I'm serious. I know these are dumb questions. [Archive]

ahhh_money_is_comfort

6th December 2004, 01:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:39 AM

In a communist society how do I get food and clothes?

You must stand in line for at least 27 and a half hours to get a beet.
For a roll of toilet paper it could be up to a week.

But seriously, you would br given what you need by the governemnt.
You would go to work because you would be forced. Not the de facto "societal pressures" that these anarcho-hacks suggest. If you're able to work, you work.

Most people woukld work gladly.
Less amounts of work would be necessary and generally speaking, individuals will benefit more greatly from their work than they do today.
Oh I hope your wrong about the beets and toilet paper.

I hope your right about working. I can not work, I am alergic to it. I hope your right about other people wanting to work. I plan to persue my hobbies. I love to fish. I would not mind going fishing with my rod and reel. I could even bring back the extra to the collective. Would that be enough for my part? I would like to just stay home. Hey I would even pack lunches for my neighbors who still want to go to work. It is the least I could do, of course as long as packing lunches does not get in the way of my hobbies and fishing.

Elect Marx

6th December 2004, 02:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:39 AM
But seriously, you would br given what you need by the governemnt.
You would go to work because you would be forced. Not the de facto "societal pressures" that these anarcho-hacks suggest. If you're able to work, you work.
Communist... government? Dude, what are you talking about? What do you mean by government? A democratic collective or an oppressive vanguard? Forced how?

You really need to explain what the hell you are trying to describe, especially if you are going to devalue our anarchist comrades...

ahhh_money_is_comfort

6th December 2004, 02:36

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Dec 6 2004, 02:11 AM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Dec 6 2004, 02:11 AM)
[email protected] 6 2004, 01:39 AM
But seriously, you would br given what you need by the governemnt.
You would go to work because you would be forced. Not the de facto "societal pressures" that these anarcho-hacks suggest. If you're able to work, you work.
Communist... government? Dude, what are you talking about? What do you mean by government? A democratic collective or an oppressive vanguard? Forced how?

You really need to explain what the hell you are trying to describe, especially if you are going to devalue our anarchist comrades... [/b]
Yea. What 'forced to work by government' are you talking about. Please describe. I thought I could go fishing?

Invader Zim

6th December 2004, 02:41

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Dec 6 2004, 03:36 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Dec 6 2004, 03:36 AM)
Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 6 2004, 02:11 AM

[email protected] 6 2004, 01:39 AM
But seriously, you would br given what you need by the governemnt.
You would go to work because you would be forced. Not the de facto "societal pressures" that these anarcho-hacks suggest. If you're able to work, you work.
Communist... government? Dude, what are you talking about? What do you mean by government? A democratic collective or an oppressive vanguard? Forced how?

You really need to explain what the hell you are trying to describe, especially if you are going to devalue our anarchist comrades...
Yea. What 'forced to work by government' are you talking about. Please describe. I thought I could go fishing? [/b]
I don't kno what ridiculous idea you have about communism, but the government won't force you to work, any more than you are forced to work in capitalist society.

The differance is that in communism you work for the society, in capitalism you work for the share-holder. <_<

The state in communism works for you, so I'll pick the state anyday of the week over the share holders.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

6th December 2004, 02:53

Originally posted by Enigma+Dec 6 2004, 02:41 AM--> (Enigma @ Dec 6 2004, 02:41 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 6 2004, 02:11 AM

[email protected] 6 2004, 01:39 AM
But seriously, you would br given what you need by the governemnt.
You would go to work because you would be forced. Not the de facto "societal pressures" that these anarcho-hacks suggest. If you're able to work, you work.
Communist... government? Dude, what are you talking about? What do you mean by government? A democratic collective or an oppressive vanguard? Forced how?

You really need to explain what the hell you are trying to describe, especially if you are going to devalue our anarchist comrades...
Yea. What 'forced to work by government' are you talking about. Please describe. I thought I could go fishing?
I don't kno what ridiculous idea you have about communism, but the government won't force you to work, any more than you are forced to work in capitalist society.

The differance is that in communism you work for the society, in capitalism you work for the share-holder. <_<

The state in communism works for you, so I'll pick the state anyday of the week over the share holders. [/b]
Right on. I'm going fishing. The chumps can work. I got food, I got shelter, and I got clothing. I'm going fishing, yeaaah haw!

LSD

6th December 2004, 03:26

Right on. I'm going fishing. The chumps can work. I got food, I got shelter, and I got clothing. I'm going fishing, yeaaah haw!

What are you, deaf?

This has been explained to you several times.

If you don't work, you don't get to partake in collective resources. If you work, you do.

Simple, no?

Raisa

6th December 2004, 03:30

<<Please bear with me. I just don't imagine how this works. If the fridge is empty do I go to the store and take what I want? If I need a jacket do I go to the mall and take what I want? I know this must be really a dumb quetion, but I'm serious.>>

Not dumb at all, it is a very fair question. :)
Like someone said, you would get your jacket from the local collective of people who make things like that. Or since you are not working your life away all the time in communism, if you have something in mind, you can make your own jacket how you want it to be.

I have this theory ( even when karl marx himself said "teach a man to fish and you ruin a good buisness opportunity") that in communism alot of things people are going to be able to do themselves, and that is going to become more fullfilling to peoples lives, that they can make what they want how they want it, and it is going to almost eliminate a consumeristic economy. There will be jackets, and there will be pots and pans and what not, and I am sure many people will take part in the process of making them, but when it comes to what you want on your things and all, or even diagnosing some illnesses , that will be something people will do themselves.

<<Right on. I'm going fishing. The chumps can work. I got food, I got shelter, and I got clothing. I'm going fishing, yeaaah haw! >>

If you do not put in your share of labor for your neigborhood then you are nothing but a theif and I doubt anyone is going to put up with that.
What gives you that impression?
People are emancipated in communism- not stupid! :lol:

redstar2000

6th December 2004, 04:05

It's too bad that such on-going confusion has to exist...but such, I guess are the times in which we find ourselves.

Communism: you don't "have" to work at all.

Socialism: you do have to work...or find someone who'll support you. In fairness, it's likely that you won't have to work as hard as you do now.

This subject has been discussed so many times on this board that I'm frankly shocked that this distinction is not yet understood.

Socialism is "capitalism without capitalists" -- everything would be more or less like it is now except there'd be no capitalist class any longer. There'd still be money, commodity circulation, and wage-slavery -- you would still have to have a job in order to survive.

Communism means the abolition of wage-slavery altogether -- everyone gets "what they need" completely regardless of what they produce.

And before any of you cappies get carried away, I can assure you that you don't "need" a castle, a mansion, a yacht, or a really fast sports car. :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

Urban Rubble

6th December 2004, 04:15

Communism means the abolition of wage-slavery altogether -- everyone gets "what they need" completely regardless of what they produce.

I get your basic point in that post RedStar. But what I think this kid is looking for is, why should people work in a communist society if they don't have to?".

Basically, in a Communist society, you would never be forced to work. However, in my opinion, if you don't work you wouldn't be able to share the collective rescources (clothes, pots and pans). Now, if you can survive on your own, fine. But you wouldn't get the kind of communal help that we are striving for under communism.

People who can't work would be provided for.

Elect Marx

6th December 2004, 08:56

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 6 2004, 04:15 AM
Basically, in a Communist society, you would never be forced to work. However, in my opinion, if you don't work you wouldn't be able to share the collective rescources (clothes, pots and pans). Now, if you can survive on your own, fine. But you wouldn't get the kind of communal help that we are striving for under communism.

People who can't work would be provided for.
I agree, it is exactly the "de facto societal pressures," that RZ somehow condemns that would hold a classless society together. If you refuse to work for the benefit of the people around you, they won't respect you and in turn, they won't provide for you. So you should thus be ashamed that you refuse to produce as others have produced for you. Should you decide to help society and better yourself, others will help you.

Though after the socialism stage, this doesn't seem too significant as people naturally enjoy contributing to a fair society and thereby improving their environment. Because you do not need massive surplus, work would be a very small portion of your day, unless you want to work more. Personally if I was raised in a communist society, I would spend a lot of time working as an artist, engineer and author. It is great to be appreciated and a productive member of a society, instead of that guy who sits around and refuses to provide even a little help for anyone or do anything at all...I hate that guy; don't you?

It is really that simple.

In all honesty, who would assosite with someone indifferent to society? People generally need social interaction. Without this stimulation, you are very likely to DIE.

NovelGentry

6th December 2004, 09:18

The argument of "Why would people work if they don't have to" stems from the way bourgeois society looks at work. In that society work is something you do to maintain life, where in communist society it is something that is done for many reasons, none of which are required to sustain life.

As he said, he enjoys fishing, so he could fish and give excess fish he doesn't need to the community. This is a very righteous example of how Marx described the possibility of man contributing to society on more than one interest. Most peoples hobbies are productive in a way, and that is how they acquire satisfaction from them. For example, I enjoy writing, my writing would be made available for entertainment, I would also love to teach people how to write, given the nature of communist society someone like me could go to school at no cost to me, become educated with what is necessary, and then become a teacher myself to teach future generations. I also am handy with computers, so I could manage websites both useful and for entertainment, help people fix their systems, etc..etc.

Anyone who has such interests can do the same things, and in essence it would never feel like "work" because you enjoy doing it. Contrary to popular belief some people enjoy preparing food, some people enjoy working on farms, others enjoy building/reparing vehicles.... my brother is becoming a mathematician because he enjoys math, but he also enjoys the practical uses of math, which at his skill level are useful in things like engineering and biochemistry.

