military…what I haven’t seen is whole parades of US military. Column after column of mobile rocket launchers…brigade after brigade of snap stepping soldiers…row after row of tanks…banners flying, emblazoned with heroic images of their oligarch leaders and the marching bands…Da da da da da - Ta da da da da da - Da da da da da …you can almost hear the soviet national anthem, in the in the back ground… No comrade, it doesn’t seem close at all. The soviet attempted to associate the people’s self image with this spectacle…overt militarism…the citizens of the US, on the other hand, know that the US carries a big stick…we don’t need to see the stick marching down main street in order to complete, or validate our collective identity.



Are you going to attempt to argue that greed is a basic instinct as well?

Why would greed not be..we certainly see it in the animal kingdom..animals don't share equally in the kill...the stronger take more which in turn keeps them stronger. Often they will eat far more than they need simply because it is available at the detriment of their fellows...so yes, greed would seem to be, at least in part, due to basic instinct. Humans are about the only species on earth that will willingly sacrifice anything to another being..and the anthropology of that suggest motives beyond the simple act of giving...


You meant to say in a "capitalist world". To say that class distinctions are "completely necessary" for the survival and progression of the human race is so astonishingly absurd that it forces me to express concern over your mental capacities.

No, I meant to say in the real world…if I ever need for you to suggest to me what I “meant” to say, I will let you know. You see, we have a real world, and we have a theoretical world. Communism is in the theoretical world, because it doesn’t exist and never has...and I might add that it is never likely to...communism must grow out of socialism and socialism has this nasty tendency to turn into a totalitarian system that virtually eliminates the possibility of communism. When you speak of such a world, you can express your thoughts of it with wide eyed wonder like a child discussing santa claus, but the rest of us know that you are speaking from your imagination.

Have you ever studied anthropology? From the beginning, when we first stepped out of the junge (and even before) there were class distinctions. There have always been alpha males, alpha females, and alpha males in waiting…this is as true among the human species as among the vast majority of living creatures…it seems to not be true among hive insects where you are simply born into a class that you may never leave which is even more distasteful.

Class systems are part of our evolution…they were necessary, or they never would have happened…it isn’t just us, remember, it is most of the higher species on earth. To say that they are not necessary, is to enter the realm of theory and imagination…where santa claus lives.

Note: At this point, you either dismantle my idea via hard evidence, analogy, or like example...inane insult merely scores points for me and demonstrates the shallowness of your thought. Hint: Explain in some detail why you believe that class systems are not part of our very evolution.


Interesting theory; quite unique in its "quaintness".

Here again, in a real debate, you would be expected demonstrate by example an example, or a state in which class systems had been eliminated that has not been run by oligarchs (you do know what an oligargh is??)...thus demonstrating that class systems are not a natural part of life, and also putting to rest my point that class systems are not part of our evolution...your pseudo-condesending remark painfully illustrates that insult is all you posess...and in the battle of ideas, you have brought a knife to a gunfight.


There is no need to "dismantle" absurdity; it is only necessary to point out the folly and have a laugh.

In order to establish that it is indeed an absurdity, one must provide a more powerful argument as I have apparently done…it is up to you to prove that my ideas are absurd...an absurd idea is most easy to pick apart…and there is immense satisfaction in doing it. In order to point out the folly, one must use example or analogy to highlight the absurdity. It appears that you are quite unable to “get it up to do this”..why is that?

It would appear that you are laughing alone...or maybe you are joined by a few of your "intellectual" equals who would prefer to remain in the background and watch you get torn to shreds...thus illustrating my alpha theory.


With the exception of socially constucted behaviours of course.

Ahhh...socially constructed behaviors..this brings us back to animals. They have evolved their behaviors...and they have evolved because they worked...Systems that do not work may be found in the dustbin of history. Among animals, the alphas are there because of genetics...nothing more. Please, if you will, explain why genetics would not be just as central to our position within our society. We are certainly more complex in our behavior, but there is something that makes the alphas alphas...what do you suggest it is, if not genetic.

The examples of highborn individuals who lost it all and died in poverty are innumeralbe...as well as examples of those born to poverty who achieved fantastic success..but all who are born low and all who are born high do not fall or climb...perhaps they are simply realizing their genetic potential. Among the animals, being the offspring of an alpha in no way assures that an individual will be an alpha...within litters, some are more dominant, some are naturally submissive...explain how "socially constructed" behaviors are not simply part and parcel of what we are.


Agreed, Tweedle Dee would have been nothing without Tweedle Dum.

and with your poor showing so far, it is becoming painfully obvious who is dee and who is dum. If this is the best that you can do, perhaps you should find yourself a kiddie politik site and work your way up to adult conversation...or could it be that I have inadvertently wandered into a kiddie politik site... :D

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 12 2004, 03:00 AM

You mean the Soviet military?

Have you ever seen videos of the US military? It seems pretty close too. :lol:



How can they be "diametrically opposed" when communism has never existed?



This statement makes absolutely no sense at all, esse. You just like using the word "sovereignity".



Are you expecting me to disagree? I completly accept that all of the socialist models of the past have not abolished class distinction; that would have made them communist, jack.



Are you going to attempt to argue that greed is a basic instinct as well? :lol:



If one job has no more monetary value then another, It is acceptable to assume that the only people that will want to be "rock stars" are those that have a love and affinity to music.

In addition, do you somehow think there is something wrong with being a janitor?
With no monetary and pseudo social status "systems" in place, working as a janitor is no more "embarrassing" than any other position.

Your neurological disfunction makes it so you will never be able to quantify a janitor's position in society.



I am fairly certain that you are confused as to the meaning of this word.



Nonsense. You should know better than to say something this absurd.

Do I really have to explain why? :lol:



You meant to say in a "capitalist world". To say that class distinctions are "completely necessary" for the survival and progression of the human race is so astonishingly absurd that it forces me to express concern over your mental capacities.



Interesting theory; quite unique in its "quaintness". :lol:



Considering the content of your posts hitherto, I can see why you were unable to fashion an insult beyond this typical cliche.



There is no need to "dismantle" absurdity; it is only necessary to point out the folly and have a laugh.



Apparantly not.



I know an amount that is bigger than a breadbox yet smaller than a house, sweetie. ;)



Only "under the imression"? So much for your claim of being "well versed" in genetics.

I believe you are confused about what a mapped human genome actually is. I suggest you read up on it.



With the exception of socially constucted behaviours of course. :lol:



Sufficient of course.



You are confused Krogher, there is no such thing as a communist governement.



Agreed, Tweedle Dee would have been nothing without Tweedle Dum.

You mean the Soviet military?

Have you ever seen videos of the US military? It seems pretty close too. :lol:

No, I mean the ciizens walking through Red square, in their greys and browns, never smiling, with their heads hung low like subjugated puppies.


How can they be "diametrically opposed" when communism has never existed?

LOL, whatever, RAF. Keep telling yourself that fairytale to rationalize its obvious repeated failures in the real world.


This statement makes absolutely no sense at all, esse. You just like using the word "sovereignity".

You obviouslty just don't have the analytical ability to comprehend the relationship I'm drawing between sovereignty, individual determination, and independence. I know what soveriegnty means. If you did, you would understand the relationship, but you obviously don't. Get a dictionary. Actually, see below, I've spelled it out for you.


Are you expecting me to disagree? I completly accept that all of the socialist models of the past have not abolished class distinction; that would have made them communist, jack.

Ahh, more spin and rationalization despite historical facts. What a surprise.



Are you going to attempt to argue that greed is a basic instinct as well? :lol:

This didn't address my point at all. Your misdirection means nothing. Your failure to address the issue is indicative that you have no response.


If one job has no more monetary value then another, It is acceptable to assume that the only people that will want to be "rock stars" are those that have a love and affinity to music.

In addition, do you somehow think there is something wrong with being a janitor?
With no monetary and pseudo social status "systems" in place, working as a janitor is no more "embarrassing" than any other position.

I'm not talking about embarassment, I'm talking about simply enjoying what you do. It has nothing to do with status, and everything to do with choice. Inevitably, in a commie regime, people have to be assigned jobs. Central planners are going to tell you what you will do with at least 8 hourse of your waking life. It may be mopping floors, whether you want to or not.



Your neurological disfunction makes it so you will never be able to quantify a janitor's position in society.

I respect janitors and the service they provide, and they actually make pretty good money when they are self-employed. I just want to be assured that they chose to do it.


I am fairly certain that you are confused as to the meaning of this word

LOL, not only are you running your mouth without backing it up, but you are just plain wrong. let me do your homework for you:

From dictionary.com:

sov·er·eign·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (svr-n-t, svrn-)
n. pl. sov·er·eign·ties
Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
Royal rank, authority, or power.
Complete independence and self-government.
A territory existing as an independent state.


[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Main Entry: sov·er·eign·ty
Variant: also sov·ran·ty /'sä-vr&n-tE, 's&-, -v&-r&n-/
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ties
1 a : supreme power esp. over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY
2 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state


Thus, individual sovereignty, or supreme authority over the self, is a necessary pre-requisite to individualism and self determination. You can't truly be an individual if you have no automnomy over youself. It seems to be a pretty simple concept to me.

Is that relatively clear or shall I slow down homeboy? :rolleyes:


Nonsense. You should know better than to say something this absurd.

Do I really have to explain why?

Oh no, I already did this once for you, dude. This time you go get a dictionary, look up "opinion", analyze, and prove yourself wrong.


Orale, holmes!

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Pale [email protected] 11 2004, 11:25 PM

You may reject them on a theoretical basis, but in the real world classes are quite necessary...when you remove the distinctions between people, that is, when you attempt to put them all into one class, the vaccum left will inevetably be filled by oligarchs. And suggesting that I watch too much TV doesn't enhance your IQ.

If you can't dismantle the point, the personal insult is wasted..it makes you look impotent and angry.



Actually, I am quite well versed in genetics...tell me, exactly how much do you know about the genome...I was under the impression that we had just finished mapping it but to date, we don't have any real idea how much of what we are is genetic...My guess is that damned near everything we are will turn out to be in our genes...

не скажите вздор потому что вы не понимаете







Care to demonstrate that or is the simple fact that you said it supposed to suffice?
"If you are going to quote Marx in an attempt to look intelligent, or intimidate me with your vast knowledge, at least get the quote right.

"от каждого, согласно его способности, к каждому, согласно его потребности." Karl Marx"

He really wrote that in Russian?

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Pale [email protected] 12 2004, 10:43 AM


Why would greed not be..we certainly see it in the animal kingdom..animals don't share equally in the kill...the stronger take more which in turn keeps them stronger.
This is what we have to do to live.
And how do you know its greed thats our genes then and not just adaption to the condition to survive, we have done it before, and thats why humans are still here.
Adaption is your human nature!

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 12 2004, 04:30 PM

No, I mean the ciizens walking through Red square, in their greys and browns, never smiling, with their heads hung low like subjugated puppies.



I understand what you are trying to say, but people got to walk around like that in alot of other cities in the world as well, I dont think its simply the government that is responsible for that.

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 01:03 AM
"от каждого, согласно его способности, к каждому, согласно его потребности." Karl Marx"

He really wrote that in Russian?
I can't think of a reason that he wouldn't have, but if you prefer it in his native language...ok...

Von jedem entsprechend seinen Fähigkeiten, zu jedem entsprechend seinem benötigt. Karl Marx


And how do you know its greed thats our genes then and not just adaption to the condition to survive, we have done it before, and thats why humans are still here.

Greed, in all likelyhood, is simply a name that we attached to the Trait. Perhaps if animals were articulate, they would call the alphas greedy as well. And I believe that we will find that "adaptations" are genetic...otherwise the trait would be lost from generation to generation rather than reinforced...the trait is more likely a product of natural selection (genetic) than of adaptation (environmental)...

[redstar2000]

You may reject them on a theoretical basis, but in the real world classes are quite necessary...when you remove the distinctions between people, that is, when you attempt to put them all into one class, the vacuum left will inevitably be filled by oligarchs.

Why "inevitably"?

Under capitalism, we are all "equal" in that none of us are chattel slaves...yet no class of slave-holders has sprung forth to re-enslave those who are "naturally submissive".

We are also all "equal" in that none of us are serfs any longer...in the terminology of the Middle Ages, we are all "masterless men" (and women). Yet "inevitability" has brought forth no fresh class of aristocrats to put us back in "our proper station".

How come?

Well, we don't permit that any longer. Now and then, in fact, some individual will try to re-enslave people -- usually illegal immigrants. When they get caught at it, they go to prison.

Our ideas of what freedom actually means have changed considerably over the centuries...do you imagine that they will not continue to change?

The oligarch wannabe of the 22nd century is apt to evoke two responses: laughter at his pretensions or a date with a firing squad.


My guess is that damned near everything we are will turn out to be in our genes...

I also like to guess at stuff I don't know anything about -- must be a genetic trait. :lol:

Seriously, you must be aware that such "arguments" were being advanced before the ink was dry on Darwin's Origin of Species...and have been scientifically refuted over and over again. Remember "racial science"?

Since the last quarter of the 19th century, there has been a ready market among the wealthy for a "scientific" theory that would "prove" that they were "naturally superior" to all other humans.

In other words, that their position in the ruling class was "deserved"...and not a matter of contingency.

Genetics was their "last best hope" for such "proof"...but the cracks have already appeared.

Alas, poor Darwin : arguments against evolutionary psychology, edited by Hilary Rose and Steven Rose, New York : Harmony Books, 2000, ISBN: 0609605135.

Formal scientific refutation is only a matter of time, of course. Anyone who has had any contact with capitalist authority on a daily basis has little difficulty recognizing the wide-spread stupidity characteristic of our "superiors". The popular comic strip Dilbert© is actually based on such encounters.

Every ruling class in history has always been convinced that their "superiority" was conferred by birth.

The record is pretty clear that such a hypothesis cannot withstand critical examination.


I believe that people should earn and reap the full fruits of their labor.

Then your support of capitalism makes no logical sense. The only people under capitalism who "reap the full fruits of their labor" are the self-employed.

That's not a small number...but it's very, very far from a majority.


However, being a Christian, I believe that it is my Christian duty to help the poor, the orphaned, and the widowed.

The tax advantages have nothing to do with it, right?

:lol:


Like I've stated, capitalism without safety nets or morals is not something for which most people would argue.

Just the rich...they argue for precisely that. See any issue of The Economist.

Needless to say, their arguments usually prevail.


...the citizens of the US, on the other hand, know that the US carries a big stick -- we don’t need to see the stick marching down main street in order to complete, or validate our collective identity.

No, we get "our collective identity" from watching our glorious warriors beat the living crap out of defenseless third world countries on the dummyvision.

It's more fun than a boring old parade.


Class systems are part of our evolution -- they were necessary, or they never would have happened...To say that they are not necessary, is to enter the realm of theory and imagination -- where Santa Claus lives.

That's an interesting hypothesis...I don't think there is sufficient data to either confirm or refute it.

But let's assume that you're correct; classes were a necessary stage in the evolution of human societies.

On what empirical grounds can you assert that they "will always be necessary"?

That seems to be just as "imaginative" as our assertion that the time is approaching when they will no longer be necessary and in fact have become an obstacle to the evolution of civilization (possibly even a fatal flaw).

The enormous squandering of resources to "keep the lower orders in their place" (armies, weaponry, police, prisons, the whole entertainment complex, etc.) does not inspire confidence, to say the least.

If we don't get rid of class society, it may well get rid of the human species.


...but there is something that makes the alphas alphas...what do you suggest it is, if not genetic?

Any social order that rewards "alpha-behavior" will have alphas and alpha-wannabes in profusion.

On the other hand, any society which did not reward such behavior would have very few alphas...there'd be no point to such behavior and only the pathological would engage in it.

We have many genetic "potentials"...the ones that actually get expressed depend on the world in which we find ourselves.


No, I mean the citizens walking through Red Square, in their greys and browns, never smiling, with their heads hung low like subjugated puppies.

Are you criticizing their fashion taste?

Or the fact that they lowered their heads against the icy winds that prevail most of the year there?

Good grief...people in Chicago walk the same way!

It's fucking cold!


Inevitably, in a commie regime, people have to be assigned jobs.

There's that word "inevitably" again. We say that we are not going to repeat the stupidities of 20th century communism, and the reply is "oh, but you will, it's inevitable!"

Against such faith, no mere argument can prevail.


Thus, individual sovereignty, or supreme authority over the self, is a necessary pre-requisite to individualism and self-determination.

