oppression of the poor

[thorgar]

Which system is the greater oppressor of the poor? Is it capitalism with it's heirarchal class structure (proletariat, bourgouise, elite), or communism with it's heirarchal class structure (poor, ruling elite) ? :rolleyes:

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

How about abolishing hierachy.

Whats that? Timmy what'd you say? Communism is classless? My god!

[thorgar]

Man is by nature a heirarchal being. This has been proven throughout history. Man will always subjugate others in his own interests. Communism is only classless in theory. We all know what theories are. Theories are phantoms lurking in the darkest corners of our conciousness. Created by perpetual spring dream zombies. Dispeled by the harsh winter of reality. :blink:

[NovelGentry]

Yeah, don't you all know theories never prove applicable to the real world, take your science and logical methodologies and shove it! :lol:

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 08:17 PM
Which system is the greater oppressor of the poor? Is it capitalism with it's heirarchal class structure (proletariat, bourgouise, elite), or communism with it's heirarchal class structure (poor, ruling elite) ? :rolleyes:
What poor? To have poor you need to have someone who is rich. To my understanding there are no rich people under communism.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 09:42 PM
Man is by nature a heirarchal being. This has been proven throughout history. Man will always subjugate others in his own interests. Communism is only classless in theory. We all know what theories are. Theories are phantoms lurking in the darkest corners of our conciousness. Created by perpetual spring dream zombies. Dispeled by the harsh winter of reality. :blink:
Hey say that to the communist that I have been trying to convince that mammals and including humans natural do 'social dominance'.

[NovelGentry]

What poor? To have poor you need to have someone who is rich. To my understanding there are no rich people under communism.

While I'm not sure if you're trying to instigate us further, this is one of the first times I've ever heard you make any sense in terms of defining communism. Cheers, and good luck in the future.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 11:28 PM

What poor? To have poor you need to have someone who is rich. To my understanding there are no rich people under communism.

While I'm not sure if you're trying to instigate us further, this is one of the first times I've ever heard you make any sense in terms of defining communism. Cheers, and good luck in the future.
It is also my understand that the communist revolutions that have taken place have done a poor job of moving the 'poor' out of poverty.

[NovelGentry]

Well most "communist" revolutions have never reached communism. As I've said before, communism is definable, and this is why we reserve the argument of "well that's not communism." The fact is, communism will be here when it gets here. Socialism is a whole different story, and whether or not you believe socialism can manifest from existing capitalist societies through revolution is yet another issue. I do, but that's a long issue to get into. I don't think we're ready for socialist revolution here in the US, I can't really speak for other nations as I don't see them daily and what things are like. But I do see it as a very real and eventually necessary future accomplishment. Much like I see socialism evolving into communism as a very real and necessary future accomplishment.

[thorgar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 09:42 PM
Man is by nature a heirarchal being. This has been proven throughout history. Man will always subjugate others in his own interests.
[QUOTE]

This is the reality. Never in any communist country has poverty been eradicated. The pattern of a ruling elite served by a poor underclass has been repeated many times throughout history.

The theory of a classless society is an unacheivable dream. It goes against man's competitive instinct. And we all know how well man overcomes his instincts.

[NovelGentry]

Never in any communist country has poverty been eradicated.

Never has there been a communist country.

Edit: better yet, never will there be a communist country. Communism is classless, stateles, and YES, borderless.

[thorgar]

There has never been a communist country? What is China or Russia what is Vietnam? Please explain this to me. Maybe I've been misinformed. It happens you know.

[NovelGentry]

China is fucked up, for lack of a word that really defines how mixed and screwy their economy is. In a general sense it's sorta like a state authorized capitalism with authoritarian oligarchy attempting to make some social compromise to maintain what once was a truly valid attempt at communism but got little further than deformed socialism. Russia IS capitalist (quite possibly with a decent welfare state, I'm fairly uninformed on it's current nature to be honest). the USSR was at one small instance on the road to socialism, it then collapsed into state capitalism, then a deformed workers state, then state capitalism again, and a bunch of other weird mixes in between, in the end collapsing completely under revisionist influences. Vietnam, much of the same. Cuba, still more of the same, etc..etc... the list goes on.

Very few of these nations have even achieved what could be considered 100% socialism, let alone communism. State controlled means of production does not mean non-privatized... you're just changing who's hands the very same private industry is in, and possibly giving it to someone with a kinder soul who's willing to give more to their people.