You have to stop thinking about it like work in order to see how it does work. You also have to realize that in order for communism to work, and by definition class antagonisms will be destroyed and in general people will have a better understanding of the benefits of working for a community as they see the good which has come of it. Out of this people will do things voluntarily that they might not necessarily want to do, but understand the need for. I would have no problem cleaning public restrooms for 4 hours every weekend or so... by dividing this type of work amongst the masses everyone has to do less and it becomes no such burden to do it, but becomes a general contribution towards the community that people will do because they understand the need.

It is certainly true that you cannot think bourgeois and fully understand communism, which is the case with all these examples of "I don't get it"... and you never will get it unless you start to see the world in a whole different light.

As far as getting what you need, Redstar is 100% right on this, and it is indeed shocking that so many people have come fourth to say one "must work" in communist society. No one must work, but it's stupid and ill conceived to think that just because they don't have to they won't.

Elect Marx

6th December 2004, 09:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 09:18 AM
The argument of "Why would people work if they don't have to" stems from the way bourgeois society looks at work. In that society work is something you do to maintain life, where in communist society it is something that is done for many reasons, none of which are required to sustain life.

As he said, he enjoys fishing, so he could fish and give excess fish he doesn't need to the community. This is a very righteous example of how Marx described the possibility of man contributing to society on more than one interest. Most peoples hobbies are productive in a way, and that is how they acquire satisfaction from them. For example, I enjoy writing, my writing would be made available for entertainment, I would also love to teach people how to write, given the nature of communist society someone like me could go to school at no cost to me, become educated with what is necessary, and then become a teacher myself to teach future generations. I also am handy with computers, so I could manage websites both useful and for entertainment, help people fix their systems, etc..etc.

Anyone who has such interests can do the same things, and in essence it would never feel like "work" because you enjoy doing it. Contrary to popular belief some people enjoy preparing food, some people enjoy working on farms, others enjoy building/reparing vehicles.... my brother is becoming a mathematician because he enjoys math, but he also enjoys the practical uses of math, which at his skill level are useful in things like engineering and biochemistry.

You have to stop thinking about it like work in order to see how it does work. You also have to realize that in order for communism to work, and by definition class antagonisms will be destroyed and in general people will have a better understanding of the benefits of working for a community as they see the good which has come of it. Out of this people will do things voluntarily that they might not necessarily want to do, but understand the need for. I would have no problem cleaning public restrooms for 4 hours every weekend or so... by dividing this type of work amongst the masses everyone has to do less and it becomes no such burden to do it, but becomes a general contribution towards the community that people will do because they understand the need.

It is certainly true that you cannot think bourgeois and fully understand communism, which is the case with all these examples of "I don't get it"... and you never will get it unless you start to see the world in a whole different light.

As far as getting what you need, Redstar is 100% right on this, and it is indeed shocking that so many people have come fourth to say one "must work" in communist society. No one must work, but it's stupid and ill conceived to think that just because they don't have to they won't.
Well, it seems you would be going into the right field.

Why arn't you in the "FORUM FORUM," (as they are calling it now) yet?

NovelGentry

6th December 2004, 10:02

I was invited fairly early on in my stay here, and I declined the offer for several reasons.

1) There was a supposed minimum time you had to have been a member for, and at the time I was below this number, I felt it'd be fairly unfair for them to acquire me by breaking the rule (I'm not sure if this rule has been lifted since or if it was ever actually enforced, but I know I read it somewhere)

2) I didn't feel I filled a lot of the minimum requirements. There seemed to be a lot of focus on non-reformists, and at the time I was coming under heavy criticism by people saying I was reformist.

3) I didn't feel I'd be able to fill the responsibilities of it. A lot of it is voting on admins and making decisions for various things on the board... all of which I didn't feel I kept up with enough to make informed decisions. I tend not to bother to read everything here, and sometimes I go inactive for fairly lengthy periods of time.

There were probably more reasons at the time, but I forget them now. I prefer doing technical administrative tasks rather than moderator type tasks -- I'm put to much better use this way.

Professor Moneybags

6th December 2004, 13:25

You would go to work because you would be forced. Not the de facto "societal pressures" that these anarcho-hacks suggest. If you're able to work, you work.

With a gun against your head. So much for getting rid of opression.

Professor Moneybags

6th December 2004, 13:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:41 AM
I don't kno what ridiculous idea you have about communism, but the government won't force you to work, any more than you are forced to work in capitalist society.
Metaphysical force (working to provide for you own existence because you'll starve) and man-made force (working because someone is pointing a gun at you i.e. slavery) are two completely different things. The first is called reality, the second, tyranny.

NovelGentry

6th December 2004, 13:52

Metaphysical force (working to provide for you own existence because you'll starve) and man-made force (working because someone is pointing a gun at you i.e. slavery) are two completely different things. The first is called reality, the second, tyranny.

The first is not a reality as there are given social conditions which will allow certain people to avoid this... for example, the capitalist who does not need to work to provide for his own existence because he exploits his workers for the required money to sustain his existence. The sickening part of the situation is that the worker is forced to work to sustain their own existence, aswell as that of the capitalists they sustain. This is the very nature of capitalism and why it is exploitation to begin with. Gives a whole new meaning to corporate welfare.

This is not to say that such "welfare" situations do not exist under communism. It is most certain that there will be a number of people who simply don't contribute to society, the difference is that instead of being considered and "elite upper class above the working class scum of society" these people will be looked down upon, even to the point where not contributing to their own needs and the needs of the community will become a shameful.

To those who are already revolutionary there is already an extreme shame attributed to the ruling class, and frankly I find it disgusting that not only do some fail to realize this grotesque blemish, but many more realize it and are too greedy and arrogant to believe it's their problem.

Urban Rubble

6th December 2004, 18:31

As far as getting what you need, Redstar is 100% right on this, and it is indeed shocking that so many people have come fourth to say one "must work" in communist society. No one must work, but it's stupid and ill conceived to think that just because they don't have to they won't.

And I think it's stupid to think that someone who wishes to be a leech and not work should share in our community's recources simply because we're nice communists living in a hippy wonderland.

I agree with you that most people would work willingly if they have a job they find fufilling. However, I think it's fairly obvious that there would still be some people out there who are simly lazy and would never contribute if they didn't actually have to. So what do we do with those people ? Hope that there is only a few of them and they won't be much of a problem, or do we actually do something about it ?

Jealousy, anger and revenge are all feelings that Capitalist society enhances. However, they are still basic human emotions that will never fully be eliminated. If I am living on a collective working as a, say, mechanic, and I am putting in 4 to 6 hours per day of hard work. If I come home and see that Joe has been sitting at home all day masturbating and playing checkers, but still gets his meals and clothes, I'm going to be fucking pissed off, regardless of if I enjoyed my day of work or not.

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th December 2004, 21:36

Communist... government? Dude, what are you talking about? What do you mean by government? A democratic collective or an oppressive vanguard? Forced how?

You really need to explain what the hell you are trying to describe, especially if you are going to devalue our anarchist comrades...

By 'government' I mean a political class organization.
Therefore I was indeed referring to socialism.
Communism is a bit hard to foresee, and probably a bit arbitrary.

In socialism, folks would be compelled to work by the government.
Communism would be pretty much a shift of power from a workers' government, representing all people, to a completely de-centralized society. One would not be "forced" to work by anybody, as complete autonomy would exist. People will possess a communal consciousness and will work to protect that condition. Their own standard of living, political freedom, and autonomy will depend on their contribution to society.

This greatly differs from anarchists' theory that "de-facto societal pressures" is why people will work. Essentially, that would still constitute as "force" and oppression.

That's because for communism to exist and for people to work on their own account for their own personal interest, class society and inequality must be abolished. Otherwise, people will be working for the economic ruling class, not for themselves, and will therefore be under force to work.

This freedom from class society cannot exist in a post-capitalist society. The power must first be distributed among the working class, organized as a central government. Only after this will the people establish communism, and render "government" obsolete.

A revolutionary vanguard cannot establish communism. Socialism must first precede this. When total power is equally in the hands of the public, communism will exist.

Urban Rubble

6th December 2004, 21:48

By 'government' I mean a political class organization.
Therefore I was indeed referring to socialism.
Communism is a bit hard to foresee, and probably a bit arbitrary.

It's so nice to see a Leninist slip and show a little of what they truly believe. That the Socialism "phase" isn't at phase at all, why strive for such a "hard to forsee" goal as Communism when we can just work for the government FOREVER.

NovelGentry

6th December 2004, 22:19

And I think it's stupid to think that someone who wishes to be a leech and not work should share in our community's recources simply because we're nice communists living in a hippy wonderland.

Good thing it's not up to what you think or we'd never reach communism!

So what do we do with those people ? Hope that there is only a few of them and they won't be much of a problem, or do we actually do something about it ?

In a social sense we treat them as they are, disgusting. Try just for a moment just to think of the length socialism may take to destroy class antagonisms, and try to think of a world where you are brought up in a society where your work can be a mastery to be marvelled at.

As Marx said, "The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every cccupation hitherto honored and looked up on with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers."

There's no need to hope there's only a few, there WILL be only a few, it is simply a non-issue.