Quite so...exactly what most of us don't enjoy under capitalism.


He really wrote that in Russian?

German, in all probability.

Marx studied Russian late in his life, but it's unlikely he ever became very fluent in it.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Professor Moneybags]

Communism simply rejects the idea of class distinction both ecomomic and social.

So does capitalism. "Class war" was one of your ideas, not ours. We reject it as a metaphysical existent.

[Professor Moneybags]

Our ideas of what freedom actually means have changed considerably over the centuries...do you imagine that they will not continue to change?

Erm, not quite. The definition of freedom hasn't changed- the accepetence that it is necessary has.


Every ruling class in history has always been convinced that their "superiority" was conferred by birth.

The record is pretty clear that such a hypothesis cannot withstand critical examination.

I agree. Now just tell us where our heads of state have claimed "superiority from birth".


Quite so...exactly what most of us don't enjoy under capitalism.

Then I guess we're not living under capitalism, but some other system; one that does not recognise individual rights/sovereignty. Any takes on what that might be ?

[redstar2000]

"Class war" was one of your ideas, not ours.

Blame the Athenians; they recognized class war existed and wrote about it more than 2,200 years prior to Marx.


The definition of freedom hasn't changed -- the acceptance that it is necessary has.

Your definition of "freedom" is the freedom to become wealthy by hiring the labor of others.

That's time-specific -- not "eternal".

It was not always thus...nor will it always be.


Now just tell us where our heads of state have claimed "superiority from birth".

They don't say it. They hire people to say it about them...including even some "scientists".

The message they wish propagated about themselves is that their eminence did not result from chance and circumstance but was rather acquired on "intrinsic merit"...they were "born superior to others".

Nonsense, of course.


Then I guess we're not living under capitalism, but some other system; one that does not recognise individual rights/sovereignty.

Capitalism recognizes only the rights of capital.

You have such "individual rights" as capital finds it convenient or useful to grant you --and if capital so decides, your "individual rights" simply "melt into air"...the Patriot Act, for example.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Pale Rider]

You may reject them on a theoretical basis, but in the real world classes are quite necessary...when you remove the distinctions between people, that is, when you attempt to put them all into one class, the vacuum left will inevitably be filled by oligarchs.

Why "inevitably"?


To such an answer, I can only respond “why not inevitably?” Hint: At this point, you were supposed to give examples to prove that a power grab by oligarchs isn’t inevitable if we try to operate in a classless system if you are to have any chance at all of winning this debate…You have the whole of human history from which to choose examples. One would think that given such a vast span of time, if inevitable did not apply, you would provide me with example after example proving that inevitable was the wrong choice of words. Since you didn’t, and I am not aware of any, I suggest that it is indeed inevitable that the few would indeed attempt enslave the many.



Under capitalism, we are all "equal" in that none of us are chattel slaves...yet no class of slave-holders has sprung forth to re-enslave those who are "naturally submissive".

We are also all "equal" in that none of us are serfs any longer...in the terminology of the Middle Ages, we are all "masterless men" (and women). Yet "inevitability" has brought forth no fresh class of aristocrats to put us back in "our proper station".

The premise of your argument is flawed. I suggested that oligarchs would emerge if we attempted to erase the natural distinctions between us. You are countering that no class of aristocrats or slave owners has emerged, completely ignoring the fact that we have classes within our society which is why there are no oligarchs.

By the way, I would suggest that even chattel slaves were not equal. There would have been slaves who were favorites among the masters and as such, would have had an easier life than those who were “just slaves” and a much easier life than those who were disliked by their masters.



My guess is that damned near everything we are will turn out to be in our genes...


I also like to guess at stuff I don't know anything about -- must be a genetic trait.

Seriously, you must be aware that such "arguments" were being advanced before the ink was dry on Darwin's Origin of Species...and have been scientifically refuted over and over again. Remember "racial science"?...blah, blah, blah ….The record is pretty clear that such a hypothesis cannot withstand critical examination.


You take the point of your example out of context as it relates to my argument. I am not, and never have suggested that a particular group of people are genetically superior and thus fit to rule over any other group. When I suggested that what we are is most certainly genetic, and that the traits that may allow one person to achieve more success than another are in all likelihood genetic, I was speaking in terms of the individual…not his ethnic or socioeconomic group.

We know that much of what we do is related to the pleasure centers of our brains which would certainly be a genetic trait. Is it such a stretch to believe that a person may actually be hard wired in such a way as to take pleasure in working long hours towards a goal…or to take pleasure in achieving near perfection in his craft? Both of these traits would most likely lead a person to more success than…say…a person who gets his pleasure from sitting in the sun??


No, we get "our collective identity" from watching our glorious warriors beat the living crap out of defenseless third world countries on the dummyvision.

It's more fun than a boring old parade.

Do you actually believe this, or are you just being facetious? Since we are quite sharply divided on the war, I would say that there is nothing collective about it…and the leadership of the nation had no collectivist thought in mind when the decision to war was made. In fact, we don't have a collective identity here....there is nothing collective about us.



Class systems are part of our evolution -- they were necessary, or they never would have happened...To say that they are not necessary, is to enter the realm of theory and imagination -- where Santa Claus lives.

That's an interesting hypothesis...I don't think there is sufficient data to either confirm or refute it.

Sufficient data?? Only the whole of human history. “Class system” is just a descriptive term that we have applied to what we are. I am quite sure that as we were evolving, no one actually said, lets have class systems. They happened because they were necessary to our survival. In any group, there must be someone who is in charge…otherwise you merely have a collection of individuals who are competing for the available resources. Since we are not “hive” creatures, the amount of resources that each individual would perceive that he “needs” would be different and would lead to conflict. In order to have organization, there must be an organizer….and the organizer is genetically programmed to be exactly what he is.

One only has to look to the animal kingdom to see the truth in this.


The enormous squandering of resources to "keep the lower orders in their place" (armies, weaponry, police, prisons, the whole entertainment complex, etc.) does not inspire confidence, to say the least.

Hold on a minute, you contradict your previous statement here…you said yourself that there were no oligarchs trying to keep us in our places, and now you say that the oligarchs are expending tremendous amounts of resources to keep us in our places..which is it??…decide which side of the argument you wish to be on and we can discuss it further.


If we don't get rid of class society, it may well get rid of the human species.

Again, I argue that class is hardwired into us…and have the whole of human evolution to reinforce my argument. There have always been those who have claimed that if we don’t do this, or we don’t do that, the sky will fall…You are just one more person promising doom. You may as well suggest that if we don’t all start being born with two opposable thumbs on each hand, it will be the end of the species. We are what we are. You are railing against nature…you may as well tell the sun not to come up.


Any social order that rewards "alpha-behavior" will have alphas and alpha-wannabes in profusion.

On the other hand, any society which did not reward such behavior would have very few alphas...there'd be no point to such behavior and only the pathological would engage in it.

We have many genetic "potentials"...the ones that actually get expressed depend on the world in which we find ourselves.

One need not examine your argument very deeply in order to see that it is false. There can be no system that does not reward alpha behavior. The reward for alpha behavior is almost surely an internal thing (pleasure center of our brain) which happens to, in many cases, generate external rewards. Look at the apes (or any other social group) in the zoo…they have all the food that they could want.. there is no danger of hunger…they are protected from their natural enemies, all their needs are met…yet…there are alphas. The alpha gets an endorphin rush simply from seeing the others submit…It isn’t the submission that he wants, it is the endorphin rush…demanding the submission is merely the tool he uses to get the rush.

I agree that we have many genetic potentials, but the ones that get expressed are the ones that are going to give us the most pleasure. In some that may express as a workaholic lifestyle, in some it may be sex, in some it may be child molestation…but how our lives turn out will relate to our genetic potential...and if within our genes is the potential to be an alpha, that is where the pleasure will be found and that is what the individual will be.

[Professor Moneybags]

Freedom to live in absence of coercion. That is the definition of freedom. It is eternal. Unless you want to live in some Orwellian society where freedom is slavery.


The message they wish propagated about themselves is that their eminence did not result from chance and circumstance but was rather acquired on "intrinsic merit"...they were "born superior to others".

Nonsense, of course.

Again, such as who ?


Capitalism recognizes only the rights of capital.

Capital is an inanimate concept, it is not entitled to rights.


You have such "individual rights" as capital finds it convenient or useful to grant you

Individual rights apply to everyone rich or poor. It has nothing to do with "capital". Rights are not for sale.


--and if capital so decides, your "individual rights" simply "melt into air"...the Patriot Act, for example.

...Is anti-capitalist. I don't know why you're whining about it. You lot have been the biggest violators of civil liberties ever : Political correctness ? Who idea was that ?

[Vinny Rafarino]

have seen the US military…what I haven’t seen is whole parades of US military. Column after column of mobile rocket launchers…brigade after brigade of snap stepping soldiers…row after row of tanks…banners flying, emblazoned with heroic images of their oligarch leaders and the marching bands…Da da da da da - Ta da da da da da - Da da da da da …you can almost hear the soviet national anthem, in the in the back ground… No comrade, it doesn’t seem close at all


Not close at all eh? What were you saing about marching bands? Nice hats, very cute.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/1102ArmyBand.JPG

Row after row of what? Tanks? In the USA? It simply couldn't considering the fact that you said so. :lol:

http://www.tpd.torrnet.com/Tank_2002.jpg

This one should cover marching soldiers and banners, I guess this just isn't your day jack.

http://www.forscom.army.mil/images/parade.jpg

Howitzers and tanks? Not in tha USA!

http://www.tpd.torrnet.com/M198HowitzerPhoto.jpg


So, what point were you trying to make son?


Why would greed not be..we certainly see it in the animal kingdom..animals don't share equally in the kill...the stronger take more which in turn keeps them stronger. Often they will eat far more than they need simply because it is available at the detriment of their fellows...so yes, greed would seem to be, at least in part, due to basic instinct

Randian nonsense. This is not "greed"; animals both lack the abilty of rational thought and conciousness, therefor they cannot be "greedy".

They also do not possess the abilty to stop eating when they are full. They will continue to eat until they physically cannot eat any more. In addition, animals often do not have "regular" meals and will sometimes have to go days or even weeks without a meal; thus they insinctively eat more than enough in case there is a large amount of time in between meals.

I'm shocked that I have to explain these very simple concepts to you.


Humans are about the only species on earth that will willingly sacrifice anything to another being..and the anthropology of that suggest motives beyond the simple act of giving...


Cute but unfortunately irrelevant.


No, I meant to say in the real world…if I ever need for you to suggest to me what I “meant” to say, I will let you know

Then you wil remain wrong.


. You see, we have a real world, and we have a theoretical world. Communism is in the theoretical world, because it doesn’t exist and never has...and I might add that it is never likely to...communism must grow out of socialism and socialism has this nasty tendency to turn into a totalitarian system that virtually eliminates the possibility of communism. When you speak of such a world, you can express your thoughts of it with wide eyed wonder like a child discussing santa claus, but the rest of us know that you are speaking from your imagination

Irrelevant to your original statement. Keep on track sunshine.


Have you ever studied anthropology? From the beginning, when we first stepped out of the junge (and even before) there were class distinctions. There have always been alpha males, alpha females, and alpha males in waiting…this is as true among the human species as among the vast majority of living creatures…it seems to not be true among hive insects where you are simply born into a class that you may never leave which is even more distasteful.

Pure speculation in regard to ancient human behaviour; the rest have no relvance to the discussion.



Class systems are part of our evolution…they were necessary, or they never would have happened…it isn’t just us, remember, it is most of the higher species on earth. To say that they are not necessary, is to enter the realm of theory and imagination…where santa claus lives.

More speculation. You are also quite wrong.


Note: At this point, you either dismantle my idea via hard evidence, analogy, or like example...inane insult merely scores points for me and demonstrates the shallowness of your thought. Hint: Explain in some detail why you believe that class systems are not part of our very evolution.


There is no pont in "dismantling" absurdity.


Here again, in a real debate, you would be expected demonstrate by example an example

Who said anything about a debate? I addition to "dismantling" there is no purpose in debating absurdity.

I am here to point my finger at you and laugh, not here to try educate you.


you do know what an oligargh is??)...

Certainly. I, unlike yourself, learned that word many years ago. I suspect you have recently heard it somewhere on TV and now it's your "word of the week"; much like CI's over use of the word "sovereign".

I can't wait for you to start saying "fair and balanced". :lol:


thus demonstrating that class systems are not a natural part of life, and also putting to rest my point that class systems are not part of our evolution.

Goodness me! You have proven an idea that has eluded the scientific community for centuries in just a couple paragraphs!

You should be awarded the Nobel Prize, or a least a little ribbon and a cookie.


In order to establish that it is indeed an absurdity, one must provide a more powerful argument as I have apparently done…it is up to you to prove that my ideas are absurd...an absurd idea is most easy to pick apart…and there is immense satisfaction in doing it. In order to point out the folly, one must use example or analogy to highlight the absurdity. It appears that you are quite unable to “get it up to do this”..why is that?

Says who?


It would appear that you are laughing alone...or maybe you are joined by a few of your "intellectual" equals who would prefer to remain in the background and watch you get torn to shreds...thus illustrating my alpha theory.


Old. Try a new insult.


Ahhh...socially constructed behaviors..this brings us back to animals. They have evolved their behaviors...and they have evolved because they worked...Systems that do not work may be found in the dustbin of history. Among animals, the alphas are there because of genetics...nothing more. Please, if you will, explain why genetics would not be just as central to our position within our society. We are certainly more complex in our behavior, but there is something that makes the alphas alphas...what do you suggest it is, if not genetic.

No it doesn't, the point remains firmly in place among humans; animals are irrelevant. Are you confused as to what a socially constructed behaviour is?

I will be more than happy to teach you my boy, just feel free to ask.


The examples of highborn individuals who lost it all and died in poverty are innumeralbe...as well as examples of those born to poverty who achieved fantastic success..but all who are born low and all who are born high do not fall or climb...perhaps they are simply realizing their genetic potential. Among the animals, being the offspring of an alpha in no way assures that an individual will be an alpha...within litters, some are more dominant, some are naturally submissive...explain how "socially constructed" behaviors are not simply part and parcel of what we are.


:lol:


and with your poor showing so far, it is becoming painfully obvious who is dee and who is dum. If this is the best that you can do, perhaps you should find yourself a kiddie politik site and work your way up to adult conversation...or could it be that I have inadvertently wandered into a kiddie politik site

Old.

Perhaps you should try some exercises that stimulate the imagination; D&D is very popular amont geeks and convention nerds. If you try really really hard son, you may just get me to level two.

Don't forget your Spock ears!



You obviouslty just don't have the analytical ability to comprehend the relationship I'm drawing between sovereignty, individual determination, and independence. I know what soveriegnty means. If you did, you would understand the relationship, but you obviously don't. Get a dictionary. Actually, see below, I've spelled it out for you.


Confusion.


Ahh, more spin and rationalization despite historical facts. What a surprise.



Yep, spin. Perhaps we should attempt a "regime change" to protect the "sovereignity" of the USA by "oustering" any "evil doers" that exist. We will accomplish this by presenting "fair and balanced" reporting free from "liberal media" spin.


This didn't address my point at all. Your misdirection means nothing. Your failure to address the issue is indicative that you have no response.


I'm sorry sweetheart; daddy had imortant work things to do.


Inevitably, in a commie regime, people have to be assigned jobs

Says who?


Central planners are going to tell you what you will do with at least 8 hourse of your waking life. It may be mopping floors, whether you want to or not.

Wrong.


I just want to be assured that they chose to do it.


Assuring capitalists of anything is not important to me.


Is that relatively clear or shall I slow down homeboy?

This one is positively ancient.

[Professor Moneybags]

Why would greed not be..we certainly see it in the animal kingdom..animals don't share equally in the kill...the stronger take more which in turn keeps them stronger. Often they will eat far more than they need simply because it is available at the detriment of their fellows...so yes, greed would seem to be, at least in part, due to basic instinct


Randian nonsense. This is not "greed"; animals both lack the abilty of rational thought and conciousness, therefor they cannot be "greedy".

Perhaps you would care to explain where these "Randians" claimed all of this ?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 13 2004, 10:14 PM



Perhaps you would care to explain where these "Randians" claimed all of this ? [/quote]
The question is where have they not.
If you are not familiar with the bumbleheads that live, die and wank to every ridiculous word Ayn Rand has ever written then you must not be a very good capitalist.