All you need to do to know that something isn't communism is to know what defines communism. Once you know that, then you can very easily not fall into the trap of labelling a nation communist.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 09:42 PM
Communism is only classless in theory.
Its either classless or it isnt communism...plain and simple.

[thorgar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:46 AM
Its either classless or it isnt communism...plain and simple.
[QUOTE]

Then I don't believe that communism can exist. It is my humble opinion that man is incapable of existing in a non-heirarchal structure.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 09:42 PM
Man is by nature a heirarchal being. This has been proven throughout history. Man will always subjugate others in his own interests. Communism is only classless in theory. We all know what theories are. Theories are phantoms lurking in the darkest corners of our conciousness. Created by perpetual spring dream zombies. Dispeled by the harsh winter of reality. :blink:
You have just basically stated you reject all scientific knowledge, everything in Science is a theory, the theory of gravity, the Cell theory, the theory of electro-magnetism, the theory of evolution, I could go on and on....


So whats reality?

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 12:37 AM
There has never been a communist country? What is China or Russia what is Vietnam? Please explain this to me. Maybe I've been misinformed. It happens you know.
Its what was called "Third World Socialism" (err, right?), you see, Marx said that a successful worker's revolution would only happen in a industrialized first world nation, and the only true revolutionary class is the working class, not the peasentry.

Now if you look at Russia, China and Vietnam in their pre-revolutionary states, you find none of that, with a big peasantry class. But what you do have to note is, these nations built their industry from scratch at a extremely fast rate, thanks to the 5-year plans in Russia and the "Great Leap Forward" in China, both were economic plans for the whole nation conducted by economic planning.
So they were "Socialist", but if you get into finer details, they weren't "really" Socialist either, maybe Socialist economics, but these economies did not serve the workers, but the interest of the new ruling class since of Leninist ideology, so in sense, State Capitalist.


Communism would really only be obtained, at least in my view, there are many different Communist views, in a world revolution, only Socialism is attainable until the entire globe has shaken off capitalism and transgressed to Socialism, then Communism is possible, a borderless, stateless, classess society.

Quite different from what the public notion thinks of 'Communism' is eh?

You might ask, 'Then what was real Socialism then?', depends who you ask, for me Socialism is a Socialist based economy where the state in ruled and serves the best interests of the working class, not what you had in Russia, the best examples of a Socialist state, at least in my view, would be the Paris Commune and certain parts of Spain in 1936 that were under P.O.U.M and CNT-FAI control.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 12:13 AM
Well most "communist" revolutions have never reached communism. As I've said before, communism is definable, and this is why we reserve the argument of "well that's not communism."
A barking cat is definable too. Good luck in finding one.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by thorgar+Dec 27 2004, 12:19 AM--> (thorgar @ Dec 27 2004, 12:19 AM) [quote][email protected] 26 2004, 09:42 PM
Man is by nature a heirarchal being. This has been proven throughout history. Man will always subjugate others in his own interests.



This is the reality. Never in any communist country has poverty been eradicated. The pattern of a ruling elite served by a poor underclass has been repeated many times throughout history.

The theory of a classless society is an unacheivable dream. It goes against man's competitive instinct. And we all know how well man overcomes his instincts. [/b]
Hey that is what I've been saying all along on another thread. No one believes me there.

[NovelGentry]

A barking cat is definable too. Good luck in finding one.

I never implied definable is achievable. A bike is easily defined by it's structure and how it is built, whether it's possible to build that with what you currently have available is another question. Certainly the arguments on what defines communism are a lot shorter than the arguments on how to achieve it. If you want to relate the two for the sake of trolling then I have a couple of other definable but achievable things you can start looking for:

Fair Capitalism
Shared Profit

Certainly these all seem "achievable" but it comes down to how you define the words, much like it comes down to how you define a bark. I've heard many a cat making noises that were far more bark like than what I've heard some dogs make.

[thorgar]

My perception of communist countries was false because they were never really communist by definition. Well then maybe my perception of capitalism is false as well. Maybe the capitalist countries are not by definition capitalist. Heres the definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l-"iz-&m, 'kap-t&l-, British also k&-'pi-t&l-
Function: noun
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

See right there, competition in a free market. The markets in the U.S are heavily subsidized by the state through corporate welfare. Items like tax breaks, government research and development and providing security in foreign countries are some of the ways the taxpayer subsidizes big business.