Jealousy, anger and revenge are all feelings that Capitalist society enhances. However, they are still basic human emotions that will never fully be eliminated. If I am living on a collective working as a, say, mechanic, and I am putting in 4 to 6 hours per day of hard work. If I come home and see that Joe has been sitting at home all day masturbating and playing checkers, but still gets his meals and clothes, I'm going to be fucking pissed off, regardless of if I enjoyed my day of work or not.

That is because you're a reactionary thinker who sees your 4 to 6 hours of "hard work" as payment for what you receive. You are not paid, you do not collect $200 (monopoly talk here), this personal property is not your private property (there is a HUGE difference).

ahhh_money_is_comfort

7th December 2004, 01:10

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 6 2004, 03:26 AM

Right on. I'm going fishing. The chumps can work. I got food, I got shelter, and I got clothing. I'm going fishing, yeaaah haw!

What are you, deaf?

This has been explained to you several times.

If you don't work, you don't get to partake in collective resources. If you work, you do.

Simple, no?
Now wait a minute. I don't get a choice? You mean I go hungry and naked? How is that any different that capitialism? Seems like my choice is just as limited but for different reasons.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

7th December 2004, 01:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 03:30 AM
If you do not put in your share of labor for your neigborhood then you are nothing but a theif and I doubt anyone is going to put up with that.
What gives you that impression?
People are emancipated in communism- not stupid! :lol:
Pardon me but stealing is a capitialist concept. There is nothing to steal in communism.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

7th December 2004, 01:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 04:05 AM
It's too bad that such on-going confusion has to exist...but such, I guess are the times in which we find ourselves.

Communism: you don't "have" to work at all.

Socialism: you do have to work...or find someone who'll support you. In fairness, it's likely that you won't have to work as hard as you do now.

This subject has been discussed so many times on this board that I'm frankly shocked that this distinction is not yet understood.

Socialism is "capitalism without capitalists" -- everything would be more or less like it is now except there'd be no capitalist class any longer. There'd still be money, commodity circulation, and wage-slavery -- you would still have to have a job in order to survive.

Communism means the abolition of wage-slavery altogether -- everyone gets "what they need" completely regardless of what they produce.

And before any of you cappies get carried away, I can assure you that you don't "need" a castle, a mansion, a yacht, or a really fast sports car. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
I like the communist theory. I can not wait. I really want to live like that. Too bad it is just a theory.

You are right I don't need a castle or yaht. They don't really do anything for me. But a fast car on the other hand. Even if there was no monatery value associated with a fast car, I would still want one. Going ZING in a fast car is life is all about for me. I live for the opportunity to go ZING. I dream about it more than fishing or blowing glass. I find fishing and blowing glass rewarding, but it does not make my heart skip a beat and flutter like pulling through a turn and hearing the tires screech. Riding the blance between loosing the car and maintaing control through a turn. That is what I'm talking about. I could careless about capitalist value about fast cars, I want them because of ZING.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

7th December 2004, 02:02

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 6 2004, 06:31 PM

As far as getting what you need, Redstar is 100% right on this, and it is indeed shocking that so many people have come fourth to say one "must work" in communist society. No one must work, but it's stupid and ill conceived to think that just because they don't have to they won't.

And I think it's stupid to think that someone who wishes to be a leech and not work should share in our community's recources simply because we're nice communists living in a hippy wonderland.

I agree with you that most people would work willingly if they have a job they find fufilling. However, I think it's fairly obvious that there would still be some people out there who are simly lazy and would never contribute if they didn't actually have to. So what do we do with those people ? Hope that there is only a few of them and they won't be much of a problem, or do we actually do something about it ?

Jealousy, anger and revenge are all feelings that Capitalist society enhances. However, they are still basic human emotions that will never fully be eliminated. If I am living on a collective working as a, say, mechanic, and I am putting in 4 to 6 hours per day of hard work. If I come home and see that Joe has been sitting at home all day masturbating and playing checkers, but still gets his meals and clothes, I'm going to be fucking pissed off, regardless of if I enjoyed my day of work or not.
You can think I'm stupid all you want. I'm going fishing.

Do something about it? I vote for nah, let's not do anything about it.

Feelings? See the tread on prostitution and 'wants'. If I understand the thoery correctly you are way off, they don't exist. People will not do those emotions. That is theory and that is how it works. You are wrong.

redstar2000

7th December 2004, 02:27

This may seem odd to some, but I think people in a communist society might well have an attitude of pity for those unfortunates who could not discover worthwhile work to do.

It would be like being blind or crippled...such people condemned to "permanent leisure" by their own inadequacies would live a "half-life" -- they'd never know the feeling of productive accomplishment.

Even the fellow who just wants to "go fishing" will bring back a string of fine fish for he and his friends to cook up and enjoy (hunters and fishers are always giving away a portion of their catch to their friends...and casual acquaintances :lol:).

But the poor bastard who can do nothing useful at all? Someone who finds nothing interesting enough to do?

I think we'd end up feeling sorry for such a sorry ass...and feed him out of pity.

:redstar2000:

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

Urban Rubble

7th December 2004, 02:33

Listen dumbass, if you're going to be sarcastic and repeat your lame ass joke about "going fishing" then please fuck off right out of the thread and let the adults discuss.

There's no need to hope there's only a few, there WILL be only a few, it is simply a non-issue.

That's about as speculative as you can possibly get. I think that if humans are given the oppurtunity to receive what they need to live without working, many of them would take it. The majority ? I have no idea. But I'm fairly certain that it would be a significant amount. Enough to where we may want to consider what would be done about such a problem.

That is because you're a reactionary thinker who sees your 4 to 6 hours of "hard work" as payment for what you receive. You are not paid, you do not collect $200 (monopoly talk here), this personal property is not your private property (there is a HUGE difference).

And you're an asshole. Woohoo ! Wasn't that fun ?

I never said I was "paid", I challenge you to show where I said that. What I said was that my contribution earns my right to share in the collective rescources. I have never said a word about private property and I never said anything about recieving a wage.

And you've still failed to answer my questions. What do we do with people who can work but don't choose to ? Leave them alone ? Allow them to smoke pot and play solitaire all day ? Hope there are only a few lazy people and ignore it until it becomes a problem ? And what of my point that we are humans with basic human emotions, Anarchist paradise or not, I'm going to be jealous if Bob doesn't have to work but he gets the same things as I do.

Raisa

7th December 2004, 02:43

<<But the poor bastard who can do nothing useful at all? Someone who finds nothing interesting enough to do?

I think we'd end up feeling sorry for such a sorry ass...and feed him out of pity.>>

Yeah, Red Star, maybe one or two..... <_<

Five or six or seven or twenty five able bodied lazy people would eventually piss people off because it would become strenuous to the community. Eventually, we will all be needyer people then we have to be, just because some people refuse to contribute to anything- and their lazyness is at the expense of everyone else.

There are no "go to work" police in communism , but how long do you think all your neighbors are going to put up with that kind of thing?

They wont, because the whole concept of that is completely wack in communism, and eventually people are not going to tolerate that.

Raisa

7th December 2004, 02:56

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Dec 7 2004, 01:14 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Dec 7 2004, 01:14 AM)
[email protected] 6 2004, 03:30 AM
If you do not put in your share of labor for your neigborhood then you are nothing but a theif and I doubt anyone is going to put up with that.
What gives you that impression?
People are emancipated in communism- not stupid! :lol:
Pardon me but stealing is a capitialist concept. There is nothing to steal in communism. [/b]

Nothing is free. In a communist society if you want to enjoy the benifits of it, you have to help create them.

There are people who cant work ,but those people are few and far.
Its not like you have to work all day long or anything, but you need to contribute to your community.
And if you are going to live your happy life with your life supply of everything at the expense of your community, who you dont contribute to, then you're a theif.
Because what makes those things belong to the community is that they all put in some kind of labor so we can have those things to enjoy. If you did not do anything, then how does it have anything to do with being yours?! It doesnt!

"Stealing is a capitalist concept", and if you lay around and expect everyone to work for you, then you may as well be a capitalist.

NovelGentry

7th December 2004, 04:32

That's about as speculative as you can possibly get. I think that if humans are given the oppurtunity to receive what they need to live without working, many of them would take it. The majority ? I have no idea. But I'm fairly certain that it would be a significant amount. Enough to where we may want to consider what would be done about such a problem.

It is not speculative when you're talking about communism because you will not see communism until this is a reality, it is made a reality by socialism which aims to destroy class antagonisms and promote the ideas behind communism. It is inductive of society being communist to begin with. This is why some people say communism is a "utopia" that you will never reach, I beg to differ, and do so by looking at real world examples where community work has pushed things in directions never thought possible.

And you're an asshole. Woohoo ! Wasn't that fun ?

I never said I was "paid", I challenge you to show where I said that. What I said was that my contribution earns my right to share in the collective rescources. I have never said a word about private property and I never said anything about recieving a wage.

The truth is often painful. It is not the words but the implications of your statements which show you believe you've been paid, and more so that you believe in private property. If you believe that you work is what earns you rights to food and clothing then you are going little beyond changing the words which define the social conditions of capitalism. You indeed see this as a case of your work earning you these rights, as the lack of Joes work would earn him no rights, once again, this is implicative of the statement you made, not directly said.

This differs little from a society where people are equally paid. That is, no one makes more than anyone else for working, but if you do not work you are not paid. This is something that capitalism seeks to do amongst the proletariat to begin with, not so much consciously as unconsciously. In the end it is the ideal scenario for capitalism to have equally paid workers, all workers would earn the amount of money needed to survive and sustain the working class, and that's it.