[redstar2000]

I suggest that it is indeed inevitable that the few would indeed attempt enslave the many.

You argue this, of course, from the standpoint of recorded history...which is indeed the history of class societies.

But the human species is what, 150,000 to 250,000 years old. An enormous time span about which we know nothing or pretty close to that.

You will, of course, assert that humanity was hierarchical in that period...but suppose it wasn't?

Hunter-gatherer societies that lasted long enough to be studied by 20th century anthropologists were rare...but evidently (to the best of my knowledge), they had very little of what we would call "class" (a "war chief" but only as long as there was a "war"; a "hunting chief" but only while there was a collective hunt actually going on; a "shaman" to negotiate with the "spirits", etc.).

In those days, everyone was essentially in the same relationship to the means of production...no one was in any position to compel another to labor for his benefit. My guess (:lol:) is that a "war chief" or "hunting chief" who got "the big head" was probably killed and eaten.

Among the Hopi (American southwest), it was not that long ago that alpha-arrogance was met by stringing the bastard up by his thumbs. (!)


The premise of your argument is flawed. I suggested that oligarchs would emerge if we attempted to erase the natural distinctions between us. You are countering that no class of aristocrats or slave owners has emerged, completely ignoring the fact that we have classes within our society which is why there are no oligarchs.

We do still have oligarchs...obviously!

My point is that the previous forms of oligarchy have been abolished. We no longer accept Aristotle's premise that some people are "natural slaves". Likewise, we no longer accept the "divine right of kings", the "natural aristocracy", or the right of a religious leader to dictate earthly policy on "Godly authority".

Possession of capital has become the final argument in support of oligarchy. It is still widely-accepted.

But for how much longer?


I am not, and never have suggested that a particular group of people are genetically superior and thus fit to rule over any other group. When I suggested that what we are is most certainly genetic, and that the traits that may allow one person to achieve more success than another are in all likelihood genetic, I was speaking in terms of the individual -- not his ethnic or socioeconomic group.

Pure speculation.

And you cannot slip out of the "group" character of your hypothesis so easily. That innocent phrase "socio-economic group" is pretty damn important when you consider the role of inheritance in modern capitalist society.

The most important step in acquiring great wealth these days is being born to it.

You can call that "genetic" if you like. :lol:


We know that much of what we do is related to the pleasure centers of our brains which would certainly be a genetic trait.

Well, yes and no. A reward to the "pleasure centers" is greatly to be desired...but I imagine that those centers are extremely flexible and respond to a very wide range of stimuli.


Since we are quite sharply divided on the war, I would say that there is nothing collective about it -- and the leadership of the nation had no collectivist thought in mind when the decision to war was made. In fact, we don't have a collective identity here....there is nothing collective about us.

That's a pretty silly thing to say; if you look at the history of our imperial adventures, you'll find enormous public support for them...at the beginning, at least.


In any group, there must be someone who is in charge -- otherwise you merely have a collection of individuals who are competing for the available resources.

No, that's a myth common to all despotic paradigms...including capitalism.

The vast bulk of human behavior -- if there were a way to measure it -- would probably prove to be co-operative rather than competitive.


In order to have organization, there must be an organizer...and the organizer is genetically programmed to be exactly what he is.

Yeah, organizers come with a special variant of the AABBc gene on the 12th chromosome.

You are being silly.


One only has to look to the animal kingdom to see the truth in this.

I think you've been reading too much Robert Ardrey.


Hold on a minute, you contradict your previous statement here...you said yourself that there were no oligarchs trying to keep us in our places, and now you say that the oligarchs are expending tremendous amounts of resources to keep us in our places..which is it??...

I think I clarified this point above. Oligarchy has changed.

The fact that we no longer permit certain kinds of oligarchy suggests to me that we need not permit any kind of oligarchy.


There have always been those who have claimed that if we don’t do this, or we don’t do that, the sky will fall...You are just one more person promising doom.

Please try to read more carefully...I used the word may, not "will".


We are what we are. You are railing against nature.

And you are simply ranting.

What you're really saying is that you hope that nature will preserve your class privilege.

Maybe, maybe not.


There can be no system that does not reward alpha behavior.

That's just more of the same. You hope that "there can be no system", etc.


The alpha gets an endorphin rush simply from seeing the others submit...It isn’t the submission that he wants, it is the endorphin rush...demanding the submission is merely the tool he uses to get the rush.

Interesting hypothesis...and it suggests a very simple solution to the "alpha-problem".

Give them an implant that dispenses a generous amount of cocaine on a regular basis.

They'll get their regular "rush"...and the rest of us can be permanently free of all oligarchs.

It would certainly be nice if it all turned out to be that simple. :lol:


...and if within our genes is the potential to be an alpha, that is where the pleasure will be found and that is what the individual will be.

No...because there are other ways to "find pleasure".


Freedom to live in [the] absence of coercion. That is the definition of freedom. It is eternal.

It is a totally abstract and unhistorical definition...hence meaningless.

If a social order does not permit you to rape, have you "lost your freedom"?


Again, such as who?

Who? All of them!

Good grief, what planet do you live on? Have you ever heard of some rich bastard commissioning a biography to the effect that "he was an incompetent asshole who got lucky"?


Capital is an inanimate concept; it is not entitled to rights.

You are completely ignorant of modern bourgeois law.


Individual rights apply to everyone rich or poor. It has nothing to do with "capital". Rights are not for sale.

Tell it to O.J. Simpson. If you're rich enough, you can commit murder and get away with it!

Rights are always for sale in modern capitalism.


[The Patriot Act] is anti-capitalist. I don't know why you're whining about it.

Yes, we "know" that the Patriot Act is "anti-capitalist" because the whole capitalist class rose up and denounced it.

:lol:

Note further that I am not "whining"...simply explaining to you the "facts of political life".

And not having an easy job of it either.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Pale Rider]

Congratulations comrade…in 3 posts you have clearly demonstrated that you lack the intellectual wattage required to hold up your end of this conversation. Impotent superciliousness..possibly compensating for other.....shortcomings?

One can only hope that yours is not representative of all of the conversation to be found here. I must say that I am dissappointed...most of the communists that I have spoken to over the years seemed to be much brighter than you...actually able to debate ideas...not so quick to cop out with feigned indifference.

For one who claims a philosophy that honors equality above all, you debase it terribly with your "superior to you" attitude....maybe you are an oligarch in waiting...neh??

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Pale [email protected]Aug 14 2004, 01:21 AM
Congratulations comrade…in 3 posts you have clearly demonstrated that you lack the intellectual wattage required to hold up your end of this conversation. Impotent superciliousness..possibly compensating for other.....shortcomings?

One can only hope that yours is not representative of all of the conversation to be found here. I must say that I am dissappointed...most of the communists that I have spoken to over the years seemed to be much brighter than you...actually able to debate ideas...not so quick to cop out with feigned indifference.

For one who claims a philosophy that honors equality above all, you debase it terribly with your "superior to you" attitude....maybe you are an oligarch in waiting...neh??
Here is another positively ancient insult...I'm not sure how long you have been on the internet boy but this one lost its charm a long time ago.

Boring my boy, boring.

[Pale Rider]

I suggest that it is indeed inevitable that the few would indeed attempt enslave the many.

You argue this, of course, from the standpoint of recorded history...which is indeed the history of class societies.

But the human species is what, 150,000 to 250,000 years old. An enormous time span about which we know nothing or pretty close to that.

You will, of course, assert that humanity was hierarchical in that period...but suppose it wasn't?

Hunter-gatherer societies that lasted long enough to be studied by 20th century anthropologists were rare...but evidently (to the best of my knowledge), they had very little of what we would call "class" (a "war chief" but only as long as there was a "war"; a "hunting chief" but only while there was a collective hunt actually going on; a "shaman" to negotiate with the "spirits", etc.).

In those days, everyone was essentially in the same relationship to the means of production...no one was in any position to compel another to labor for his benefit. My guess ( ) is that a "war chief" or "hunting chief" who got "the big head" was probably killed and eaten.

Among the Hopi (American southwest), it was not that long ago that alpha-arrogance was met by stringing the bastard up by his thumbs. (!)

But we do know quite a bit about what we were like before we became “civilized”. Over the past two centuries, anthropologists have made first contact with primitive hunter gatherer societies on every continent ranging from the Chenchu of India, to the Chukchi of Siberia, from the !Kung San of Southern Africa to the Ainu of Japan, from the aborigines of Australia to the Shoshone of North America. To study these mostly vanished ways of life was to get a glimpse at the early stages of our own cultural evolution. In a sense, their cultures were living fossils.

For example, more than one anthropologist has described the Shoshone Indians of present day Nevada as “The Irreducible Minimum of Human Society”. The largest stable unit of their society was the family and the male head of the family was the entire political organization and its entire legal system. Even when we reach the irreducible minimum, there is someone in charge.

For months at a time the Shoshone family went it alone in the desert with a bag and a digging stick searching for roots and seeds. For part of the year, however, the Shoshone did spend their time in multi family camps. During certain months, the only real game that they had access to (jackrabbits) were abundant. To catch them, the Shoshone employed a tool that was too large for one family to handle. They used a net, hundreds of feet long into which they would herd the rabbits. Once in the net, they would club them to death.

During this short time, as many as a dozen families would come together under a “rabbit boss”. For this time, the rabbit boss was the leader and the individual heads of the families involved subordinated themselves to the rabbit boss in order to get a share of this much anticipated food supply.

Contrary to your suggestion, if you spend some time really studying anthropology you will find that all of the primitives had class structures. In most cases, they weren’t born to a class, but through strength, skill, intelligence, or a combination of the three, individuals did take command positions within the groups. Why do you suppose we remember the names of the great chiefs but not of the tribesmen? Do some research…the study of our evolution is fascinating, and full of surprises.


We do still have oligarchs...obviously!

I would argue that we don’t…at least here in the US anyway. We are not ruled by the few. While the few may be in the positions of power, we are still the ones that put them there. Oligarchs more closely describes the polit bureau of the soviet. They were not subject to the whims of the soviet people…they were only subject to the whims of the more powerful among their own number. That is the kind of government you get when you attempt to make all people the same…the alphas will rise to the top and enslave the entire society.


I am not, and never have suggested that a particular group of people are genetically superior and thus fit to rule over any other group. When I suggested that what we are is most certainly genetic, and that the traits that may allow one person to achieve more success than another are in all likelihood genetic, I was speaking in terms of the individual -- not his ethnic or socioeconomic group.

Pure speculation.

Is it? Individuals from all groups both ethnic and socioeconomic distinguish themselves all the time. Why do they excel when their peers, who live in the same environment do not? What is it inside them that drives them beyond what their contemporaries consider “enough”.

No one disputes that world class athletes achieve what they do because they are genetically disposed to it. You could ride your bicycle 12 hours a day, get the best trainers in the world, eat the most perfect diet and train religiously for years, yet…if your lung capacity is not in the 5.5 liter range and your heart can not pump the enormous quantity of blood required, you simply could not compete with the likes of Lance Armstrong….he makes it look so easy.

There are successful people in this world who also make it look so easy. Is it such a stretch to think that it might just be what they are made of?


And you cannot slip out of the "group" character of your hypothesis so easily. That innocent phrase "socio-economic group" is pretty damn important when you consider the role of inheritance in modern capitalist society.

The most important step in acquiring great wealth these days is being born to it.

Here, you are simply wrong. In the US, 80% of all millionaires are first generation rich. This is easily verified. The numbers of people who inherit wealth in this country are growing smaller every year. Many of the old fortunes have been lost.

The vast majority of millionaires in this country own small businesses. Hell, the guy who does the landscaping at my office is barely 25…he has finished about half of an AA at the local community college in landscape design and he is on track to make his first million by the time he is 30…a millionaire…cutting the grass. He is typical of the millionaires in this country. Don’t fall for that “born into it” story…it simply is not true.

In this country the most important step in acquiring great wealth is the willingness to get out and work for it. The numbers bear me out on this one..

I do a little thing sometimes in my spare time...damned near anyone can do it.It is not illegal, or imoral, or painful ..and it is not unusual to get paid $200 an hour or more for doing it. It doesn't involve sales, marketing, or any of that crap..and you get to make the rules...Would you be interested to know what it is?


We know that much of what we do is related to the pleasure centers of our brains which would certainly be a genetic trait.


Well, yes and no. A reward to the "pleasure centers" is greatly to be desired...but I imagine that those centers are extremely flexible and respond to a very wide range of stimuli.

Exactly…as I said, some people may derive pleasure from the very things that are required for success, while others may derive their pleasure from activity that has no economic value.


That's a pretty silly thing to say; if you look at the history of our imperial adventures, you'll find enormous public support for them...at the beginning, at least.

Do you remember the incredible numbers who protested the war in Iraq before it started…It was like Vietnam all over again. You couldn’t go anywhere that you didn’t see a group protesting…No, we were divided from the beginning.

Not so much for Afghanistan, but then we had just been attacked and 3000 of our people killed.



In any group, there must be someone who is in charge -- otherwise you merely have a collection of individuals who are competing for the available resources.

No, that's a myth common to all despotic paradigms...including capitalism.

The vast bulk of human behavior -- if there were a way to measure it -- would probably prove to be co-operative rather than competitive.

Please give some examples…if cooperative, describes the vast bulk of human behavior, examples should be easy to come by.

I would counter that when people interact with each other in mutually profitable (cooperative) fashion, they don’t necessarily realize what they are actually doing. Evolutionary psychologists have made a compelling case that unconscious savviness is simply a part of what we are and is rooted ultimately in our genes. That natural selection, via the evolution of “reciprocal altruism” has hardwired into us a set of impulses that no matter how warm and mushy they may feel, are designed for the express purpose of bringing us beneficial exchange…that is, they help us get what we want.



In order to have organization, there must be an organizer...and the organizer is genetically programmed to be exactly what he is.

Yeah, organizers come with a special variant of the AABBc gene on the 12th chromosome.

You are being silly.

Ok, if I am being silly, then explain why, in the animal kingdom, it isn’t uncommon to for the alpha to not necessarily be the largest, or strongest…why would a large man back down and exhibit submissive body language to a smaller weaker man in a confrontational situation? Look into what we are and how we act, then compare our behaviors to animal behaviors…when you find examples of us, acting like them, or them acting like us…chances are, you are seeing genetics at work. Of course, if you can offer examples that run contrary to the suggestions that I am putting forth, I am willing to look at them and reconsider my position.


I think I clarified this point above. Oligarchy has changed.

The fact that we no longer permit certain kinds of oligarchy suggests to me that we need not permit any kind of oligarchy.

I believe we have a disconnect regarding oligarchs and oligarchy. An oligarchy is not something that is permitted…it is a situation in which a few people dictate, without fear of reprisal, to the entire society. While it may be that the numbers of congress are few compared to the numbers of the population, the power still lies with us because we can remove them from power with our vote…(yeah, I still believe in the power of my vote). As I said, an oligarchy would resemble the soviet polit bureau…they didn’t answer to the people…the people answered to them.


And you are simply ranting.

What you're really saying is that you hope that nature will preserve your class privilege.

Maybe, maybe not.

I am not ranting…I am providing specific examples to illustrate my points…you are not. If you want to overwhelm my argument, then provide specifics that counter me…then we can compare specifics and decide who has the most powerful argument.

I don’t expect nature to preserve my class priviledge…I don’t even think that I have class priviledge. I am a Lakota Sioux. I have never lived on the reservation. I grew up in a small mill town in South Carolina. My parents were dirt poor… Today I am a dentist with a very successful practice. I am 57 years old…I grew up before the days of affirmative action. I worked hard…simple as that.


There can be no system that does not reward alpha behavior.

That's just more of the same. You hope that "there can be no system", etc.

Again, please describe a system that does not reward alpha behavior. I don’t hope anything…I am simply describing the world as I see it. If I am wrong, then show me how I am wrong. I am very open minded…and willing to consider all possibilities…if you want to convince me…give me some possibilities to describe. At this time, I am unable to describe any system in which there would be no rewards for being smarter, stronger, better looking, etc… You claim that there is such a system, describe it…but be prepared for “what if’s”.


Interesting hypothesis...and it suggests a very simple solution to the "alpha-problem".

Give them an implant that dispenses a generous amount of cocaine on a regular basis.

They'll get their regular "rush"...and the rest of us can be permanently free of all oligarchs.

It would certainly be nice if it all turned out to be that simple.

Ever hear of Occam’s razor…it has been my experience that the simplest explanation is often the closest to the truth. The problem with your suggestion is that the cocaine would eventually destroy the alpha’s ability to do the very thing that he is often needed to do.

I am a dentist, would you want to sit down in my chair knowing that I have a cocaine implant in my head juicing my system while I am working on your teeth?


]...and if within our genes is the potential to be an alpha, that is where the pleasure will be found and that is what the individual will be.[/color]

No...because there are other ways to "find pleasure".

Other ways for other people…If I get my jollies from a certain thing, don’t suppose that you can suggest another thing and expect me to simply go along. …I am driven to be the best dentist that I can possibly be…I make a lot of money at it, but the satisfaction, for me, is in perfecting my craft. The money is an external benefit…I get the rush when I look in your mouth and am literally unable to see the work that I have just finished doing. Why would you want to change that quality within me?...and why should I not be compensated at a higher rate than a dentist who does not possess my degree of skill or my dedication to seeing that you get the best care possible?

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14 2004, 02:26 AM
Here is another positively ancient insult...I'm not sure how long you have been on the internet boy but this one lost its charm a long time ago.
I have only been on the net since 1200 baud was considered a fast connection..and internet access was purchased by the hour

[Professor Moneybags]

Perhaps you would care to explain where these "Randians" claimed all of this ?

The question is where have they not.

So it should be easy to provide an in-context example. Oh, but then you haven't read of these words you seem to think are "ridiculous", so you wouldn't know anyway.


If you are not familiar with the bumbleheads that live, die and wank to every ridiculous word Ayn Rand has ever written then you must not be a very good capitalist.

Unfortunately for you I am, and I don't recall any of what you claim; you're lying, otherwise you would have provided quotes or evidence. Or did you just "assume" it ?

[Pale Rider]

I never read Ayn.. Odd that comrade would call my suggestions randian. My ideas on this subject developed out of my studies into psychology, anthropology, and a few other assorted sciences...Is Ayn's writing such that it can be confused with the ideas found in scientific texts?

If he is mistaken, it would not surprise me. I took some time and reviewed his posts...almost 3,000 of them. You should do the same, it won't take long as he rarely posts more than a few lines. Limited knowledge base I would suspect. When he does discuss an idea and extends his thoughts beyond the realm of a few lines, his lack of in depth knowledge and understanding of particular disipline becomes painfully evident. It is an interesting exercise, and sheds much light on who comrade really is.

[DaCuBaN]

Interesting...


Why would you want to change that quality within me?...and why should I not be compensated at a higher rate than a dentist who does not possess my degree of skill or my dedication to seeing that you get the best care possible?

I wouldn't, and you are evidently a 'born' dentist. Quite simply, someone who didn't care for orthodontic work wouldn't be doing it.

You wouldn't be getting more or less, just exactly the same irregardless of the kind of work you do. Forget the idea of competing with other dentists, it's not relevant here.


Over the past two centuries, anthropologists have made first contact with primitive hunter gatherer societies on every continent ranging from the Chenchu of India, to the Chukchi of Siberia, from the !Kung San of Southern Africa to the Ainu of Japan, from the aborigines of Australia to the Shoshone of North America. To study these mostly vanished ways of life was to get a glimpse at the early stages of our own cultural evolution. In a sense, their cultures were living fossils

I'm sure you realise this, but I feel I must point out that to think that these societies are 'fossilised' in that they do not change is patently absurd.


For example, more than one anthropologist has described the Shoshone Indians of present day Nevada as “The Irreducible Minimum of Human Society”. The largest stable unit of their society was the family and the male head of the family was the entire political organization and its entire legal system. Even when we reach the irreducible minimum, there is someone in charge.


This is simply not true. Spin it the other way around: "when we reach the irreducible minimum, there are always subservients" - This statement in itself is true, but I wonder how much do you remember of your childhood - how often did the actions of your parents go against your own desires? How often did they do what was 'best' for you, only for it to cause you harm?

If you answer 'never' then you are a lucky man.


During this short time, as many as a dozen families would come together under a “rabbit boss”. For this time, the rabbit boss was the leader and the individual heads of the families involved subordinated themselves to the rabbit boss in order to get a share of this much anticipated food supply

The 'rabbit boss' is very much dependant on the other families then. This is pretty much irrelevant - it's absurd to think that every single decision can be made democratically - some things aren't worth the effort, and this is an example.

Also, notice the 'rabbit boss' does not pay the people for their work, he shares the spoils with them.


We are not ruled by the few. While the few may be in the positions of power, we are still the ones that put them there. Oligarchs more closely describes the polit bureau of the soviet. They were not subject to the whims of the soviet people…they were only subject to the whims of the more powerful among their own number. That is the kind of government you get when you attempt to make all people the same…the alphas will rise to the top and enslave the entire society

It's a simple matter of logical deduction: We are 'ruled' by politicians who indeed are elected by the masses, irregardless of your opinion of the matter. However, what exactly are they answerable to?

The market, not the people. It's not that the rich have any more intrinsic power than the rest, it's a simple matter of means.


No one disputes that world class athletes achieve what they do because they are genetically disposed to it. You could ride your bicycle 12 hours a day, get the best trainers in the world, eat the most perfect diet and train religiously for years, yet…if your lung capacity is not in the 5.5 liter range and your heart can not pump the enormous quantity of blood required, you simply could not compete with the likes of Lance Armstrong….he makes it look so easy

Just as some people have a larger intellect to others. Should people be prevented from trying their hand at something because of this?


Here, you are simply wrong. In the US, 80% of all millionaires are first generation rich. This is easily verified. The numbers of people who inherit wealth in this country are growing smaller every year. Many of the old fortunes have been lost.

The whole thing is a giant merry-go-round. We can look at the history of the UK and US together to see that - the british elite (mostly industrialists with some royalty and landowners) and the 'new' american industrialists circa 1820-1920 for example.

It doesn't take long for more of the 'elite' to be born - all it takes is for a first generation millionaire to procreate and the cycle continues. Everyone one way or another started out at the bottom.


As I said, an oligarchy would resemble the soviet polit bureau…they didn’t answer to the people…the people answered to them.

When was the last time you saw real change, even in a landslide election?

Take the UK as an example - back in the 90's the 'New Labour' won something ridiculous like 75% of seats in the UK. This represented a change from Conservative (somewhat LF capitalist) to Labour (democratic socialist) - nothing changed. Even if we are granted the 'joke' of a vote and exercise it, it's still the same old crap.


Again, please describe a system that does not reward alpha behavior. I don’t hope anything…I am simply describing the world as I see it. If I am wrong, then show me how I am wrong. I am very open minded…and willing to consider all possibilities…if you want to convince me…give me some possibilities to describe. At this time, I am unable to describe any system in which there would be no rewards for being smarter, stronger, better looking, etc…

Society doesn't do anything to people, simply put it's people who do it - so long as there are hero worshippers then there will be rewards for acting like an alpha. This does not mean exclusion from such thoughts is impossible however, simply those who have not yet learned this, must.


I never read Ayn

Ever heard of 'objectivism'? She's guilty. The woman thought the most honourable thing a man can do is live for himself.

She was basically a yoghurt.

[redstar2000]

To study these mostly vanished ways of life was to get a glimpse at the early stages of our own cultural evolution. In a sense, their cultures were living fossils.

Not exactly. What we saw were hunter-gatherer societies in extremis...long after they had been pushed to the margins of habitation.

We don't really know anything about how they functioned when they were the only form of human society on earth...say 15,000 years ago or so.


The largest stable unit of their society was the family and the male head of the family was the entire political organization and its entire legal system. Even when we reach the irreducible minimum, there is someone in charge.

The Shoshone had "nuclear families" with "dad" in charge...just like a 1950s dummyvision sitcom?

You know what? I don't believe that. I think this is likely to be a case of reading the cultural prejudices of the anthropologist into the data.

Think about that. How would you "know" that "dad" was "in charge"...all the time?

What happened when the anthropologist "wasn't looking"?


Why do you suppose we remember the names of the great chiefs but not of the tribesmen?

Cultural prejudice, of course. The 18th and 19th century folks who studied hunter-gatherer societies still believed in a "great man" theory of history.

Now, of course, even reputable bourgeois historians have rejected the "great man" theory...only "popular history" still uses such a "method".


I would argue that we don’t -- at least here in the US anyway. We are not ruled by the few. While the few may be in the positions of power, we are still the ones that put them there.

You mean in the sense of our periodic "elections" in which we get to "choose" Oligarch A or Oligarch B?

In any event, that's not what I was referring to when I spoke of our modern oligarchs: the major stockholders, directors, and executives of the largest corporations.

Capitalist politicians are ceremonial "hired hands" for the most part...though real oligarchs occasionally take a direct hand in things (Nelson Rockefeller really wanted his name in the history books as an American president...for some strange reason.)

You must remember that the purpose of bourgeois "democracy" is to give the appearance of popular sovereignty while ensuring that real decision-making power remains in the hands of the oligarchs.


No one disputes that world class athletes achieve what they do because they are genetically disposed to it.

Then let me be the first.

Your example of Lance Armstrong is instructive: in a society that did not even have, much less race, bicycles, would anyone have ever heard of him? Yes, one can be born with the genetic potential to do all kinds of things...but if the social order does not have some of those things, then you will never do them, regardless of your genetic potential.

(And in the case of sports that involve exceptional skill, you must begin at an early age. Michael Jordan was one of the greatest basketball players in the history of the game; but when he tried to play baseball, he stunk! Learning to hit a baseball is something that you have to start learning at a young age.)

All the potentially great writers with the misfortune to be born before writing was invented...lived in vain.


There are successful people in this world who also make it look so easy. Is it such a stretch to think that it might just be what they are made of?

The reason that it "looks easy" is often that it really is easy. But you have to have the social apparatus in place.

It doesn't hurt to be lucky, either.


Here, you are simply wrong. In the US, 80% of all millionaires are first generation rich. This is easily verified. The numbers of people who inherit wealth in this country are growing smaller every year. Many of the old fortunes have been lost.

Total fantasy...and overlooks the fact that most first generation millionaires started with at least a few hundred thousand.

It also overlooks the fact that by contemporary capitalist standards, a million dollars is not really a significant sum (however enormous it may appear in the eyes of a worker).

The "cheap seats" in the ruling class probably run $50-100 million.


...he is on track to make his first million by the time he is 30...

And likely his last as well.


In this country the most important step in acquiring great wealth is the willingness to get out and work for it.

Nope. Great fortunes may begin with the "hard-working entrepreneur" who is also lucky -- but after that, the hardest work you have to do is get yourself born and survive to hear the reading of daddy's will.

Sam Walton's kids are tied for what, fourth place, on the wealthiest Americans list...did they "work hard" for their $12 billion each? Are they "genetically superior" to you or me?

You may also stop and consider why such a fuss was raised over the repeal of the inheritance tax.

If "hard work" is so "important", why would anyone care even if the inheritance tax was 100 per cent?


I do a little thing sometimes in my spare time...damned near anyone can do it. It is not illegal, or immoral, or painful ..and it is not unusual to get paid $200 an hour or more for doing it. It doesn't involve sales, marketing, or any of that crap...and you get to make the rules...Would you be interested to know what it is?

:lol: I have discovered an interesting mathematical model for sharply reducing the odds against winning the lottery...it won't guarantee you a winning combination but you'll be playing at enormously better odds than other players. "Would you be interested to know what it is"?

Given the rise of superstition in late capitalism, starting a new religion would be a "sure-fire" winner...you just need a strong stomach and a flair for lying. (Genetic traits, no doubt. :lol:)


Exactly -- as I said, some people may derive pleasure from the very things that are required for success, while others may derive their pleasure from activity that has no economic value.

That is what you said, but I was not agreeing with you.

My point is that the pleasure centers in each individual possess the capacity to respond to a wide variety of stimuli.

If one kind of pleasurable stimulus is unavailable, you will still respond to others.

Denial of the pleasure of "getting rich" does not mean a life of "gloom" and "despair".


No, we were divided [on the war] from the beginning.

The polls said otherwise...perhaps they were lying.


Please give some examples -- if cooperative, describes the vast bulk of human behavior, examples should be easy to come by.

How about your last hunting trip? (Assuming you hunt with friends.)

Or anything else that you've done for the intrinsic pleasure of the activity...a picnic, a trip to the beach, whatever.

Did you put someone "in charge" and "obey his orders" unquestioningly?

Even within the hierarchal workplace, useful work is actually most likely to be accomplished when workers co-operate with each other rather than compete with each other. A workforce "at each other's throats" makes a crappy mousetrap.


Evolutionary psychologists have made a compelling case that unconscious savviness is simply a part of what we are and is rooted ultimately in our genes.

I don't mean to be unduly harsh here, but I don't think evolutionary psychologists could make a "compelling case" for taking a leak.

That stuff is "junk science"...consult the reference that I've already posted.


Ok, if I am being silly, then explain why, in the animal kingdom, it isn’t uncommon for the alpha to not necessarily be the largest, or strongest -- why would a large man back down and exhibit submissive body language to a smaller weaker man in a confrontational situation?

In the "animal kingdom" (a lovely archaic phrase that expresses an outmoded class bias), "alpha status" is often unstable or, at best, meta-stable.

Today's "alpha" may be tomorrow's "beta" or even "gamma".

As to the big guy "backing down" from the "little guy"...it's generally because the "little guy" has a bunch of goons ready to back him up.

Retreating in the face of superior over-all strength does not, I think, require a specific "genetic" explanation.


Look into what we are and how we act, then compare our behaviors to animal behaviors -- when you find examples of us, acting like them, or them acting like us -- chances are, you are seeing genetics at work.

Ah, but which animals and what specific behaviors? The variety of animal behaviors far exceeds the variety among humans...do you just pick the examples you like and ignore the ones that teach other lessons?

If bonobos cooperate and baboons compete, let's concentrate on baboons, right?

Like I said, junk science.


. An oligarchy is not something that is permitted -- it is a situation in which a few people dictate, without fear of reprisal, to the entire society.

Oligarchy is "permitted" in the sense that it could in principle be overthrown at any moment. All that's required is refusal to obey and the oligarchy is powerless.


While it may be that the numbers of congress are few compared to the numbers of the population, the power still lies with us because we can remove them from power with our vote (yeah, I still believe in the power of my vote).

No, all you can do is change the personnel in that particular oligarchy...they remain collectively an oligarchy.

The fact that you "still believe in the power" of your vote is unfortunate...but has no bearing on what is actually taking place.


I don’t even think that I have class privilege. I am a Lakota Sioux. I have never lived on the reservation. I grew up in a small mill town in South Carolina. My parents were dirt poor -- Today I am a dentist with a very successful practice. I am 57 years old -- I grew up before the days of affirmative action. I worked hard -- simple as that.

It's always difficult to respond to people's "life stories" without causing offense.

So I'll try to keep this general rather than personal.

The way I heard it, the folks who go to dental college are the ones who couldn't afford/couldn't get into medical school. The ones who can't afford/can't get into dental college go to mortuary school.

And I would imagine that kids who do grow up "on the reservation" are pretty lucky to even make it through high school.

In any event, "hard work" doesn't have much to do with the over-all outcome. Your "starting-point" in capitalist society usually has the final word on where you "finish".


Again, please describe a system that does not reward alpha behavior.

I thought that was precisely your objection to communism...that because it didn't reward "alpha-behavior", it "couldn't work" -- all you'd get would be a USSR-style despotism with "alphas" running the show.

Communism would indeed be a society in which "alpha-behavior" would not only not be rewarded but would be met with social disapproval and possibly even punishment.

I did mention the Hopi, didn't I?


At this time, I am unable to describe any system in which there would be no rewards for being smarter, stronger, better looking, etc... You claim that there is such a system, describe it...but be prepared for "what if’s".

This shifts the ground of the discussion slightly...when I use the phrase "alpha behavior", I'm talking about social dominance -- the power to "give orders".

In this paragraph, it seems to me that you're getting at the matter of "status"...we humans prefer the company of those who are smart, physically competent, good looking, etc.

I see no problem with those attributes as long as we don't "flop on our bellies" and start treating such folks as if they were entitled to rule us because of genetic accident.


The problem with your suggestion is that the cocaine would eventually destroy the alpha’s ability to do the very thing that he is often needed to do.

That's the idea! We will not need "alphas" anymore...to do anything.

In fact, we do not want them around...but if we must have them around, then we certainly don't want them running anything more complicated than a power mower.