The only thing your communism has effectively done is push the means of production to a different class, the working class, who is now the majority of the people, while a minority is no longer a working class, but some new class. Does Joe have access to the means of production? Could Joe create clothes for himself if he wanted to? What gives him the right to the material he would use in doing so? The means of production themself are created by the working class, and as such why would Joe have any right to these? Would Joe have to work for the community in order to use the means of production? If indeed Marx is right that private property doesn't really exist, and moreso that such property is an illusion of the social conditions that make that property available to some, and not to others. Then you have the exact same form of private property that the bourgeoisie has now, only once again, you have changed the class who controls it. This not only creates new class antagonisms, it is indicative of a class society, which is indeed not what communism is.

And you've still failed to answer my questions. What do we do with people who can work but don't choose to ? Leave them alone ? Allow them to smoke pot and play solitaire all day ? Hope there are only a few lazy people and ignore it until it becomes a problem ? And what of my point that we are humans with basic human emotions, Anarchist paradise or not, I'm going to be jealous if Bob doesn't have to work but he gets the same things as I do.

We do nothing with them, it is not our position to do anything with them. As I said before shame, and as redstar pointed out pity become a factor on these people. What would you suggest we do? And once again it is not an issue amongst revolutionary people. Communism will never be seen without a revolutionary majority, revolutionary thought will become a way of life, it is what people will be brought up on, in the same sense they are brought up on competition and greed under capitalism.... why are they brought up like this? Because that is how you survive and that is how you survive well. Under capitalism you have to be competitive to survive, even in a job market you must be competitive because there's not always more demand of workers than there is supply and you will in some cases have to fend for a job. If you are not competitive within capitalism you do not "suvive" (while you may actually still be alive you will not have any real dignified way of living if you've failed to push yourself against the competition). Under communism you have to work, you have to commit yourself voluntarily to the needs of people, because this is how you survive, and this is how you survive well, the more people commit themselves to that the better of we will all be, not just single men and women.

The reason I didn't answer your questions before is because they should not need to be answered, particularly not if you're taking offense to being called reactionary.

Elect Marx

7th December 2004, 05:27

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 7 2004, 02:33 AM
...I think that if humans are given the oppurtunity to receive what they need to live without working, many of them would take it. The majority ? I have no idea. But I'm fairly certain that it would be a significant amount. Enough to where we may want to consider what would be done about such a problem.

You have a very negative view of humanity. I can empathies; the negative aspects of people are all too obvious and mostly glorified under capitalism.

This is the purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or socialism if you like. After a successful revolution, we will need to restructure society to benefit all people and teach accountability as well as the value of producing for your society. Then we can progress toward communism

If given a chance, people will live in peace and prosperity. Who would have it any other way? Obviously only the confused and insane.
Why should that happen at all after a successful revolution? Under socialism, we will build a society without class and with respect for all people. After the capitalists are deprived of their "freedom" to oppress and people are truly free to know what causes their suffering, they will not allow it to happen ever again.

Even many members of ruling classes want to provide something for their societies, if only in vanity; for that is their concept of social worth.

Discarded Wobbly Pop

7th December 2004, 06:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 02:43 AM
<<But the poor bastard who can do nothing useful at all? Someone who finds nothing interesting enough to do?

I think we'd end up feeling sorry for such a sorry ass...and feed him out of pity.>>

Yeah, Red Star, maybe one or two..... <_<

Five or six or seven or twenty five able bodied lazy people would eventually piss people off because it would become strenuous to the community. Eventually, we will all be needyer people then we have to be, just because some people refuse to contribute to anything- and their lazyness is at the expense of everyone else.

There are no "go to work" police in communism , but how long do you think all your neighbors are going to put up with that kind of thing?

They wont, because the whole concept of that is completely wack in communism, and eventually people are not going to tolerate that.
You'd have to think "why?" or "what?" would would bing someone to that level of laziness.

When I don't want to do anything it's normally because I'm sick, or depressed, or worked too much the day before, or I'm sore. It's never because of some dependancy complex. I will admit with you that often laziness spreads like a disease, but never in the caser of an emergency. So when you think about it, people will be able to easily wear-off any laziness, and all others could be treated for whatever the problem may be.

Redstar says it best that sloths would be felt sorry for.

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th December 2004, 20:37

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 6 2004, 04:48 PM
It's so nice to see a Leninist slip and show a little of what they truly believe. That the Socialism "phase" isn't at phase at all, why strive for such a "hard to forsee" goal as Communism when we can just work for the government FOREVER.
I meant that to try and foresee communism is a bit arbitrary. Communism itself is by no means arbitrary.

Does this guy have a response or not?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

7th December 2004, 21:05

Nothing is free. In a communist society if you want to enjoy the benifits of it, you have to help create them.

There are people who cant work ,but those people are few and far.
Its not like you have to work all day long or anything, but you need to contribute to your community.
And if you are going to live your happy life with your life supply of everything at the expense of your community, who you dont contribute to, then you're a theif.

Woah, comrade! In a free society everything is free, and if it were any different, "Ahh Money" would be dead fucking on - it would be just like capitalism. I want a revolution to create a society that has moved past fetishizing work - and any revolution that creates another society where you you have to meet some bizarre standard of "Contribution" in order to not be excluded from partaking in the surplusses a modern society does, and will inevitably continue to, generate . . . well, it's not much of a fucking revolution.

After all, who defines what is/isn't contributing to the community? Having participated in communittees built along communist lines, with non-communists, I can assure you shit gets done, and as long as shit gets done, who cares whether or not Billy-Bob happened to participate. Maybe he just provided a bit of pleasant conversation? Maybe he sat on the internet arguing theory? The point is, what essentially differentiates a free society, is that, as long as shit is available, there's no particular reason why everyone shouldn't share in that shit, the freedom to deal pragmaticly with individual cases naturally recognised.

Food Not Bombs applied to EVERY sector of production. Think about it.

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th December 2004, 21:22

VMC, while a completely free and equal and classless communist society is our final goal, we must first aspire to build socialism. In communism, I agree completely that work will not be compulsory.

That is not to say that people will work for abstract things in communist society. They will work for communism. They will work to maintain their own social condition which is essentially dependent on their work and that of everyone else. They will be working for the good of all, and most importantly for their own good indirectly.

The material conditions for a classless and stateless society do not exist. And a revolution will not change that. Socialism must take place.

redstar2000

7th December 2004, 23:43

Originally posted by Red Zeppelin
Socialism must take place.

Not on my watch!

A "socialist boss" is still a boss!

Screw that! :angry:

As to the folks who seem to be terrified that someone is going to "get something" under communism "without working for it"...perhaps you would prefer socialism.

You could have a centralized time-clock that accurately recorded when each person "punched in" and "punched out" and rewarded them accordingly. Or perhaps a world-wide data bank for piece-work accounting.

And you could set it up so that the stuff you do is better paid than the stuff other people do.

The possibilities are "endless"...! :o

:redstar2000:

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

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th December 2004, 02:23

A "socialist boss" is still a boss!

No, actually.
A socialist "boss" is a political "puppet" of the working class, rendering him powerless against the public itself.

In all likelihood, the workers will organize, since they will be forced by the material conditions to do so as a central political apparatus. No matter how much you tell them not to, they will need a defense against the conservative reactionary movement and democratic centralism will become an inevitability. And there is always a conservative reactionary movement. Don't try to pretend like a mob of commies are gonna silence that through pressure and encouragement. :lol:

Subversive Pessimist

8th December 2004, 06:15

but when it comes to what you want on your things and all, or even diagnosing some illnesses , that will be something people will do themselves.

Uhm. Diagnose illnesses themselves? Why?

Should they also do the surgery themselves, while being anaesthetized?

Also, what would be the point of having communism in a country with the living conditions as Cuba? People couldn't just "take what they wanted", because there is lack of nearly everything.

redstar2000

8th December 2004, 16:05

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+--> (RedZeppelin)A socialist "boss" is a political "puppet" of the working class, rendering him powerless against the public itself.[/b]

Not when he's got an army he can call on -- professional soldiers who will give the "rabble" a "whiff of grapeshot" if they refuse to obey him.

And he will have an army in your perspective...

In all likelihood, the workers will organize, since they will be forced by the material conditions to do so as a central political apparatus. No matter how much you tell them not to, they will need a defense against the conservative reactionary movement and democratic centralism will become an inevitability.

Still using that old "LeninLeader" software in your crystal ball, RZ?

Neither of us has any way of knowing what the working class will "need" in the aftermath of revolution. All we can know is what we want.

You have an active desire for "new bosses" and I see no "need" for that at all.

When you argue that "bosses are inevitable", you are just echoing the bourgeoisie.

ComradeStrawberry
Also, what would be the point of having communism in a country with the living conditions as Cuba?

Obviously, you couldn't...the material prerequisites are simply not present.

What you "could" have there is a much more "ultra-democratic" version of socialism than exists there now. Something like that might delay the restoration of capitalism after the retirement/death of Castro.

But it looks unlikely; from what I've heard, the next generation of political leaders in the party there is coming from the top ranks of the army. People like that are very easy to corrupt -- as the whole history of Latin America demonstrates.

:redstar2000:

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

Subversive Pessimist

8th December 2004, 19:41

Obviously, you couldn't...the material prerequisites are simply not present.