If cocaine will solve the problem, let's try a field test.


I am a dentist, would you want to sit down in my chair knowing that I have a cocaine implant in my head juicing my system while I am working on your teeth?

:lol: You are not an "alpha"! No cocaine for you. (Sorry.)

The top executives of large corporations are the "alphas" in capitalist society...not people like you and me or your grass-cutting proto-millionaire.

By the way, the use of drugs may improve or impair function in a wide variety of tasks...as I'm sure you know.


If I get my jollies from a certain thing, don’t suppose that you can suggest another thing and expect me to simply go along...I am driven to be the best dentist that I can possibly be...I make a lot of money at it, but the satisfaction, for me, is in perfecting my craft.

I would not dream of suggesting any alternative for you. You perform a socially-useful function and take great pride and pleasure in doing it as skillfully as you possibly can.

In fact, you have a downright communist attitude towards what you do.

Suppose there existed a society in which all your material needs were there for the asking? Would you still want to be "a great dentist"? Even though there was no possibility of ever "getting rich"?

Many defenders of capitalism come to this board with the view that no one would ever do anything unless material want or a lust for wealth compelled them.

We'd all just lay back in the grass and watch the pretty clouds.

The communist view is that nearly all people enjoy productive labor; what they hate is being overworked, taking orders from stupid bosses, not having their material needs met, etc.

Meanwhile, what of those who "get pleasure" out of intimidating others, compelling submission, etc.?

Bad news for them, I'm afraid. If cocaine isn't an acceptable substitute, then it's the firing squad.

We will permit no oligarchs, period!


...and why should I not be compensated at a higher rate than a dentist who does not possess my degree of skill or my dedication to seeing that you get the best care possible?

If your skill and dedication are truly superior, then what difference does the extra money make?

Under capitalism, we "need" to accumulate as much money as we can because of the uncertainties built into the system itself...it is always possible that you can lose most of what you have accumulated at any moment. If you're really unlucky, you can "lose it all".

In a communist society, all of your reasonable material needs would be met...no matter what.

As it became known that you were an especially skillful dentist, patients would line up at your door. Dental schools would invite you to give lectures. Young dentists would want to apprentice with you. You would enjoy prestige.

And you'd never fill out a goddam insurance form again.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Pale Rider]

Why would you want to change that quality within me?...and why should I not be compensated at a higher rate than a dentist who does not possess my degree of skill or my dedication to seeing that you get the best care possible?

I wouldn't, and you are evidently a 'born' dentist. Quite simply, someone who didn't care for orthodontic work wouldn't be doing it.

That is not entirely true. Among my own relatively small circle, there are those who are in dentistry simply for the money and most certainly, if my circle were wider, there would be more. They, sadly to say, don’t revel in doing beautiful work, the do as much average work as they can rake in.


You wouldn't be getting more or less, just exactly the same irregardless of the kind of work you do. Forget the idea of competing with other dentists, it's not relevant here.

Not relevant? When you need dental work, do you just open the yellow pages and choose whichever name you happen to focus on first…regardless of reputation? Would you choose an unknown name in the phone book over a shining recommendation by one of your acquaintances. The same is true for everything from landscapers to cardiac surgeons…The better you are at what you do, the more valuable your service is when compared to others in the same line of work who do not perform at the same level…


Over the past two centuries, anthropologists have made first contact with primitive hunter gatherer societies on every continent ranging from the Chenchu of India, to the Chukchi of Siberia, from the !Kung San of Southern Africa to the Ainu of Japan, from the aborigines of Australia to the Shoshone of North America. To study these mostly vanished ways of life was to get a glimpse at the early stages of our own cultural evolution. In a sense, their cultures were living fossils

I'm sure you realise this, but I feel I must point out that to think that these societies are 'fossilised' in that they do not change is patently absurd.

I am a little surprised that you fail to understand the point of this statement. A crocodile is a living fossil, as is a snapping turtle…as they have not changed appreciably from their pre-historic ancestors. The same is true for primitive societies that have not advanced much, if any beyond their stoneage ancestors. History has proven to us that if significant societal change had happened among them it would have resulted in more advanced and complex societies.


For example, more than one anthropologist has described the Shoshone Indians of present day Nevada as “The Irreducible Minimum of Human Society”. The largest stable unit of their society was the family and the male head of the family was the entire political organization and its entire legal system. Even when we reach the irreducible minimum, there is someone in charge.


This is simply not true. Spin it the other way around: "when we reach the irreducible minimum, there are always subservients" - This statement in itself is true, but I wonder how much do you remember of your childhood - how often did the actions of your parents go against your own desires? How often did they do what was 'best' for you, only for it to cause you harm?

If you answer 'never' then you are a lucky man.

What does that have to do with anything. I don’t deny that those in charge never make mistakes…in fact, I would argue that they often make far to many mistatakes…the point was that even at the bare minimum of that which could be called society, someone is in charge. There is very little in this world of note that has been accomplished by a group of individuals in which no one was in charge. If you can provide examples, I would be interested in seeing them.


During this short time, as many as a dozen families would come together under a “rabbit boss”. For this time, the rabbit boss was the leader and the individual heads of the families involved subordinated themselves to the rabbit boss in order to get a share of this much anticipated food supply

The 'rabbit boss' is very much dependant on the other families then. This is pretty much irrelevant - it's absurd to think that every single decision can be made democratically - some things aren't worth the effort, and this is an example.

Also, notice the 'rabbit boss' does not pay the people for their work, he shares the spoils with them.

Sure he is dependent…just as corporate CEO’s are ultimately dependent on their employees. The rub is, that without the CEO to manage, organize, and provide a vision that all of the workers can agree on, they would simply be a group of unemployed individuals walking the desert with a bag and a digging stick.

Someone must provide the vision and that in itself has value…and power. Not everyone is capable of doing that and as such, those individuals who can have a skill that in many ways is more valuable than the labor it requires to bring it to fruition.

The rabbit boss provided the vision…”help me hold this net, and when the rabbits run in, we will kill them and I will give you some.” In the Shoshone society, the rabbit meat was an acceptable currency, or means of payment…and not all of the people involved received the same payment for services rendered…and the rabbit boss received the largest portion of the profit.


We are not ruled by the few. While the few may be in the positions of power, we are still the ones that put them there. Oligarchs more closely describes the polit bureau of the soviet. They were not subject to the whims of the soviet people…they were only subject to the whims of the more powerful among their own number. That is the kind of government you get when you attempt to make all people the same…the alphas will rise to the top and enslave the entire society


It's a simple matter of logical deduction: We are 'ruled' by politicians who indeed are elected by the masses, irregardless of your opinion of the matter. However, what exactly are they answerable to?

The market, not the people. It's not that the rich have any more intrinsic power than the rest, it's a simple matter of means.

Every time you see an official voted out of office by the people, you see exactly who they are ultimately answerable to. But you did not answer the original point…that being, if the real distinctions among people are erased in some artifical way, a few will take advantage and assume real power over the rest. In order for me to give up my distinctions from you, I have to subbordinate myself in some way..and if I am subbordinate, I am in a position to be ruled.



No one disputes that world class athletes achieve what they do because they are genetically disposed to it. You could ride your bicycle 12 hours a day, get the best trainers in the world, eat the most perfect diet and train religiously for years, yet…if your lung capacity is not in the 5.5 liter range and your heart can not pump the enormous quantity of blood required, you simply could not compete with the likes of Lance Armstrong….he makes it look so easy

Just as some people have a larger intellect to others. Should people be prevented from trying their hand at something because of this?

No, I think that every one should have a shot at doing what they want to do…they should not expect, however, that just because they want to do a thing that they have some right to do it regardless of their abilities…We all have the right to try to be whatever we want to be, but we will not all achieve equal results. If a person is incompetent at a task, even though he is doing his best, he is still incompetent and the market should be allowed to make that determination and react accordingly.

Again, would you return to a dentist that you felt was incompetent even though he was really doing his best...or force the coach of the lakers to hire a 4'3" center who "really really really" wanted to play basketball and was willing to be at practice, on time, every day and give 100% effort...even though a 6'7 center who barely cared about the game could defeat him every time while only giving 15% effort?


Here, you are simply wrong. In the US, 80% of all millionaires are first generation rich. This is easily verified. The numbers of people who inherit wealth in this country are growing smaller every year. Many of the old fortunes have been lost.

The whole thing is a giant merry-go-round. We can look at the history of the UK and US together to see that - the british elite (mostly industrialists with some royalty and landowners) and the 'new' american industrialists circa 1820-1920 for example.

It doesn't take long for more of the 'elite' to be born - all it takes is for a first generation millionaire to procreate and the cycle continues. Everyone one way or another started out at the bottom.

The fact remains that 80% or so of our millionaires are still first generation rich… The New York Post reported that so far this year there are three hundred thousand new millionaires…of those new millionaires, two hundred and forty thousand of them did not get their money from their families. The numbers simply do not support your argument.


As I said, an oligarchy would resemble the soviet polit bureau…they didn’t answer to the people…the people answered to them.


When was the last time you saw real change, even in a landslide election?


The world changed when Ronald Reagan was elected…the new democracies throughout Eastern Europe are simply the echoes of the changes that he initiated.


Again, please describe a system that does not reward alpha behavior. I don’t hope anything…I am simply describing the world as I see it. If I am wrong, then show me how I am wrong. I am very open minded…and willing to consider all possibilities…if you want to convince me…give me some possibilities to describe. At this time, I am unable to describe any system in which there would be no rewards for being smarter, stronger, better looking, etc…


Society doesn't do anything to people, simply put it's people who do it - so long as there are hero worshippers then there will be rewards for acting like an alpha. This does not mean exclusion from such thoughts is impossible however, simply those who have not yet learned this, must.

As I described, it may be that the external reward isn’t what makes an alpha an alpha. My own case in point…I don’t excel at what I do because I will make more money…I make more money because I excel at what I do. There is a subtle and very important distinction there that, in philosophical terms, simply can not be ignored.

[DaCuBaN]

Among my own relatively small circle, there are those who are in dentistry simply for the money and most certainly, if my circle were wider, there would be more. They, sadly to say, don’t revel in doing beautiful work, the do as much average work as they can rake in

And they wouldn't be dentists in a communist society, as who would seriously visit a competent dentist when you could see a superb one?


Not relevant? When you need dental work, do you just open the yellow pages and choose whichever name you happen to focus on first…regardless of reputation?

I'm in the UK, so I go to the nearest NHS dentist ;) However...


Would you choose an unknown name in the phone book over a shining recommendation by one of your acquaintances. The same is true for everything from landscapers to cardiac surgeons…The better you are at what you do, the more valuable your service is when compared to others in the same line of work who do not perform at the same level…

Exactly - and under communism you would work simply for the prestige involved - their would be no renumeration relative to your work.

Bad dentists would soon become something else - their services simply would go unused.


A crocodile is a living fossil, as is a snapping turtle…as they have not changed appreciably from their pre-historic ancestors. The same is true for primitive societies that have not advanced much, if any beyond their stoneage ancestors. History has proven to us that if significant societal change had happened among them it would have resulted in more advanced and complex societies

You missed my point ;) These are not necessarily representative of past human society - it's a 'best guess'


even at the bare minimum of that which could be called society, someone is in charge

This wouldn't change within a communist society - someone would still be required to orchestrate the distribution of grain, for example. Technically they would be 'in charge' - Although I am quite staunchly anti-authoritarian, I still see this as moot point - Control is a prerequisite of organisation. Personally, it is privilege I fight against.


Someone must provide the vision and that in itself has value…and power. Not everyone is capable of doing that and as such, those individuals who can have a skill that in many ways is more valuable than the labor it requires to bring it to fruition.


My point is that they are no more a necessity of the operation than the 'man on the pumps' - without each other they have nothing. The position the CEO is in combined with our current system allows him to abuse his workers - and this is unacceptable. Whilst we can't change the nature of organisation, we can change the nature of our society.


The rabbit boss provided the vision…”help me hold this net, and when the rabbits run in, we will kill them and I will give you some.” In the Shoshone society, the rabbit meat was an acceptable currency, or means of payment…and not all of the people involved received the same payment for services rendered…and the rabbit boss received the largest portion of the profit.

Now the details come out ;) Indeed, I would call this a 'primitive' society - greed still holds sway.


Every time you see an official voted out of office by the people, you see exactly who they are ultimately answerable to.

Indeed - every time the economy takes a dip, it's time for a change.


if the real distinctions among people are erased in some artifical way, a few will take advantage and assume real power over the rest

Who the hell wants to erase all the distinctions from our species? Sounds awful dull to me. All I wish to see is equal distribution of life's necessities. Is financially levelling the playing field such an awful concept?


think that every one should have a shot at doing what they want to do…they should not expect, however, that just because they want to do a thing that they have some right to do it regardless of their abilities…We all have the right to try to be whatever we want to be, but we will not all achieve equal results. If a person is incompetent at a task, even though he is doing his best, he is still incompetent and the market should be allowed to make that determination and react accordingly.

Break the world down into communities: Most have means to produce food, water, and provide basic services close at hand. If someone was incompetent under communism at, and we'll use dentistry here as an example then people would start to get unsettled and eventually a 'competitor' would be set up to replace the incompetent one.

People would simply stop using the poor dentist, and change to the good one. The 'bad' dentist would then have to find something else to do with his time, something else with which to provide for his community.

Remember that communists generally reject the 'idea' of nationality, and often reject the idea of family: We're all in this together.


would you return to a dentist that you felt was incompetent even though he was really doing his best...or force the coach of the lakers to hire a 4'3" center who "really really really" wanted to play basketball and was willing to be at practice, on time, every day and give 100% effort...even though a 6'7 center who barely cared about the game could defeat him every time while only giving 15% effort?

Given all the above, I fail to see the relevance.


The fact remains that 80% or so of our millionaires are still first generation rich… The New York Post reported that so far this year there are three hundred thousand new millionaires…of those new millionaires, two hundred and forty thousand of them did not get their money from their families. The numbers simply do not support your argument

Your 'country' is only 300 years old, give it time. The fact that the money these people have earned doesn't actually exist aside, there is plenty of time.

I'd be far more interested to see statistics of how many 'old fortunes' have truly been lost, and what percentage of the owners of said fortunes have had to (or chosen) to work full-time.


The world changed when Ronald Reagan was elected…the new democracies throughout Eastern Europe are simply the echoes of the changes that he initiated.


Almost thirty years then if my math is still good...
This aside, the world really didn't change. The US simply lost it's primary enemy. Surely you can see the comparables between the US's reaction to communism and it's reaction to Islamic Fundamentalism?


it may be that the external reward isn’t what makes an alpha an alpha. My own case in point…I don’t excel at what I do because I will make more money…I make more money because I excel at what I do. There is a subtle and very important distinction there that, in philosophical terms, simply can not be ignored.

Indeed it cannot - in fact my own beliefs solely rest on this point. The current system does reward hard work - I cannot dispute this fact, and would not even if I could. The by-product is of course exploitation of the less evidently gifted members of society.

I cannot abide that.

*EDIT*

I feel I must point out of course, I'm not really a communist and hence I'm speaking in the third here.... click the link in my sig if you wish to learn more.

[Professor Moneybags]

Ever heard of 'objectivism'? She's guilty. The woman thought the most honourable thing a man can do is live for himself.

What about the "...and not demand other men live for him" part ?

Half the story as usual.


She was basically a yoghurt.

These witty arguments just get better and better don't they ?

[Pale Rider]

Not exactly. What we saw were hunter-gatherer societies in extremis...long after they had been pushed to the margins of habitation.

We don't really know anything about how they functioned when they were the only form of human society on earth...say 15,000 years ago or so.


That isn’t altogether true..anthropologists have been studying native cultures for at least 200 years….we have had the opportunity to study quite a few cultures before they had felt any pressure at all…on all continents. All of the primitive cultures that we have studied, without regard to their location in the world, have been remarkably similar. There is no reason at all to suppose that they made some “shift” from a communist lifestyle to a classed society at some point in their evolution.


The largest stable unit of their society was the family and the male head of the family was the entire political organization and its entire legal system. Even when we reach the irreducible minimum, there is someone in charge.


The Shoshone had "nuclear families" with "dad" in charge...just like a 1950s dummyvision sitcom?

You know what? I don't believe that. I think this is likely to be a case of reading the cultural prejudices of the anthropologist into the data.

Think about that. How would you "know" that "dad" was "in charge"...all the time?

What happened when the anthropologist "wasn't looking"?


You know what? It doesn’t matter whether you believe it or not…the information is easily verified. I suppose that if dad was feeling frisky and mom wanted something then at that point she would have been in charge…but even in that event, someone was in charge and calling the shots. And nuclear family doesn’t really describe the family unit of the Shoshone, or any of the other primitive societies that have been observed.


Why do you suppose we remember the names of the great chiefs but not of the tribesmen?


Cultural prejudice, of course. The 18th and 19th century folks who studied hunter-gatherer societies still believed in a "great man" theory of history.

Now, of course, even reputable bourgeois historians have rejected the "great man" theory...only "popular history" still uses such a "method".

Enlighten me, point me in the direction of some reputable research which suggests that hunter gatherers did not have class ordered societies. I ask because I am pretty well read in the subject of anthropology and cultural anthropology and have not seen any work from a reputable source that suggests that the idea of big man, great man, chieftan is an outdated line of thought.


You mean in the sense of our periodic "elections" in which we get to "choose" Oligarch A or Oligarch B?

I suppose we should just drop the discussion regarding oligarchs..we clearly have a disconnect regarding exactly what they are. I refer to them in terms of the accepted definition of oligarch and you are using the word in a different context. To suggest that a CEO or a stock broker is an oligarch is pretty far fetched…Neither of these could use the power of the law to imprison me simply upon their say so…An oligarch is a ruler, not merely a person who wields power.



No one disputes that world class athletes achieve what they do because they are genetically disposed to it.

Then let me be the first.

Your example of Lance Armstrong is instructive: in a society that did not even have, much less race, bicycles, would anyone have ever heard of him? Yes, one can be born with the genetic potential to do all kinds of things...but if the social order does not have some of those things, then you will never do them, regardless of your genetic potential.


In the case of the genetic predisposition to be a great bicycle rider…If I were a member of a society that didn’t have bicycles, I would still be superior at any number of tasks that require great stamina. If I have superior lung capacity and my heart is able to pump a volume of blood that approaches 2X that of the average person, I will be physically superior in most any activity in which stamina is a prerequisite.


(And in the case of sports that involve exceptional skill, you must begin at an early age. Michael Jordan was one of the greatest basketball players in the history of the game; but when he tried to play baseball, he stunk! Learning to hit a baseball is something that you have to start learning at a young age.)

I would argue that in addition to his genetic height advantage and the structure of his legs (certainly genetic) that allows him to jump seemingly head and shoulders above even taller players, he also has genetically superior hand eye coordination. Most of us could never hope to have that kind of coordination regardless of the amount of time we spent practicing or how early we started.

I am a fairly powerful guy…I suppose that I could easily bench press a hundred pounds more than Tiger Woods on any day. But I simply don’t have it in me to hit a golf ball as far as he does. Physically, he is a golf ball hitting machine. While he is slightly shorter than I am, and far less muscular, his arms are longer than mine…specifically, the distance from his shoulder to his elbow is considerably longer…and his torso rotates from his hips in a manner that I am simply unable to achieve…he is skeletally able to swing the club in a longer arc than I am, resulting in a greater club head speed than I could ever hope to achieve…no matter how much I practice.

If you examine their physiques, you will find that most of the great golfers are of that particular body type…while there are exceptions, you will find a trait within the exceptions that the rest of us simply don’t have. The same would be true for most of the great names in sports.


Here, you are simply wrong. In the US, 80% of all millionaires are first generation rich. This is easily verified. The numbers of people who inherit wealth in this country are growing smaller every year. Many of the old fortunes have been lost.

Total fantasy...and overlooks the fact that most first generation millionaires started with at least a few hundred thousand.



Changing even a few hundred thousand into a million is no easy task. If it were, then we should reasonably be able to expect the poor to be able to change their few hundred into a few thousand with relative ease, and then change that few thousand into a few hundred thousand just as easily.

That said, the majority of the new millionaires did not start out with a couple of hundred thousand…most of the new millionaires are small business owners who started off with debt… Read “The Millionaire Next Door” it is a fascinating read and is very well referenced so that you can easily verify the author’s claims.

And if a million is chump change to you, send it my way.


]...he is on track to make his first million by the time he is 30...


And likely his last as well.

Why? Do you suppose the grass will stop growing? Do you believe that there will be no new buildings or homes that need landscaping? My prediction is that in 10 years, he will have 300 employees and a fleet of trucks on the road covering half the state… To suggest that he has peaked is simply doom and gloom.


In this country the most important step in acquiring great wealth is the willingness to get out and work for it.

Nope. Great fortunes may begin with the "hard-working entrepreneur" who is also lucky -- but after that, the hardest work you have to do is get yourself born and survive to hear the reading of daddy's will.

Again, some honest research will clearly show the error in that statement.


Sam Walton's kids are tied for what, fourth place, on the wealthiest Americans list...did they "work hard" for their $12 billion each? Are they "genetically superior" to you or me?

Sam’s kids are part of the 20% of the rich that are born into it, not the 80% that didn’t and they are hardly representative of that small percentage who are born rich. Their ability to hang on to his wealth and grow it is yet to be seen. It may be that whatever spark their dad had, did not transfer to them. The numbers who were born rich and lost it due to bad decision making are legion.


I do a little thing sometimes in my spare time...damned near anyone can do it. It is not illegal, or immoral, or painful ..and it is not unusual to get paid $200 an hour or more for doing it. It doesn't involve sales, marketing, or any of that crap...and you get to make the rules...Would you be interested to know what it is?
I have discovered an interesting mathematical model for sharply reducing the odds against winning the lottery...it won't guarantee you a winning combination but you'll be playing at enormously better odds than other players. "Would you be interested to know what it is"?

Given the rise of superstition in late capitalism, starting a new religion would be a "sure-fire" winner...you just need a strong stomach and a flair for lying. (Genetic traits, no doubt. )


I don’t play the lottery…even if you could cut the odds in half, 6 million to one is a bit long for me…My little $200 an hour trick?...I tell stories to kids. I have been a scout leader since my son (now 32) was about 8. I told stories to them for years and one day someone asked if I could come to their school and tell some stories…Little did I know that there are those who will actually pay money to have stories told to them.

I tell stories now in my spare time if I feel like it…sometimes I charge, and sometimes I don’t….depending on the venue…I believe that anyone can tell stories to kids with just a bit of practice and make some genuine money. There is an ever growing market out there that is eagerly waiting for new storytellers and willing to pay them very well.


Exactly -- as I said, some people may derive pleasure from the very things that are required for success, while others may derive their pleasure from activity that has no economic value.

…Denial of the pleasure of "getting rich" does not mean a life of "gloom" and "despair".

It does to some people….but the point was that it isn’t necessarily the “getting rich” that brings the pleasure….in many cases it is the activity that brings the pleasure…the money is just a spinoff . Those people are the happiest if you ask me…they are doing what they love to do…and getting paid for it….what more could one ask for? The problem is, that this status is simply not accessable to everyone and it never will be and no abstract construct will ever make it happen. Sad..unfortuante...but a fact of life never the less.


Please give some examples -- if cooperative, describes the vast bulk of human behavior, examples should be easy to come by.

How about your last hunting trip? (Assuming you hunt with friends.)


I hunt alone, but if recreational activity is the best example of cooperative behavior, then I would suggest that you are grasping for straws…especially when we were discussing the more primitive cultures, as recreation wasn’t a big part of their lives.


Even within the hierarchal workplace, useful work is actually most likely to be accomplished when workers co-operate with each other rather than compete with each other. A workforce "at each other's throats" makes a crappy mousetrap.

Someone has to provide a vision that all the workers can agree upon in order to cooperate to achieve the goal…as I said before, very little of note can be attributed to a group of individuals who just came together with no directing force among them.


That stuff is "junk science"...consult the reference that I've already posted.

Which reference?


Ok, if I am being silly, then explain why, in the animal kingdom, it isn’t uncommon for the alpha to not necessarily be the largest, or strongest -- why would a large man back down and exhibit submissive body language to a smaller weaker man in a confrontational situation?

In the "animal kingdom" (a lovely archaic phrase that expresses an outmoded class bias), "alpha status" is often unstable or, at best, meta-stable.
Today's "alpha" may be tomorrow's "beta" or even "gamma".


Didn’t I clearly state that among animals there are alphas, and alphas in waiting. I don’t see how you have gained any ground on this point at all. It has been observed that among these groups, If you remove the alphas, and the alphas in waiting, in most cases there is no individual among the “submissives” who will step up and take over…this is just as true among us human animals.


As to the big guy "backing down" from the "little guy"...it's generally because the "little guy" has a bunch of goons ready to back him up.

Retreating in the face of superior over-all strength does not, I think, require a specific "genetic" explanation.


Now it is your turn to be silly….we each have a fight or flight instinct. Our physical dimension is not necessarily a component of this. It is a product of the stuff we are made of.


Look into what we are and how we act, then compare our behaviors to animal behaviors -- when you find examples of us, acting like them, or them acting like us -- chances are, you are seeing genetics at work.

Ah, but which animals and what specific behaviors? The variety of animal behaviors far exceeds the variety among humans...do you just pick the examples you like and ignore the ones that teach other lessons?

If bonobos cooperate and baboons compete, let's concentrate on baboons, right?


Are you suggesting that there are no alphas among bonobos? If you are, then you are wrong and your premise is wrong. There are no social animals (except the hive insects (which aren't really social)) that do not have alphas.


Like I said, junk science.

I find it very interesting that communists will proclaim “speculation” or “junk science” at the drop of a hat as if a good scientific hypothesis is worthless unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt…yet you hold dear a political philosophy that is pure theory and will defend it vehemently with no real world evidence to fall back upon or use as an example. Don’t you find this hypocritical in the least?


The way I heard it, the folks who go to dental college are the ones who couldn't afford/couldn't get into medical school. The ones who can't afford/can't get into dental college go to mortuary school.

I guess we hear all sorts of things. I started college with the intention to be a dentist…Academically, I could have qualified for scholarships in most any school. I don’t know of anyone who went to mortuary school because they couldn’t get through dental school. Most of the morticians that I know are in the business because their family has been in the business…It seems that you don’t see “new” funeral homes springing up like walmarts.


And I would imagine that kids who do grow up "on the reservation" are pretty lucky to even make it through high school.

Yeah, I feel sorry for the people who are on the reservation…they have sold out their heritage to the tourists who toss them pennies to see them dance. A fine case of unintended consequences resulting from liberalism. The unfortunate price that you pay when you believe someone else when they say that they will take care of you.


In any event, "hard work" doesn't have much to do with the over-all outcome. Your "starting-point" in capitalist society usually has the final word on where you "finish".

If you believe that, then you have disadvantaged yourself before you ever got started. My starting point was pretty low and I do ok for myself today and I know plenty of others who started off no better off than me and have done ok as well...


Again, please describe a system that does not reward alpha behavior.


I thought that was precisely your objection to communism...that because it didn't reward "alpha-behavior", it "couldn't work" -- all you'd get would be a USSR-style despotism with "alphas" running the show.

Communism would indeed be a society in which "alpha-behavior" would not only not be rewarded but would be met with social disapproval and possibly even punishment.


I was asking for a description of a society that wouldn’t reward alpha behavior. You tell me communism wouldn’t, but didn’t describe how that would work. Unless you could get everyone to believe the same thing and act the same way the idea could not bear fruit…and to do that, everyone would have to subordinate their wants and wishes to whatever behavior was required to see the idea succeed…and there is no way that someone would not step in and rule a bunch of people who were willing to be submissive.


I did mention the Hopi, didn't I?

Yeah, you mentioned the Hopi although you weren’t really accurate in your description. The Hopi started out as very small bands and over the years these bands began to congregate in the same areas…While they formed villages, they never really gave up their clans… These clans were most certainly ordered. As the Hopi made their way in the world primarily by agriculture, the land was very important. Each clan had its own fields. Hopi society was matrilineal, meaning that the mother determined who got which piece of land and assigned social status to members of her family. Women owned the land, but only the men worked it. There was a very definite class system among the Hopi, as among every other primitive culture that we have had the opportunity to study.


At this time, I am unable to describe any system in which there would be no rewards for being smarter, stronger, better looking, etc... You claim that there is such a system, describe it...but be prepared for "what if’s".

This shifts the ground of the discussion slightly...when I use the phrase "alpha behavior", I'm talking about social dominance -- the power to "give orders".


Alpha behavior isn’t as simple as giving orders…alpha behavior is any behavior that gives one advantage over others…My drive to do dental work that is superior to that performed by my peers could be characterized as alpha behavior if it gives me an advantage over others within my community.


If I get my jollies from a certain thing, don’t suppose that you can suggest another thing and expect me to simply go along...I am driven to be the best dentist that I can possibly be...I make a lot of money at it, but the satisfaction, for me, is in perfecting my craft.
Suppose there existed a society in which all your material needs were there for the asking? Would you still want to be "a great dentist"? Even though there was no possibility of ever "getting rich"?

Many defenders of capitalism come to this board with the view that no one would ever do anything unless material want or a lust for wealth compelled them.


It is a nice thought, but alas, it will never get beyond the realm of theory as evidenced by your next statement.


Bad news for them, I'm afraid. If cocaine isn't an acceptable substitute, then it's the firing squad.

We will permit no oligarchs, period!

Doesn’t this put you in the category of oligarch yourself…act as we demand or die? Sounds suspiciously like the polit bureau of the soviet union.

Maybe you should have phrased it “we will permit no “other” oligarchs, period!”


...and why should I not be compensated at a higher rate than a dentist who does not possess my degree of skill or my dedication to seeing that you get the best care possible?


In a communist society, all of your reasonable material needs would be met...no matter what.

Goods cost money…who pays in a communist society? We see from history that the more socialist a society becomes, the higher the unemployment level becomes, thus shifting the burden of payment onto a smaller and smaller group until it simply can not sustain itself.


And you'd never fill out a goddam insurance form again

I pay someone to fill out insurance forms..it is what she does for a living…you would put her out of work?

[redstar2000]

All of the primitive cultures that we have studied, without regard to their location in the world, have been remarkably similar.

Yes, because they were all stuck in areas that no more advanced society wanted.

The only exception that I'm aware of are the complex of tribes that lived in the Pacific Northwest.

In this unusually abundant ecological niche, they did develop a unique form of "class" society. A "big man" was the guy who gave the "biggest gifts".

But in doing that, he acquired prestige and status...not the power of command.


There is no reason at all to suppose that they made some "shift" from a communist lifestyle to a classed society at some point in their evolution.

Nor is there any reason not to...aside from plausibility.

As I said early, we do not know what hunter-gatherer societies were like in their "salad days".

The role of population growth and density and the consequent scarcity of resources should not be overlooked in the emergence and rise of class society among humans.


It doesn’t matter whether you believe it or not...the information is easily verified.

So you say. But neither you nor the anthropologist are necessarily "unbiased witnesses"...therefore I am free to remain skeptical.

And I do.


I am pretty well read in the subject of anthropology and cultural anthropology and have not seen any work from a reputable source that suggests that the idea of big man, great man, chieftain is an outdated line of thought.

From the time of Marx it's been understood that material conditions are the "motive forces" of history...not "great men" (who may have some influence on the details, of course).


To suggest that a CEO or a stock broker is an oligarch is pretty far fetched...Neither of these could use the power of the law to imprison me simply upon their say so...

Indeed they could...though it might be difficult for them to keep you arbitrarily imprisoned.

You must remember that the oligarchs have their own rules...and too brazen a power-play by one (such as simply making up a phony criminal charge) might serve to draw other oligarchs into the fray.

In late 19th century America and present-day Russia, it was/is not unknown to dispose of a business competitor with a bullet.

If you managed to seriously upset the CEO of a major corporation, you would at the very least be buried beneath a blizzard of unmerited lawsuits...and should you fail to respond, you could find yourself in jail on "contempt of court" judgments.

Do not think for a minute that you must actually commit a crime to go to jail in modern capitalism.


If I were a member of a society that didn’t have bicycles, I would still be superior at any number of tasks that require great stamina.

Yeah, but you wouldn't be "rich and famous".


Changing even a few hundred thousand into a million is no easy task. If it were, then we should reasonably be able to expect the poor to be able to change their few hundred into a few thousand with relative ease, and then change that few thousand into a few hundred thousand just as easily.

No, that's wrong. The poor use their few hundred or few thousand to acquire the means to physically survive. They never have any "surplus" to invest...except in a lottery ticket of course.