But what if it was possible? Would there be any point?

As I said, people couldn't just "take what they wanted", because there is lack of nearly everything. IMO, a socialist system would be far more democratic then a communist society in the third world. At least then things are distributed fairly. It's not "who gets first takes it all".

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th December 2004, 22:23

Not when he's got an army he can call on -- professional soldiers who will give the "rabble" a "whiff of grapeshot" if they refuse to obey him.

And he will have an army in your perspective...

Will he? And who is he? And when did I advocate a single leader? As far as I'm concerned, power will belong to the public. If power belongs to the public, they are the "leader", obviously.

To advocate communism you must acknowledge the fact that the ownership of capital in class society is the factor that determines political power. If the working class as a whole has control of the capital, then how can they not have power, regardless of whether or not they choose to organize centrally. Not regardless, in fact. Because if they choose not to organize centrally, I reckon they will lose their power.

Neither of us has any way of knowing what the working class will "need" in the aftermath of revolution. All we can know is what we want.

The American working class currently doesn't want socialism, much less communism. But as communists, we know that they will want that, don’t' we?

By advocating international workers' revolution, you are speculating about the future, are you not?

I speculate that because there will be a reactionary movement opposed to socialism and because this will force the people to take a stand against it, they will indeed establish a government. You're saying that the people would be giving up their power by centralizing it in accordance to their needs.

You have an active desire for "new bosses" and I see no "need" for that at all.

When you argue that "bosses are inevitable", you are just echoing the bourgeoisie.

If by "new bosses" you mean the public as a whole, then yes, I advocate a "new boss". Because in socialism that is who is boss.

After a workers' revolution, government is inevitable.

To say that governments wield power regardless of economic circumstances, would be to also say that capitalist governments somehow wield power above the bourgeoisie.

DaCuBaN

8th December 2004, 22:41

After a workers' revolution, government is inevitable.

You know, six months ago I'd have agreed with you: Since then, I finished George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, and I must say I wholeheartedly disagree

If the Spanish revolution is anything to go by (which, as the only example of a revolution in anything even closely resembling a "developed country" I believe it is) what we need is not a central government: What we need are workers militias!

Homage to Catalonia (http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/0.html)

Dr. Rosenpenis

9th December 2004, 00:19

It took you six months to read Homage to Catalonia?

And besides, you offered no evidence or arguments against my post. Thanks for the suggestion, but you cannot possibly use an entire book as a counter argument.

or can you....
State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/)

In all fairness, The Spanish revolution did take place in a slightly more developed country, but what was the outcome, eh?

DaCuBaN

9th December 2004, 00:30

It took you six months to read Homage to Catalonia?

Don't be daft, man: Six months ago I hadn't read Homage to Catalonia.

The Spanish revolution did take place in a slightly more developed country, but what was the outcome, eh?

Failure - and how did the unions act? They organised militias, and held off. It was not until they allowed their ranks to be disbanded and emalgemated (those that would) into the Government Army that defeat became inevitable.

you cannot possibly use an entire book as a counter argument.

My apologies, I do tend to assume people draw similar conclusions to myself from reading. Several chapters - starting 7-9, I think - outline the political position running up to and during the street fighting in Barcelona ("revolutionary government" vs militias). His writing style isn't exactly compact, and as such a succinct quote from there is quite difficult - I'll start reading again...

Dr. Rosenpenis

9th December 2004, 00:40

Don't be daft, man: Six months ago I hadn't read Homage to Catalonia.

You could've easily said one week ago, or two weeks, or however long it took you to read it, couldn't you?

Failure - and how did the unions act? They organised militias, and held off. It was not until they allowed their ranks to be disbanded and emalgemated (those that would) into the Government Army that defeat became inevitable.

I think I'll have to study up on that and get back to you later...

ahhh_money_is_comfort

11th December 2004, 00:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 02:27 AM
This may seem odd to some, but I think people in a communist society might well have an attitude of pity for those unfortunates who could not discover worthwhile work to do.

It would be like being blind or crippled...such people condemned to "permanent leisure" by their own inadequacies would live a "half-life" -- they'd never know the feeling of productive accomplishment.

Even the fellow who just wants to "go fishing" will bring back a string of fine fish for he and his friends to cook up and enjoy (hunters and fishers are always giving away a portion of their catch to their friends...and casual acquaintances :lol:).

But the poor bastard who can do nothing useful at all? Someone who finds nothing interesting enough to do?

I think we'd end up feeling sorry for such a sorry ass...and feed him out of pity.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
Right on. I plan to go fishing and drive the communal Ferrari as much as possible. I'm glad my fish will be get me a Ferrari.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

11th December 2004, 00:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 10:23 PM
The American working class currently doesn't want socialism, much less communism. But as communists, we know that they will want that, don’t' we?

Another point here. If 'we' knows what the workers want and the workes don't want what you have to offer, then isn't this going to be a revoltion of elistist and not workers?

To parapharse a Clint Eastwood movie I once saw, but can not rememer the title:

"Senor they promissed us more food and a better life. So we had the r-r-revolicion, but we still have no food, and the people who read books and talk, don't work. They still read books and talk but we don't have a better life. Theye read books and talk and drink wine and eat, but we still don't have more food."

Sorry but that short snipet reminds me of your 'we know what they want'.

synthesis

11th December 2004, 01:11

AMIC, I think you're missing the point.

We think it's better that a few people go without Ferraris than a lot of people go without food, clothes, and shelter.

So, no, you can't get everything you 'want.'

But you are holding a veil in front of your eyes.

'Want' is illusory. 'Need' is objective, but desire is subjective. We don't want the same luxury items that the Romans wanted 2,000 years ago, that the Crusaders wanted 1,000 years ago, hell, than the first Americans wanted 400 years ago.

The reason people want luxury items with no function such as a Ferrari is to show off their status - whether they "worked for it" or (more likely) inherited it. That's not an innate human quality - that's a byproduct of class society. Again, I would challenge you to produce this 'social dominance' gene.

Dr. Rosenpenis

11th December 2004, 01:26

We're not telling the working class what they want and don't want, we're simply speculating that once capitalist reaches its most advanced stages, the disenfranchised majority will become fed up and will then want socialism.

We would only ever "force" socialism upon the few who would be forced to sacrifice something for equality. I regret using the term "force", because to force those in power to give up their position is really an end to tyranny.

Professor Moneybags

11th December 2004, 08:25

We would only ever "force" socialism upon the few who would be forced to sacrifice something for equality.

So you not only admit that you would have to force it on people, but you would also demand sacrifices for the sake of a non-value. What good is equality ? It doesn't produce anything.

I regret using the term "force",

It does, however, drag the reality of communism out into the open.

because to force those in power to give up their position is really an end to tyranny.

Just like armed robbery is ending tyrany.

Professor Moneybags

11th December 2004, 08:30

We think it's better that a few people go without Ferraris than a lot of people go without food, clothes, and shelter.

I think it would be better if you went without your computer than people go without food, clothes, and shelter. Well, what are you waiting for ?

NovelGentry

11th December 2004, 09:25

I on the other hand have no problem using the term force and I think it is indeed the aim of any socialist revolution, we would not need revolution if there was any other way but by force. The wealth of the bourgeoisie is the accumulated labor of the working class and there is no reason why the working class should not have a right to demand that back, we are forced into labor as a means to survive and as such are opened to exploitation by those who already control the means to survive.

I think it would be better if you went without your computer than people go without food, clothes, and shelter. Well, what are you waiting for ?

Professor Moneybags, don't ever let anyone tell you that this is strictly a moral obligation. As it is not a matter of morals (which are indeed subjective), it is a matter of true justice (something very objective) and what material conditions deem necessity. While for many of us it holds a moral aspect, this is by no means the intention.

Unlike the bourgeoisie a working wo/man buying a computer is by no means an exploitation of fellow working class people. In fact it is a lucky scenario that one can afford a computer after such exploitation upon them. To give you an idea, a computer at say 600 dollars (relatively middle priced) for a 10 dollar an hour laborer (assuming no taxes on either side) would cost them 60 hours of labor. If you can find me a computer that takes 60 hours to make, I will indeed show you a computer worth 600 dollars for a 10 dollar and hour laborer.

Money is by far an abstraction we do not need. I would argue that it is the job of socialism to destroy money, others disagree saying that a socialist government MUST retain money. There is of course certain value that must be applied to things, but unlike under capitalism what is equalized is not so much our pay, as it is the exchange value vs. the use value. Thus one hour of labor can buy one hour of labor (no matter what the product).

There are of course MANY factors, however, which apply to a products entire use value. It cannot be seen that a computer takes 15 minutes to build, as the parts that make up a computer that take up 15 minutes to build also take time.

In short, telling a working class person to give up their computer for the sake of people without food, clothes, and shelter is a strictly moral suggestion. Moreso when the material conditions do not create an environment where that makes any sense. To what end is a computer good? feeding 100 people 6 time? Assuming say 6 dollars a meal. It does not by any means end exploitation, nor does it by any means begin to equalize people.

Osman Ghazi

11th December 2004, 11:42

What good is equality ? It doesn't produce anything.

By the same token, what good is feeding a starving child? It doesn't produce anything...

ahhh_money_is_comfort

13th December 2004, 04:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 01:11 AM
AMIC, I think you're missing the point.

We think it's better that a few people go without Ferraris than a lot of people go without food, clothes, and shelter.