With a few hundred thousand, you have the surplus to purchase the means of production...and a (small) chance to make that million. Luck is very important here...there are hundreds of thousands of new businesses started every year in the U.S., and most of them fail in their first year.

The reason: under-capitalization.

They simply didn't have enough money to keep operating until their business reached the break-even point and started making money.


That said, the majority of the new millionaires did not start out with a couple of hundred thousand...most of the new millionaires are small business owners who started off with debt.

Which means they had to get that money from somebody. Did the loan officer at Vampire Federal Bank take pity on them? Did they sucker their family and friends?

Capital doesn't fall out of the sky. No one starts with "nothing" and makes anything but nothing.


And if a million is chump change to you, send it my way.

:lol: Careful reading again: I didn't say or imply that it was "chump change" to you or me...to the ruling class, however, that's exactly what it is.

They throw parties that cost more than a million!


To suggest that he has peaked is simply doom and gloom.

Well, I'm a communist...what do you expect? :lol:

Start-up costs are relatively low in his line of work...he will have competition.

Landscaping is a "luxury"...in an economic downturn, businesses and individuals often drop it, reducing the pool of potential customers.

Product differentiation is difficult...an expert eye might be able to tell a "good" landscaper from a mediocre one; most people wouldn't be able to spot the difference.

I rather doubt his chances of even making that first million...unless he gets lucky.


Their ability to hang on to his wealth and grow it is yet to be seen.

The only "ability" they need to "grow that wealth" is the ability to sign their names.

When you have serious money to work with, you don't have to "take risks" anymore. You purchase "investment grade" bonds, sit back, and watch the money roll in.

The Walton fortune, like the Rockefeller fortune, has long passed the "take-off" point and will grow forever...or at least until the revolution. :lol:


The numbers who were born rich and lost it due to bad decision-making are legion.

I'm rather skeptical of that...though I suppose it might happen from time to time.

It's really hard to run through serious money.


I believe that anyone can tell stories to kids with just a bit of practice and make some genuine money. There is an ever growing market out there that is eagerly waiting for new storytellers and willing to pay them very well.

Why do I have the feeling that you're practicing on us?


Those people are the happiest if you ask me...they are doing what they love to do...and getting paid for it...what more could one ask for? The problem is, that this status is simply not accessible to everyone and it never will be and no abstract construct will ever make it happen. Sad..unfortuante...but a fact of life never the less.

Yet another bald assertion..."it never will be".

I counter-assert: oh yes it will!


Someone has to provide a vision that all the workers can agree upon in order to cooperate to achieve the goal.

True...but under capitalism, it is not a matter of workers "agreeing". They submit to the "vision" of the capitalist -- regardless of that vision's frequently self-evident stupidity -- because they need to eat.

There will be as many if not more visionaries under communism than under capitalism...but they will have to be genuinely persuasive or else no one will co-operate with them.


Which reference?

Alas, poor Darwin : arguments against evolutionary psychology, edited by Hilary Rose and Steven Rose, New York : Harmony Books, 2000, ISBN: 0609605135.


If you remove the alphas, and the alphas in waiting, in most cases there is no individual among the "submissives" who will step up and take over...this is just as true among us human animals.

A good argument for communism; we want to get rid of the alphas and it's nice to know that "nature" says it's possible to do so.


Our physical dimension is not necessarily a component of this. It is a product of the stuff we are made of.

Stuff???

Outside of a particular social context with a particular history, I don't think your sentence has any semantic content.

If physical courage is rewarded, then you'll see lots of it. If it's regarded as a primitive and undesirable behavior, then the people who display it will be regarded as pathological.


Are you suggesting that there are no alphas among bonobos?

Certainly not in the same sense as there are among baboons (the capitalist's favorite primate).

Bonobos are rather loosely governed by a small collective of senior females. When a male exhibits "alpha behavior", the females gather around and give him a beating. Afterwards, they all have sex.

Not too shabby, eh?


I find it very interesting that communists will proclaim "speculation" or "junk science" at the drop of a hat as if a good scientific hypothesis is worthless unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt...

We don't do that "all the time"...just when the issue of human affairs appears on the agenda.

You see we have learned that even scientists are part of class society and can, despite their best intentions, be misled by that insidious bias.

And some of them have proven that they don't have the "best intentions"...they are willing to lie for a bigger paycheck.

In addition, skepticism is always a valid scientific position until such point as the evidence really is overwhelming.

The attempts to provide "scientific justification" for capitalism and hierarchy don't even approach this point, of course.


...yet you hold dear a political philosophy that is pure theory and will defend it vehemently with no real world evidence to fall back upon or use as an example.

Actually, there is evidence...it is just quite fragmentary up to this point. For brief periods of time, it has been shown that ordinary working people "can run the show" in a non-hierarchal fashion...that classless society can "work". That their initial efforts were militarily crushed by superior force does not "disprove" them...but rather suggests that they were "pre-mature".

Keep in mind that the capitalist class did not rise to its present eminence "in a smooth curve"...there were many set-backs along the way.

Still, I will concede this much: the Marxist hypothesis -- a proletarian revolution leading to a classless society -- has yet to acquire definitive proof.

That can only be provided by, as you say, real-world examples that are clearly sustainable.

If that fails to occur over the next few centuries, then Marx was wrong!

But don't break out the champaign. If Marx was wrong, then the most probable outcome is a return to barbarism...a new "dark age".

There are signs of that now.


If you believe that, then you have disadvantaged yourself before you ever got started.

I don't think it's a matter of "belief" but rather one of empirical fact.

Of course, people move "up and down" in the class structure throughout their lives...but they do so within a very narrow range.

Measuring your own personal achievements against your "starting point", you are quite proud of your "gain".

But from the standpoint of the truly wealthy, your gain is literally "too small to measure".


I was asking for a description of a society that wouldn’t reward alpha behavior. You tell me communism wouldn’t, but didn’t describe how that would work.

Can We Ever Say How Communism Will "Work"? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083117353&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Who Will Clean the Sewers? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083202823&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

The Myth of "Individualism vs. Collectivism" (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083239145&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Democracy without Elections; Demarchy and Communism (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083335872&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Wants and Needs in Communist Society (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083343837&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Further Notes on Demarchy (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083543192&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Communist Society -- Some Brief Reflections (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083719642&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

You won't "like" any of this stuff...but at least you'll have a clearer idea what you don't like.


Alpha behavior isn’t as simple as giving orders...alpha behavior is any behavior that gives one advantage over others...

No, that can't be right. It's too incoherent. Even overtly submissive behavior could be considered "alpha" if the "intent" was to manipulate the "dominant".


Doesn’t this put you in the category of oligarch yourself...act as we demand or die?

If we execute murderers, does that make us "also murderers"?

Yes, I know, some people do maintain that position...but I am not one of them.

In any event, whether or not an alpha-wannabe gets shot is up to the larger community, not to a small group of "nouveau-oligarchs".

Maybe we'll just emulate the Hopi and string him up by his thumbs. :lol:


Goods cost money...who pays in a communist society?

There's no money and no "costs" in the sense that you are using the word.


We see from history that the more socialist a society becomes, the higher the unemployment level becomes...

That's both wrong and irrelevant. All of the 20th century socialist countries had full employment and many folks actually had two or even three jobs.

And I am a communist, not a socialist.


I pay someone to fill out insurance forms..it is what she does for a living...you would put her out of work?

Aren't you sweet. But perhaps, under communism, she will find more interesting things to do with her life than fill out your forms for you.

Maybe?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Soldier Sam]

I dont understand what all the fuss about is about the animal kingdom and primitive cultures is. Ok, they have hierarchy and alpha behavior. Maybe humans have advanced enough that stuff like that isent needed? Maybe a system like communism is the next step in the evolution of society, who cares what we did way back when there wasent recorded history! I also think you guys are focusing to much on the Nature part of a persons "Nature and Nurture". How you were brought up and how you lived and were taught I think can influence you alot more than some supposed "alpha-genes"



EDIT: zzz spelling error

[Vinny Rafarino]

So it should be easy to provide an in-context example. Oh, but then you haven't read of these words you seem to think are "ridiculous", so you wouldn't know anyway.


As far as being "familiar" with Rand's works, you don't need to read too much to see that it is completely primative philosophy. Personally I wish I had never read any but unfortunately UCL required it.



you're lying, otherwise you would have provided quotes or evidence. Or did you just "assume" it ?


Dolt. All you have too do is type "Ayn rand greed" into google. Greed (what she referred to as "the virtue of selfishness") was a central point in her philosophy (referred to the educated circle as "randian philosophy") and even had its own chapter in Atlas Shrugged.

Try part III, Chapter VII son; you know, the one called "The Virtue of Selfishness".

:lol:


You're mediocre.

[Pale Rider]

Dolt. All you have too do is type "Ayn rand greed" into google. Greed (what she referred to as "the virtue of selfishness") was a central point in her philosophy (referred to the educated circle as "randian philosophy") and even had its own chapter in Atlas Shrugged.

So we just type words into google and we get reliable information that we can take to the bank...

I typed Ayn Rand greed into google and got 7,080 hits....

I typed Marx was wrong and got 343,000 hits...

Imagine that...

Here's Your Sign (http://www.mistupid.com/people/page013.htm)

[DaCuBaN]

Isn't it good to be right?

Rand was wrong - 660,000 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=rand+was+wrong)

Marx was wrong - 338,000 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=marx+was+wrong)

whoops? :D

[Pale Rider]

Well Redstar, it seems that we have reached an impasse. I suppose that it comes down to the fact that you give more weight to nearly non existent, fragmented evidence to support theoretical way of life that has never been actually applied with any success in the entire period of recorded human history than you do to 200+ years of real study into the field of anthropology, and cultural anthropology and all of the actual evidence that points to the way that human beings naturally are.

I do find it interesting that an individual, who otherwise seems quite intelligent and thoughtful, will accept a philosophical theory that has virtually no proof that can ever work, given the nature of our species, over the evidence presented by all of recorded human history…. but to each his own.

Maybe we can discuss other subjects that aren’t quite so closely tied to your self image…I enjoyed the talk.

Let me tell you one of the stories that I tell to the kids when I am wearing my storytelling hat….

One day, a dog was out sniffing in the hills near the village where he lived. Towards the end of the day, he came upon a wolf…a very skinny wolf.

“Wolf” he says, “What has happened to you?”

“Well, it may be that I am not as fast as I used to be, or maybe game isn’t as plentiful as it used to be, or maybe I can’t smell as keenly as I used to…it doesn’t matter though, I am here and things are as they are and I will just make the best of it.”

Well the dog felt terrible for the wolf and couldn’t bear to go back to his village and leave the wolf up in the hills to starve to death . So he though for a few minutes and had an idea.

“Wolf” he says. “Why don’t you come back to the village with me. There are people there who will feed you and take care of you.”

Well, the wolf, being a naturally suspicious creature asks, “Exactly what will these people want in exchange for taking care of me?”

“Next to nothing” says the dog. “You will just have to bark at strangers when they approach the village.”

The wolf thought about this for a few minutes and it didn’t seem like such a bad deal to him so he said “OK Dog, I will come back to your village with you and bark at strangers and be taken care of by your people.”

So they walked and talked as they came down out of the hills. The wolf kept noticing that the hair on the dog’s neck didn’t look just right, so he asked. “Dog, what has happened to the hair on your neck?”

“Oh, that’s nothing .” says the dog. It is just a mark that my collar leaves on my neck."

"Collar" says the wolf. "What's that?"

"It is no big deal." says the dog. "It is just a circle made leather with a rope attached to it. The people put it around my neck at night so I can’t run away…it is for my own good and besides, you will get used to it in no time.”

Wolf sat down and thought about this for a minute…

“Dog” he said, “I appreciate your kind and generous offer, but I think that I am just going to stay up here in my hills.”

The dog couldn't believe what he is hearing…”Wolf, look at you. You are weak, and hungry and tired. You can’t stay up here. If you do, you will die soon from starvation.”

The wolf replied “Yeah, you may be right…in fact, I may die before this week ends, but I would rather die up here, in my hills as a free wolf, than live to a very old aged down in your village as a slave.

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 02:34 PM
Isn't it good to be right?

Rand was wrong - 660,000 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=rand+was+wrong)

Marx was wrong - 338,000 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=marx+was+wrong)

whoops? :D
It would seem that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they were both full of crap.

By the way, put the phrases in quotes..

whoops? :D

[DaCuBaN]

Interesting... I thought of course you thought google wasn't a good source for information ;)

Funnily enough, I agree that marx was wrong on many, many things - just not as many as Rand. The consensus seems to agree, given that if you type was into google, it will remove the word as 'common'

In effect the searches were for 'Marx' 'wrong' and 'Rand' 'wrong' - I'm sure you're more than computer literate enough to understand the way the search algorithms google use to find and cache pages works.


By the way, put the phrases in quotes..

and cut down the possible number of matches to such a small figure? I think not ;)

Search through the first 20 or so pages of matches on either side of the debate - I'm yet to see an 'invalid' page - one that does not relate to the question at hand.

[Pale Rider]

I have never read Rand..I have read Marx..I don't need the internet to tell me that he was wrong...From the posts that I have seen here relating to Rand, one has to wonder whether she was wrong...or painfully correct.

[Vinny Rafarino]

So we just type words into google and we get reliable information that we can take to the bank...


Are you attempting to say that Rand's own books are not a realiable source of information on Rand?

Pick your battles son, you never had a chance on this one.

Nex' time jus, git r' done Clem.


Let me tell you one of the stories that I tell to the kids when I am wearing my storytelling hat….


Isn't it illegal to teach children after you've downed a jug o' shine?

[Pale Rider]

You are a funny guy comrade...dumb as a box of rocks...but funny.

Isn't it nice to know that everyone...even you...has at least one redeeming quality?

[PRC-UTE]

I have seen the US military…what I haven’t seen is whole parades of US military. Column after column of mobile rocket launchers…brigade after brigade of snap stepping soldiers…row after row of tanks…banners flying, emblazoned with heroic images of their oligarch leaders and the marching bands…Da da da da da - Ta da da da da da - Da da da da da …you can almost hear the soviet national anthem, in the in the back ground… No comrade, it doesn’t seem close at all. The soviet attempted to associate the people’s self image with this spectacle…overt militarism…the citizens of the US, on the other hand, know that the US carries a big stick…we don’t need to see the stick marching down main street in order to complete, or validate our collective identity.

You've never been to a military parade, mate. I've seen US parades do exactly the same thing . . . parading to patriotic music, images of the Great Leader everywhere, weapons on display etc.

Ironically enuf, the Russians often paraded with fake missiles as a way of exaggerating their strength.

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 12:11 AM

You've never been to a military parade, mate. I've seen US parades do exactly the same thing . . . parading to patriotic music, images of the Great Leader everywhere, weapons on display etc.

Ironically enuf, the Russians often paraded with fake missiles as a way of exaggerating their strength.
Yeah, I saw comrades pictures...a tank and a field gun followed by a high school marching band...right up there with the soviet...you betcha...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/4.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/19f.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/17-Soviet-Rodchenko-NKVD-Sports-Parade-1936.jpg

[redstar2000]

The wolf replied "Yeah, you may be right...in fact, I may die before this week ends, but I would rather die up here, in my hills as a free wolf, than live to a very old age down in your village as a slave."

A charming tale...and a frequent observation of 18th and 19th century historians, who often admired the "poor but free barbarians" while morally condemning the wealthy servility of Empire.

But many conclusions can be drawn from such tales.

It's unlikely, for example, that communist society will ever countenance the lavish display of "wealth for wealth's sake" so characteristic of late capitalism.

We envision a society on a human scale...and not the monumental excesses that we see around us now.

Soon, as I understand it, the ruling class will begin constructing another 100-story monstrosity on the site of the old World Trade Center buildings.

Imagine those resources diverted to renovating every tenement in Harlem instead.

Does that make us "wolves"? :D

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 01:42 AM

A charming tale...and a frequent observation of 18th and 19th century historians, who often admired the "poor but free barbarians" while morally condemning the wealthy servility of Empire.

But many conclusions can be drawn from such tales.

It's unlikely, for example, that communist society will ever countenance the lavish display of "wealth for wealth's sake" so characteristic of late capitalism.

We envision a society on a human scale...and not the monumental excesses that we see around us now.

Soon, as I understand it, the ruling class will begin constructing another 100-story monstrosity on the site of the old World Trade Center buildings.