So, no, you can't get everything you 'want.'

But you are holding a veil in front of your eyes.

'Want' is illusory. 'Need' is objective, but desire is subjective. We don't want the same luxury items that the Romans wanted 2,000 years ago, that the Crusaders wanted 1,000 years ago, hell, than the first Americans wanted 400 years ago.

The reason people want luxury items with no function such as a Ferrari is to show off their status - whether they "worked for it" or (more likely) inherited it. That's not an innate human quality - that's a byproduct of class society. Again, I would challenge you to produce this 'social dominance' gene.
Ferrari? Oh I most definately want one. Even if it was forbiden, unpopular, and sociall unacceptable. I really really would still want one. There is nothing like the heart pounding and jaw dropping experience of a machine that goes ZING and being under control of it. Ridding the fine blance between loosing control and pulling through a curve; blancing foot work, gears, throttle, and wheel. Ferrari? In reality I'm an experinced enough to know I could never hope to make that machine perform to expectations of desingers, but it sure would be fun to try.

That is what it is all about. F-U-N which makes life worth living.

Social dominace gene? In humans? The field is exceedingly large. Just do a search on (mammal - social - domiance) or (human - social - dominance). What you will see? There will be very similiar traits for rats, whales, dogs, and HUMANS. The trait of social dominance in all mammals is SOCIAL RANK. There are many ways mammals sort and signal social rank. Male gorillas do it with silver back hair and size. If male gorillas could drive Ferarris, then the gorillas who were the largest/highes rank and with silver hair would drive Ferarris. There is no better signal to humans on a street about that driver and social rank than the fire engine red Ferrari.

That is my point, communism is fighting millions of years of evolutionary behavior.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

13th December 2004, 04:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 12:19 AM
It took you six months to read Homage to Catalonia?

And besides, you offered no evidence or arguments against my post. Thanks for the suggestion, but you cannot possibly use an entire book as a counter argument.

or can you....
State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/)

In all fairness, The Spanish revolution did take place in a slightly more developed country, but what was the outcome, eh?
Was Spain a communist revolution? Too?

What happened?

The Grapes of Wrath

13th December 2004, 05:54

AMIC ...

C'mon man, you are just being a difficult jerk now. Spain wasn't a communist revolution at all. It was an uprising of fascists led by Franco who were trying to destroy the republican government which was a coalition of leftist and bourgeousie parties (and Anarchists, who didn't participate in government for obvious reasons). It was eventually betrayed by infighting among the various groups, as well as the lack of aid by the Western democracies, Soviet favoritism and eventual destruction of the revolution because of its threat to the Spanish "Communist" Party. Many factors were to blame, you cannot blame it on the Spanish for being "communists" or "anarchists" or "leftists" as such. That is historical simplism.

Further more, in response to your other round of questioning and comments ... surely you do not believe that Humans are simply animals? I would hope not. Just because a whale or a wolf has some form of social hierarchy, doesn't mean it must be so. I sure as hell like to think that we as humans have an obligation to change our behavior from that of animals. To evolve. The argument can be made that we are no better than cave men, which, are much closer to animals than current Homo Sapiens are.

For the clothing and food questions and comments ... we don't know how goods will be distributed. The people who live in that time will figure it out, but I'm sure it will be efficient, pleasant and democratic. If anything happens in our lives, it will be a movement towards socialism, the creation of a New Man as Guevara put it. But, in order for this New Man to arrive, a little thing called the Social Revolution must exist. I feel I am beating a dead horse on this little tanget but it is true. The Social Revolution is where the shackles of thinking of the "old" days are eliminated and the people think clearly; away from old historical and political elites, a new form of thinking without the contraints of the old. So therefore, your seeming obsession with a metal box that goes "vroom" would seem childish, even you yourself. Now, I don't know what it would look like, but I can't imagine the obsession for a material thing would be placed so highly, when there is family, community, friends, or other relationships that I'm sure will be much more important.

You sir, have chosen a pretty trivial thing to put your stack into, and that is pretty sad.

TGOW

Professor Moneybags

13th December 2004, 14:34

The wealth of the bourgeoisie is the accumulated labor of the working class and there is no reason why the working class should not have a right to demand that back,

There isn't anything to demand back that wouldn't entail a breach of contract.

we are forced into labor as a means to survive

Forced by whom ?

and as such are opened to exploitation by those who already control the means to survive.

The means to survive are all around you. Cavemen managed to survive quite well without guns, cars, houses etc.

At whose expense do you intend to live ?

Professor Moneybags, don't ever let anyone tell you that this is strictly a moral obligation. As it is not a matter of morals (which are indeed subjective),

Morals are no more subjective than reality itself.

it is a matter of true justice (something very objective)

How on earth can an objective sense of justice derive from a subjective code of ethics ?

and what material conditions deem necessity. While for many of us it holds a moral aspect, this is by no means the intention.

Unlike the bourgeoisie a working wo/man buying a computer is by no means an exploitation of fellow working class people.

Of course it is. People were employed to make the computers and your purchase has furthered the demand for more of them.

In fact it is a lucky scenario that one can afford a computer after such exploitation upon them.

How are they exploiting you any more than you are exploiting them ?

To give you an idea, a computer at say 600 dollars (relatively middle priced) for a 10 dollar an hour laborer (assuming no taxes on either side) would cost them 60 hours of labor. If you can find me a computer that takes 60 hours to make, I will indeed show you a computer worth 600 dollars for a 10 dollar and hour laborer.

Bearing in mind the complexity of the tooling needed to manufacture a computer (and the people needed to manufacture that), I think you have missed the fact that most of the money goes back into the production process.

Money is by far an abstraction we do not need. I would argue that it is the job of socialism to destroy money, others disagree saying that a socialist government MUST retain money. There is of course certain value that must be applied to things, but unlike under capitalism what is equalized is not so much our pay, as it is the exchange value vs. the use value. Thus one hour of labor can buy one hour of labor (no matter what the product).

This is the LTV again. I'm going into that discussion all over again. It's been covered enough already.

In short, telling a working class person to give up their computer for the sake of people without food, clothes, and shelter is a strictly moral suggestion. Moreso when the material conditions do not create an environment where that makes any sense. To what end is a computer good? feeding 100 people 6 time? Assuming say 6 dollars a meal. It does not by any means end exploitation, nor does it by any means begin to equalize people.

Let's consider that fact that inequality anywhere is considered an injustice. If you have more money than a starving African, you must have stolen it from him somehow; the fact that you work for a living is irrelevent. To claim that your computer is more important than food to keep Africans alive and then moaning about the injustices caused by inequality is complete hypocracy. I've heard this "eveyone-except-me-ism" coming from Marxists quite a few times now and it would seem that it's biggest advocates are unwilling to practice what they preach.

It would seem that communism is a good idea- if eveyone else did it.

Professor Moneybags

13th December 2004, 14:35

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 11 2004, 11:42 AM
By the same token, what good is feeding a starving child? It doesn't produce anything...
The child might, equality doesn't.

Professor Moneybags

13th December 2004, 14:44

For the clothing and food questions and comments ... we don't know how goods will be distributed. The people who live in that time will figure it out, but I'm sure it will be efficient, pleasant and democratic.

What a cop out. Reminds me of that Latin American guy who was going to build houses for the homeless when Ayn Rand asked how he was going to pay the builders to build them. His response ?

"Uh...Somehow."

Now, I don't know what it would look like, but I can't imagine the obsession for a material thing would be placed so highly, when there is family, community, friends, or other relationships that I'm sure will be much more important.

Oh that's nothing. Read the above post, dear reader. Novel Gentry thinks that his computer is more important than starving Africans. And he's a communist.

NovelGentry

13th December 2004, 18:05

Oh that's nothing. Read the above post, dear reader. Novel Gentry thinks that his computer is more important than starving Africans. And he's a communist.

Please do read my post, all of you. Moneybags... for starters this computer can not be considered mine. As a working class member I own little if any property. If I were to sell off everything I own I'd probably be able to pay back about 3% of my debt. Me selling my computer would not prevent their starving -- me selling everything I have would not prevent their starving, even if I ignored trying to pay off my debt and gave whatever money I earned to them. In the end I would have to declare bankruptcy and join them in starving, I fail to see how me doing so would make any progress.

Alternatively I can use this as a means to help other people raise consciousness, so that maybe one day we can be put in a position to actually help these people. If you'd be so interested in helping starving Africans maybe you can I can make a movement that tries to get tens of thousands of peoples to sell their computers and we can use that money. At least it'll last longer than a day and help more than 100 of them.

I don't see how me selling my computer to buy 100 starving people a McDonalds value meal would be considered by anyone to be progress. When I pay back the $80,000 I owe to various banks then maybe I have a snowball's chance in hell of helping. Right now the best way for me to help is to continue educating as much as possible. My computer facilitates me in that more than buy 100 value meals ever could.

Raisa

13th December 2004, 20:59

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 7 2004, 09:05 PM

Nothing is free. In a communist society if you want to enjoy the benifits of it, you have to help create them.

There are people who cant work ,but those people are few and far.
Its not like you have to work all day long or anything, but you need to contribute to your community.
And if you are going to live your happy life with your life supply of everything at the expense of your community, who you dont contribute to, then you're a theif.

Woah, comrade! In a free society everything is free, and if it were any different, "Ahh Money" would be dead fucking on - it would be just like capitalism. I want a revolution to create a society that has moved past fetishizing work -

No, what I am saying is that things do not happen by themselves! This is simple economics! In order for us to maintain whatever standard of living we have as a society somebody has to work.

"After all, who defines what is/isn't contributing to the community?"

The intricacies of that are a whole other dispute we can have if you want but I think there is a simple line that is drawn between laying around all day doing nothing, and getting up and contributing.

<<Having participated in communittees built along communist lines, with non-communists, I can assure you shit gets done, and as long as shit gets done, who cares whether or not Billy-Bob happened to participate. Maybe he just provided a bit of pleasant conversation?>>

I am pretty sure that communism includes a few more people then the community you participated in ;) , and if there are ten thousand billy bobs sitting around giving us pleasant conversation when we need working hands that is going to hurt the community, and cuase a shortage. In the following statement you use the phraise "partaking in surplusses" but the question I am asking you is if thirty percent of a society contributes simply by engaging us in pleasant conversation, what kind of surplus are you really expecting to see?!

Chances are there isnt one, becuase not enough of the consumers are contributing to the supply. So when we all decide to eat blue berries either we will all only get a few each, when all billy bob has to do is help out too, and then we can all enjoy a decent amount of food, OR we are going to have to pick more blue berrys for the likes of billy bobs lazy ass. Why should we have to do more work just becuase of him?
There are plenty of people allready who can not pick fruit because their ill, but Billy Bob is not. And I do not see how you can expect people to not get pissed at that.
Billy Bob is almost the same as a lazy capitalist because he benifits off of our labor and he does nothing at all, and he CAN. The reason this will probably anger people is because a little while ago there was a revolution to fight this sort of thing, and here is Billy Bob exploiting society in his own little way.

NovelGentry

13th December 2004, 21:33

PPPPLLLLEEEEEAAAAASSSSSEEEE Look at the open source model.

This is a community which is driven by the pure interests of it's contributors for creating some of the best products available, it is a mix of personal desires, ego driven contributions, and a general feeling of helping. No one in the open source community would ever say that those who don't contribute to the products have no right to them. While I admit it is slightly different because software is virtual and creating copies does not put any material strain on the people who contribute there are other aspects to consider. Developers need to buy computers to make these products, they need to buy servers and bandwidth to distribute them, and in those ways their products do create material need which must be fullfilled.

I am pretty sure that communism includes a few more people then the community you participated in wink.gif , and if there are ten thousand billy bobs sitting around giving us pleasant conversation when we need working hands that is going to hurt the community, and cuase a shortage.

The simple point is, this WON'T happen. If revolution is successful and the socialist aftermath is successful communism will be achieved without any of these problems. They will simply NOT be an issue, and for the few that don't contribute, there will be little need to say "you can't use this because you didn't contribute."

And I must disagree with billy bob being related to a capitalist. The capitalist does not simply exploit to survive, they exploit so that they can exploit more. Billy bob will have no means by which to subjugate the labor of others. People will not requie what Billy Bob has in order to survive, and as such the people are the masters of HIS destinity, not the other way around, if there is not enough food Billy Bob will starve with the rest of us and will indeed need to contribute if he wishes to end that.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

14th December 2004, 01:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 09:33 PM

The simple point is, this WON'T happen. If revolution is successful and the socialist aftermath is successful communism will be achieved without any of these problems. They will simply NOT be an issue, and for the few that don't contribute, there will be little need to say "you can't use this because you didn't contribute."

Before I believe you, may I ask your qualifications on human behavior and social science?

Soooo PLEEEEEEZE. Before I take your word for it what are your qualifications to make such a judement or 'show me the money'. You are making some real predictions on human behavior here. Basically I don't believe you, because I don't see any human or societal behavior like that on a sustainable or nation wide scale.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

14th December 2004, 01:54

Originally posted by The Grapes of [email protected] 13 2004, 05:54 AM
AMIC ...

C'mon man, you are just being a difficult jerk now. Spain wasn't a communist revolution at all. It was an uprising of fascists led by Franco who were trying to destroy the republican government which was a coalition of leftist and bourgeousie parties (and Anarchists, who didn't participate in government for obvious reasons). It was eventually betrayed by infighting among the various groups, as well as the lack of aid by the Western democracies, Soviet favoritism and eventual destruction of the revolution because of its threat to the Spanish "Communist" Party. Many factors were to blame, you cannot blame it on the Spanish for being "communists" or "anarchists" or "leftists" as such. That is historical simplism.

Further more, in response to your other round of questioning and comments ... surely you do not believe that Humans are simply animals? I would hope not. Just because a whale or a wolf has some form of social hierarchy, doesn't mean it must be so. I sure as hell like to think that we as humans have an obligation to change our behavior from that of animals. To evolve. The argument can be made that we are no better than cave men, which, are much closer to animals than current Homo Sapiens are.

For the clothing and food questions and comments ... we don't know how goods will be distributed. The people who live in that time will figure it out, but I'm sure it will be efficient, pleasant and democratic. If anything happens in our lives, it will be a movement towards socialism, the creation of a New Man as Guevara put it. But, in order for this New Man to arrive, a little thing called the Social Revolution must exist. I feel I am beating a dead horse on this little tanget but it is true. The Social Revolution is where the shackles of thinking of the "old" days are eliminated and the people think clearly; away from old historical and political elites, a new form of thinking without the contraints of the old. So therefore, your seeming obsession with a metal box that goes "vroom" would seem childish, even you yourself. Now, I don't know what it would look like, but I can't imagine the obsession for a material thing would be placed so highly, when there is family, community, friends, or other relationships that I'm sure will be much more important.

You sir, have chosen a pretty trivial thing to put your stack into, and that is pretty sad.

TGOW
Hey I am asking a serious question. My impression of that armed battle was communist with guns vs government with guns basically shooting it out and nothing more. I was asking the question because I thought there was something else there.

Plus your 'thinking' sounds pretty academic and elitist to me. Sorry I don't have a better label, frankly working people don't seem to concern themselves too much with your 'thinking'. Which leads me to another point. I don't see this 'thinking happening'. I don't see average joe construction worker or factory worker taking time to read social philosophies and economic theories. Do you? Frankly I'm suprised I find it interesting and if you can tell I really don't know too much about it. That is why I'm asking tough questions.

But I'll give you my $.02. Communism has some real problems. First the thoeries that predict that certain things are supposed to happen, don't. Such as revolution in industrial countries, classless society, more and better production, etc.

If communism was theory in physics or science, it would have been scraped a long time ago for it's failure to make predictions.

synthesis

14th December 2004, 02:05

There is nothing like the heart pounding and jaw dropping experience of a machine that goes ZING and being under control of it.

Then make one yourself.

Social dominace gene? In humans? The field is exceedingly large. Just do a search on (mammal - social - domiance) or (human - social - dominance).

I'm not gonna do your homework for you, kiddo.

I ask you to prove that humans have an inherent (i.e. not produced by material conditions) desire for social dominance.

Find me something good.

I think it would be better if you went without your computer than people go without food, clothes, and shelter. Well, what are you waiting for ?

If I could sacrifice a computer I owned to ensure that hunger and homelessness were eliminated from the world, I'd do it in a second.

Osman Ghazi

14th December 2004, 03:10

The child might, equality doesn't.

But the odds are slim. Maybe one in ten. And if the child is living in a place with starvation, they are probably much less. Speaking from a capitalist perspective, that's a very 'poor investment'.

And also, you are merely asserting that equality wouldn't produce anything. Personnally, I think that if every human being had the opportunity to get an education, the earth would explode with new ideas and technologies.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

14th December 2004, 05:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 02:05 AM

There is nothing like the heart pounding and jaw dropping experience of a machine that goes ZING and being under control of it.

Then make one yourself.

Social dominace gene? In humans? The field is exceedingly large. Just do a search on (mammal - social - domiance) or (human - social - dominance).

I'm not gonna do your homework for you, kiddo.

I ask you to prove that humans have an inherent (i.e. not produced by material conditions) desire for social dominance.

Find me something good.

I think it would be better if you went without your computer than people go without food, clothes, and shelter. Well, what are you waiting for ?

If I could sacrifice a computer I owned to ensure that hunger and homelessness were eliminated from the world, I'd do it in a second.
Make one myself? I don't plan to. I plan to use the communal Ferrari and do alot of glass blowing and fishing.

You don't believe mammals sort? You don't believe mammals stratify themselves? You don't believe that social dominance in mammals is natural?

Have you been living under a rock? The field so exceedingly large I don't believe you have never heard of mammalian behavior and social dominance?

Humans are primates:

"Primate societies are rarely composed of members of equal social rank, but rather consist of dominant and subordinate members" - http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/eejuly15.html

Social sorting and dominance among primates and mammals has been so well studied that it is so commonly accent as undisputed. It is been observed and verified by several researchers not only in primates but in many other mammals.

Or maybe those primates were polluted by capatialist?

The behavior is so old and part of humans it is part of our reptilian brain.

"All animals that live in groups establish social hierarchies: dominance hierarchies." - http://eyelab.msu.edu/psy101/biosoc.html

I can go on and on. Social hierachial behavior and sorting has been repeatly observed that to question it is ridiculus.

Thus your classless notion is fighting millions of years of evolutionary behavior.

NovelGentry

14th December 2004, 06:19

Before I believe you, may I ask your qualifications on human behavior and social science?