Imagine those resources diverted to renovating every tenement in Harlem instead.

Does that make us "wolves"? :D

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
Those people who live in the Harlem tenements, and the Chicago tenements, and the LA tenements and the Atlanta tenements, etc., are just about the only people in this nation that remain poor throughout their entire lives. Most of us pass through being poor when we are young and have no marketable skills or experience...then we move on.

The people in those tenements, however, are trapped in the welfare system that promised to take care of them...they are stuck in a situation of generational dependence...the children grow up in it and then simply grow into it...such is the result when government attempts to take care of people...

In 50 years, that 100 story monstrosity will still be generating capital and income for tens of thousands of people who work there, and millions scattered across the world who do business with people based there....in 50 years, those tennements would still be draining the life and hope out of anyone who lives there...and it would be ready for its 5th or 6th renovation...

You have a nice dream...but the human scale has outgrown that dream...If Marx lived today, I don't suppose he would have written as he did...the human scale was much different then than it is today...Humans are global in scale today...in Marx's day, the scale was an order of magnitude smaller.

[redstar2000]

In 50 years, that 100 story monstrosity will still be generating capital and income for tens of thousands of people who work there, and millions scattered across the world who do business with people based there....

You hope.

Myself, I think there's a good chance it will be abandoned by then, a useless and vulgar extravagance, a phallic monument to a capitalism that no longer exists.

Or perhaps converted into the world's tallest apartment building. :D


You have a nice dream...but the human scale has outgrown that dream...If Marx lived today, I don't suppose he would have written as he did...the human scale was much different then than it is today...Humans are global in scale today...in Marx's day, the scale was an order of magnitude smaller.

You confuse humanity with the size of capitalism, a fairly frequent error. The economy was global in Marx's day and will no doubt be global in many respects under communism.

What it won't be is utterly indifferent to human needs unless some bastard can make a profit.

Meanwhile, I also like to speculate on what Marx would have written were he alive today...but I don't think his views would win approval in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by redstar2[email protected] 16 2004, 03:40 PM

You hope.

Myself, I think there's a good chance it will be abandoned by then, a useless and vulgar extravagance, a phallic monument to a capitalism that no longer exists.

Or perhaps converted into the world's tallest apartment building. :D



You confuse humanity with the size of capitalism, a fairly frequent error. The economy was global in Marx's day and will no doubt be global in many respects under communism.

What it won't be is utterly indifferent to human needs unless some bastard can make a profit.

Meanwhile, I also like to speculate on what Marx would have written were he alive today...but I don't think his views would win approval in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
You seem to have a very nasty habit of ignoring actual history in favor of some sort of fantasy history. The origninal towers were opened in 1973...they had been in use for nearly 30 years when they fell and there wasn't a single bit of evidence to suggest that they were coming to the end of their usefullness. The empire state building is 73 years old and it is still nearly 100% occupied...no...history suggests that in 50 years, the new tower will be doing exactly what it is being designed for.

I am not confusing humanity for capitalism...The world of the individual has grown and expanded enormously since Marx's day...To compare the "globalism" of his day with the globalism of today is to again, completely ignore history. (Nasty, but necesary, habit of communists I suppose)

[DaCuBaN]

You seem to have a very nasty habit of ignoring actual history in favor of some sort of fantasy history. The origninal towers were opened in 1973...they had been in use for nearly 30 years when they fell and there wasn't a single bit of evidence to suggest that they were coming to the end of their usefullness. The empire state building is 73 years old and it is still nearly 100% occupied...no...history suggests that in 50 years, the new tower will be doing exactly what it is being designed for

You misunderstand - he's saying that for all we know there won't be capital in 50 years and hence speculating it is a pointless endeavour.

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:05 PM

You misunderstand - he's saying that for all we know there won't be capital in 50 years and hence speculating it is a pointless endeavour.
uuh huh.....and maybe...well never mind....the fact that capital has been the rule for humanity since the beginning of recorded history probably doesn't even make a dent in your cranium...

If it did, then the idea that we would reverse our entire recorded history in 50 years would sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me.

[PRC-UTE]

The world of the individual has grown and expanded enormously since Marx's day...To compare the "globalism" of his day with the globalism of today is to again, completely ignore history. (Nasty, but necesary, habit of communists I suppose)

If Marx lived today, I don't suppose he would have written as he did...the human scale was much different then than it is today...Humans are global in scale today...in Marx's day, the scale was an order of magnitude smaller.

I don't see why Marx would change his tune at all. Most of his predictions have come true. We're moving more and more to a global economy, the pursuit of capital is nearly infinite, global communications are common, the division between haves and have-nots is widening, all as Marx predicted.

The only thing Marx couldn't predict of course, was how long it would take his hypothesis to unfold. He wasn't a prophet but a scientist.

[redstar2000]

...history suggests that in 50 years, the new tower will be doing exactly what it is being designed for.

Your notion of "history" being, of course, that "nothing much changes" and "tomorrow will be pretty much like today".

Are you sure you're 57?

You may have, as you claim, read Marx...but I seriously doubt if you were paying attention.


To compare the "globalism" of his day with the globalism of today is to again, completely ignore history.

Actually, in the years leading up to World War I, global economic activity was a higher proportion of all economic activity than it is today...though we are "catching up" with 1913 and may surpass it in another decade or two.


...the fact that capital has been the rule for humanity since the beginning of recorded history probably doesn't even make a dent in your cranium...

Hey, that's a good one! "Capitalism has existed forever." :lol:

I don't really think you should permit yourself to even use the word "history"...at least not until you acquaint yourself with some of the gross details.

The Waning of the Middle Ages : a Study of the Forms of Life, Thought, and Art in France and the Netherlands in the XIVth and XVth centuries by Johan Huizinga might be a good place for you to begin.

There have been merchant-capitalists at the margins of society throughout recorded history...but capitalism is a recent development.

Things change.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Pale Rider]

Perhaps you are skimming for key words and forming your reply based on one or two words rather than the entire idea.

The study of history is not so much a study of "what happened" as it is a study of trends toward this or that. So, in terms of how history has actually operated since we began recording it, yes...nothing much changes from day to day and decade to decade...

I said one can't comare the globalism of today with the globalism of Marx's day and you immediately glomed onto economics as if that were the entirety of globalism...to compare even the economics of the day with today is somewhat deceptive...you are after all comparing relative GDP's...One can compare, in relative terms, the amount of energy being released when a match is struck to the energy released when a tree burns, but the comparison lacks a certain...truthfullness.

And again, I said that capital has been the rule for humanity since the beginning of recorded hisotry..capital does not necessaryly constitute capitalism...the rabbits that the rabbit boss gave to those who helped him was capital in that day...I am arguing apples and you are rebutting oranges...

Let me ask...I see this in discussions all over the board...communists, or those who support communism arguing in the narrowest possible terms...is it impossible to look at the broader picture and still maintain a logical belief in communism? I ask this because I am a "big picture" kind of guy, and the big picture just doesn't seem to have any real room for communism within it..

[Guest1]

Actually, the very notion of "Capital" only came about recently as well. In fact, it was the development of this notion that allowed Capitalism to develop. Before that, the idea of wealth creation was not even within the frame of mind of the populace. For one of them to think of it would have been like a blind man defining the word "red".

Before Capitalism, there was no "Capital".

From wikipedia:


In classical economics, capital is one of three factors of production, the others being land and labour. Goods with the following features are capital:

*It can be used in the production of other goods (this is what makes it a factor of production).
*It is human-made, in contrast to "land," which means naturally occurring resources such as geographical locations and minerals.
*It is not used up immediately in the process of production, unlike raw materials or intermediate goods.
Which a rabbit is not. Capital is, for example, a machine in the factory.

The only other definition of it, which DaCuBaN was using, is Capitalism itself.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Is Pale Rider the stupidest member che-lives has ever had?

[redstar2000]

...is it impossible to look at the broader picture and still maintain a logical belief in communism? I ask this because I am a "big picture" kind of guy, and the big picture just doesn't seem to have any real room for communism within it...

I think it depends on who's painting that "big picture"...and who commissioned the work.

Marxism is one of several "meta-historical" theories that have emerged over the last 150 years or so...and the only one to remain vital. (Try to find a follower of Herbert Spencer or Arnold Toynbee these days...good luck!)

Bourgeois historians have been reduced to contingency -- shit happens! -- or the post-modernist retreat into "history is really unknowable" and what we think of as history is just a temporary social construct that will be replaced with another temporary social construct in a few decades, etc.

They're really not much improvement over Gibbon -- "history is a record of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind".

So if you are, as you claim, a "big picture" guy, then you have little choice other than Marxism...or chaos: history is a series of random events with no discernible relationship to each other.

No doubt you would much prefer the latter...but in making that choice you also make hash out of any notion that "nothing much changes from day to day or decade to decade". This view of history means that anything can happen at any time. All the cards are "wild" and nothing is really "impossible".

But perhaps you'd prefer to abandon history altogether and take shelter under the dubious premises of "evolutionary psychology" -- people are selfish-gene machines, period, and always have been...and always will be. Everything else is just trivia.

A profoundly gloomy view of things...but each to their taste, I suppose.

One thing can be said for it: you'll never be disappointed.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[The Sloth]

And again, I said that capital has been the rule for humanity since the beginning of recorded hisotry

Depends what you mean by "capital"...if capital means "meaningful exchanges," then you are correct. If "capital" means the traditional idea of money that is managed, manipulated, invested and accumulated for the purpose of creating a profit and excess, then you are very wrong. Read on to understand what I'm saying.


the rabbits that the rabbit boss gave to those who helped him was capital in that day...

Rabbits were not "accumulated," or used as an "investment." "Capital" refers to wealth (whether it's money or rabbits) that is accumulated, managed and invested.
"Capital" was really becoming a reality in the 1300's, where individuals no longer "worked" just for the purpose of sustenance, but tried to accumulate a little more money in hopes of getting "better things" in the future.

Maybe "capital" really was in the form of a "rabbit" at one point...but like you said, "capital" doesn't necessarily constitute "capitalism," and therefore, "capitalism" and a "market" were not rules that humanity has lived by forever.

I think what you are trying to say is that "meaningful exchanges," such as service for service, goods for goods, money for goods and/or services has been a "rule" for humanity since the beginning of time, and I agree. What you are insinuating, however, is that communism makes no sense since there will no capital which, in your mind, means that there will be no "meaningful exchanges," a "rule of humanity." Wrong -- there simply won't be a "market"...services will be exchanged for goods and other services, just not for money.


Let me ask...I see this in discussions all over the board...communists, or those who support communism arguing in the narrowest possible terms...is it impossible to look at the broader picture and still maintain a logical belief in communism? I ask this because I am a "big picture" kind of guy, and the big picture just doesn't seem to have any real room for communism within it.

You came to that conclusion under false pretenses, so I'll simply throw your "conclusion" out of the proverbial window.

[Pale Rider]

Which a rabbit is not. Capital is, for example, a machine in the factory.



Rabbits were not "accumulated," or used as an "investment." "Capital" refers to wealth (whether it's money or rabbits) that is accumulated,

Again...very narrow views. When your wealth is measured in terms of how many clories that you get per day, and what small amount of posessions that you can carry with you as you move from day to day...then the calories that are housed within rabbits are capital...and the rabbit was valuable not only for its caloric value, there was the skin which could be made into all sorts of items that may be traded with other family groups...

The rabbit boss invested time (capital) and materials (capital) and knowledge (capital) into making a net with which to catch rabbits. The accumulated capital was represented by the net. The net represented a possibility...the possibility of something to eat besides roots and bugs. The heads of other family groups were willing to subordinate themselves for a period of time to the rabbit boss and in effect work for him in exchange for payment in rabbits. The rabbit boss had a larger investment in the project as the net was his and there was no argument that he recieved the larger payoff on his investment.

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 02:01 PM
Is Pale Rider the stupidest member che-lives has ever had?
Excuse me if I don't give much creedence to your question. I reviewed your posts...1100 posts consisting mostly of 1 or two line responses that rarely if ever actually touch on the discussion at hand...

I would suggest that if we were actually looking for stupid members, the content of your posts would certainly qualify you for consideration.

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 17 2004, 03:21 PM

I think what you are trying to say is that "meaningful exchanges," such as service for service, goods for goods, money for goods and/or services has been a "rule" for humanity since the beginning of time, and I agree. What you are insinuating, however, is that communism makes no sense since there will no capital which, in your mind, means that there will be no "meaningful exchanges," a "rule of humanity." Wrong -- there simply won't be a "market"...services will be exchanged for goods and other services, just not for money.




So...you are saying that communism, as you see it, is simply rudimentary capitalism?...

The rabbit boss certainly had capital invested in his net, and he paid the workers who agreed to work for him in rabbits, and he took the larger share of the rabbits that were caught. While it is primitive, it is capitalism at work.

Capital isn't just money...your time is capitaleven though you can't accumulate it or save it...its value is determined by what you do with it as it is happening. You can spend your time working and accumulate wealth, or you can spend it recreating...Either choice has costs and benefits...Your description of communism sound very much like capitalism without dollar bills.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Pale [email protected] 17 2004, 04:10 PM
Excuse me if I don't give much creedence to your question. I reviewed your posts...1100 posts consisting mostly of 1 or two line responses that rarely if ever actually touch on the discussion at hand...
I go for quality of quantity.

I would just like to inform you that not every commoditity is a form of capital.

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 04:29 PM
I go for quality of quantity.

I would just like to inform you that not every commoditity is a form of capital.
Well..you have the quantity part of the equation down anyway...

I never suggested that all commodities were capital...The way that a given commodity relates to your life determines whether it is capital or not.

I have a net that I use to catch live bait with before we go fishing...that net isn't capital to me...I could just as easily go to a bait shop and buy bait...or use artificial bait and still catch fish. The net of the rabbit boss however represented the possibility of making his life, and the lives of those who interacted with him better, even if only for a short time. The protien and residual materials from the rabbits represented a net gain in what they considered wealth...so in that context, the net and the rabbits that were caught in it were indeed capital.

[Guest1]

<_<

Once more:


In classical economics, capital is one of three factors of production, the others being land and labour. Goods with the following features are capital:

*It can be used in the production of other goods (this is what makes it a factor of production).
*It is human-made, in contrast to "land," which means naturally occurring resources such as geographical locations and minerals.
*It is not used up immediately in the process of production, unlike raw materials or intermediate goods.

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 17 2004, 09:47 PM
<_<

Once more:


You aren&#39;t really as daft as you are making out to be are you?

Does this board have a crayon function so that I can draw you a picture? First off, the Shoshone lifestyle hardly represents "classical economics"...

Furthermore, "classical economics" doesn&#39;t encompas the entirety of economic study....and is wikipedia the only source that you ever use for definitions? You, and many others on this board seem to be locked into a very narrow view of the world...

I shouldn&#39;t have to explain such a simple concept to one who obviously holds him/herself in such high regard, but let me hold your hand and help you to think, if only for a minute or two, outside that box that you apparently are trapped inside of.

Just for starters, lets explore other definitions of capital...

From Encarta - material wealth in the form of money or property

From Encarta - advantage derived from or useful in a particular situation

From Infoplease - any form of wealth employed or capable of being employed in the production of more wealth.

I could go on, but you get the picture...don&#39;t you?

Now, lets explore your narrow definition...


It can be used in the production of other goods (this is what makes it a factor of production).


Can you imagine that the net is an engine that can be used to produce rabbits? Is that such a difficult concept? And the rabbit meat is used as fuel for the human metabolism and the rabbit by products, fur, skin, etc could be used to make items that could be traded at a later date? Is this sinking in?


*It is human-made, in contrast to "land," which means naturally occurring resources such as geographical locations and minerals.

Tell me, which plant do nets grow on...or is it possible that the owner of the net invested his time (capital) materials (capital) and knowledge (capital) into making it and therefore had a capital investment in it? The trapped live rabbits were a product resulting from the operation of the net (capital investment)...the dead rabbits were payment for work performed...the rabbit byproducts were capital (in that they were saved to be used in other production) that could be used as trade goods, or for personal use later. Is the light coming on yet?



It is not used up immediately in the process of production, unlike raw materials or intermediate goods.

The rabbit boss&#39;s net (capital investment) certainly was not used up in the process of production...nor were the rabbits. The flesh was consumed...(consumables) and the fur, hydes, bone etc was saved for future use..either personal or trade.


This isn&#39;t rocket science...Geez...