Soooo PLEEEEEEZE. Before I take your word for it what are your qualifications to make such a judement or 'show me the money'. You are making some real predictions on human behavior here. Basically I don't believe you, because I don't see any human or societal behavior like that on a sustainable or nation wide scale.

The condition for communism is that people do NOT view the world in this way. If what you say is true then post-revolutionary society will never grow beyond socialism. This is the point of what I'm saying, you can't HAVE communism without this. You can have socialism while reactionary thinking remains, but not communism. It will not be an issue in communist society, however, it can be an issue in socialist society. The point of socialism is to overcome this reactionary thinking.

I have no such qualifications, nor do I think you do, but I could be mistaken. My predictions are no more real than the proof that people are products of their society. You don't need to look beyond the living examples of community driven production.

Once again, look at the open source community, it is not only sustainable it grows by the day and the products it produces are consistently better than the products that the capitalist market produces. On an added not, this community is not on a nation wide scale, it's on a world wide scale.

Osman Ghazi

14th December 2004, 12:26

Humans are primates:

But humans are also sentient, which A) seperates and differentiates us from all other forms of life and B) means that we can do whatever we want, whether or not it is in the best interests of evolution. Does supporting disabled people go against evolution? Yes. But do we do it? Yes. Does suicide go against evolution? Yes. But do we do it...?

Perhaps it is time for social evolution rather than physical?

Professor Moneybags

14th December 2004, 13:44

Me selling my computer would not prevent their starving -- me selling everything I have would not prevent their starving,

If you gave them all the money in the world, it still wouldn't stop them from starving either. Just why do you think that is ? It ain't about equality, it's about production and being able to produce without having your work being stolen/destroyed by the local "rival" tribe or government.

Professor Moneybags

14th December 2004, 13:57

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 14 2004, 12:26 PM
Perhaps it is time for social evolution rather than physical?
Great idea. How about, for once in the history of humanity, creating a world where individual rights are respected and upheld by law ? (Instead of totally ignored or half-upheld, half-ignored.)

NovelGentry

14th December 2004, 14:39

If you gave them all the money in the world, it still wouldn't stop them from starving either. Just why do you think that is ? It ain't about equality, it's about production and being able to produce without having your work being stolen/destroyed by the local "rival" tribe or government.

A capitalist talking about not having things stolen... :lol:

There's a much larger oppressor in terms of government than those that are local... I'll give you a hint, it's initials are U.S.A

Great idea. How about, for once in the history of humanity, creating a world where individual rights are respected and upheld by law ? (Instead of totally ignored or half-upheld, half-ignored.)

What rights do you have in mind, the right of an individual to subjugate the labor of another for the necessities of life?

synthesis

14th December 2004, 16:04

The behavior is so old and part of humans it is part of our reptilian brain.

Nothing of what you provided remotely fulfilled my request.

I ask you for inherent qualities. Genetic evidence. The reason stratification occurs is because the distribution of resources is unequal. That's material conditions. You drive a Ferrari to show that it's unequal in your favor.

Again, I ask you for physical (biological) evidence that we must always have social dominance.

The Grapes of Wrath

14th December 2004, 16:57

Ahhhh my friend,

What I meant by the "jerk" comment was I read through your posts and it seemed to me that you were merely looking for a fight, or an argument, to ruffle a few feathers so to speak. I'll have to start reading your posts with a more open mind. There is no shame in asking a serious question, that I wholeheartedly agree.

My "thinking" as you stated, may seem a bit elitist, and maybe it is, I am a bit academic, so maybe my judgement has been clouded and I am not able to understand what is truly in my mind (or what is wrong with me, as Freud would have coined it). However, despite your hatred for "theories" and such, you must not forget that capitalism was once a theory, as was democracy, as were nearly all things we have come to see as impossible to live without. As for theories that don't prove fruitful ... Einstein himself tried however hundreds of times for years to prove the Theory of Relativity sound. He did not prove it for real, but proved that it was a sound theory, likewise, Newton's gravity is also still a theory. I'm sure I read that somewhere, that is it still hasn't technically be proven, and yet, I'm sure as hell not floating around this room right now. Simply put, because a theory has failed does not make it anymore unsound. Marx was, after all, a person, and prone to failure. Is his theory of inevitable revolution valid? Someday we'll see, at this moment, it does appear to be invalid, but who knows what tomorrow will bring.

As for my thinking of a Social Revolution ... is this an elitist idea? I certainly hope not. And, in regards to "show me the money" I must revert back to our discussion of Spain. After the rising of the generals and the Army, the Republican government was inactive, the workers took to their own accord and armed themselves through their trade unions and political parties. Several risings were put down, the most noteworthy and important were in Madrid and Barcelona. In Barcelona, we had working class people with revolution on their minds. The generals were gone, the central government was ineffective, so, the peole there did what they do best, they created their own institutions and so forth. The Social Revolution was taking shape. The workers were so highly politicized that they saw competition, the control of industry and property as pointless. They realized that change was needed, and they felt they knew how. They felt they were creating a new society and were working towards it. Barcelona (the largest industrial base in Spain, even to this day) was virtually controlled by the Anarchist mindset, which was revolutionary. I suggest you look into it, I recommend Antony Beevor's "The Spanish Civil War," as well as "The Anarchist Collectives" by Sam Dolgoff, as well as Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" for more details. They explain things better than I.

Another history lesson revolves around the IWW in the American West. These people were about as non-elitist as one could get. They believed that by forming everyone up into one large union, regardless of skill or occupation, they could eventually force a new society "from the shell of the old" as they stated it. Is this idealistic? Why yes, it is, but at the same time, it proves the idea of a Social Revolution sound. These people educated their members, never backed from their principles, and always strived for a better world. Now, the IWW was small, and by no means were all its members this uniform in thinking. But, after exploring them further, after reading oral histories of real members, a good portion felt this way. They had Revolutionary mindset, and tried to convey it to the masses, sometimes they succeeded, and sometimes they failed.

The point is, a Social Revolution is not elitist in nature. I worked at Home Depot for a time and the people there were certainly not elitists or academics. They were ordinary Joe Schmos and yet I found many of them asking themselves "why is it like this?" or else "there has to be a better way." I kid you not. This thinking is the basis of the Social Revolution as I like to think of it. These simple questions are far from anything resembling a an SR, but don't underestimate working people. There is no need for the study of philosophy, there is no need for the study of economics per se. All that is needed is the right mindset and logic. The Russian Revolution is one example, the soviets (councils of workers and community members) were spawned from this type of thinking, and the politicizing nature of those times. Those workers did indeed attempt to learn, and educate themselves on economics, and philosophy, sociology, etc. John Reed tells of how workers would come in from the cold and have no eaten for days but asking only for something to read, not food or water.

The Social Revolution mindset is there. Guevara believed in it. The founders of the IWW believed in it. The Russians lived it, the Ukrainians lived it, the Mahknovists lived it. The Spanish most definitely believed and lived it.

It doesn't take a genius to see a change of course is needed. Mindset is everything (within reason). Once a people realise that working together is easier, that profit can't get everything, that people are people and should be treated as such, and not as "contractual aggreements" then they are part way there. You can't have a revolution without a change in mindset. The American Civil War for instance was supposed to be a revolution of thinking in South after the Union victory. However, lynchings, Jum Crow, etc all culminated and effectively eliminated any gains the blacks had made. No change in mindset had occuredin the white Southerner, regardless whether the government had passed the Emancipation Proclamation.

The same goes for revolution. This may just be theory, but history, or at least a decent sized portion of it, seems to support me, at least I look at it as so. I hope that answers anything, sorry for ranting on like this, I was on a role.

TGOW

redstar2000

15th December 2004, 02:37

Primate societies are rarely composed of members of equal social rank, but rather consist of dominant and subordinate members

In what dictionary is "rare" equal to "can't exist"?

The behavior is so old and part of humans it is part of our reptilian brain.

Odd then, is it not, that reptiles form neither societies nor social hierarchies.

All animals that live in groups establish social hierarchies: dominance hierarchies.

Contradicts your first quote...and is contradicted in turn by studies of a number of animal species.

Thus your classless notion is fighting millions of years of evolutionary behavior.

You wish! :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

ahhh_money_is_comfort

15th December 2004, 02:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 04:04 PM

The behavior is so old and part of humans it is part of our reptilian brain.

Nothing of what you provided remotely fulfilled my request.

I ask you for inherent qualities. Genetic evidence. The reason stratification occurs is because the distribution of resources is unequal. That's material conditions. You drive a Ferrari to show that it's unequal in your favor.

Again, I ask you for physical (biological) evidence that we must always have social dominance.
You gotta be kidding me. You go to any group of social and behaviorial scientist and they will LAUGH at you.

The bahavior has been seen by Jane Goodhall in chimp for starters. A Ferrari is a social signal about status and dominance. Alpha Gorillias do it by beating thier chest. The behavior is so universal and observed by many mammal behaviorialist it is not even questions that it does not exist. The observation is been repeated over and over, by many different scientist, in many different mammals. You gotta be living under a rock in a mine shaft to not know about it.

A search on Yahoo gives 583,000 hits just for the key words social domaince human. From those hits you will find books, research, thesis, and projects that observe social domaince in humans and primates. It is not even a question weather or not mammals do it, that is not even debateable amoung scientist, it most definately exists and it is a behavior that is as old as the reptilian brain in humans.

YOU are doing it to me right now. You are not trying to be my equal, you are trying to definately show your superiority over me.