So if communism and capitalism look like cats but bark like dogs, then we need an animal in this jungle that looks like what it is and sounds like what it is.

[NovelGentry]

The government partaking in a free market that is buying the goods of private industry, giving them money to research things, etc..etc... whatever, does not detract any bit from it's "free market"-ness. While I agree in the very strictest sense that you'd be hard pressed to find a purely capitalist nation the measure by which most nations (including welsfare states) differ from capitalism is far less than that degree of difference is far greater in the examples you cite for communism. People's social reforms are more often than not paid from the people's pockets, not corporations. In fact, one of the few ways in which it defies strict capitalism is corporate welfare, that is, when the government decides to use tax payer money to get companies out of the ditch. That and the obvious social reforms that limit some markets that could be privitized more (elementary + secondary school for example).

In terms of communism the USSR, DPRK, Cuba, whoever you want to site have really come no where near even the basic definition. Are they classless? no (despite even if they're trying to destroy classes currently), is the means of production in the hands of the people? Not usually, it's usually an abstraction within the hands of the state and thus supposedly in the hands of the people who are supposed to be represented by that state. Money gone? No, Private property gone? no, etc...etc..etc. I'm not sure they meet any of the criterea.

[encephalon]

[QUOTE=Raisa,Dec 27 2004, 01:46 AM] Its either classless or it isnt communism...plain and simple.



Then I don't believe that communism can exist. It is my humble opinion that man is incapable of existing in a non-heirarchal structure.
Unfortunately, in order to debate something you need rational premises, of which the validity must be logically deduced to be true in order for the conclusion to return as true, too. There is a very basic fallacy in your argument--which is nothing more than baseless opinion--and you provide nothing to support your claim other than this.

What you are saying, not in this post but strewn throughout the thread, is the following:

premises:
a. If no non-hierarchical structrure exists in human relationships today, then no non-hierarchical structure can exist.
b. no non-hierarchical structure exists today(according to you, no... but that doesn't matter, because the argument design is flawed)

conclusion:

Therefore, no non-hierarchical human relationship can exist.


Your argument takes this takes this form: if A then B; B; therefore, A. Let's change (a) and (b) into something more tangible, and see if that argument makes sense:

a. If no robots exist in 1800, then no robots can exist.
b. No Robots exist in 1800.

so, I'll use the same form you used: if a then b; b; therefore, A. If no robots existed in 1800 (true), then no robots exist. Therefore, no robots can exist. This is an unsound argument, because robots can indeed exist. In order for an argument to be sound and cogent, its form should be able to apply universally.

Not to mention that you are wrong about "no non-hierarchical societies exist" in the first place. Many hunter-gatherer societies live without hierarchy quite happily. Nor does nature exhibit purely competitive drive within the same species. My body itself is one giant social network of non-hierarchical, non-competetive cells.. billions of them. They all work together to keep the whole alive and well. It cannot survive long otherwise: it is an integrated system, and each organ is wholly dependent on the other organs.

That said, you're missing the point. Communism isn't something that can just be established. That's why it is called communism rather than anarchy. Communism would be considered the final result of social history. Marx used it prescriptively as an ideology (usually in caps), while using it descriptively as the point in human history where all conflict boils over. Take, for instance, dropping a paperclip in a bowl of water. Beforehand, the water was entirely still. But once the paperclip is dropped, the waves created continuously push into one another, until finally everything equalizes itself over time. Communism is the final stage of social interaction. The water once again becomes still. It is the final culmination of equalization, and cannot be forced into being.

You know, it's funny.. in the middle ages, when democracy was starting to grab the attention of the west, everybody said "you can't do that.. monarchy and feudalism is natural. It's the result of human nature, and can't be any different." People should think about the progression of history a little more.

[thorgar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 01:31 AM
Unfortunately, in order to debate something you need rational premises, of which the validity must be logically deduced to be true in order for the conclusion to return as true, too. There is a very basic fallacy in your argument--which is nothing more than baseless opinion--and you provide nothing to support your claim other than this.




O.k heres the support for my claim. Father -Mother- Child. The basic family unit is an heirarchy. In hunter- gatherer society Men - Women - Children. Later on Cheifs - Men - Women - Children. Later on Cheifs - Priests - Men - Women - chidren. So on and so forth. There were also societies in which Women were in the first position.

I'm not trying to say that a non- heirarchal society will never exist because one does not exist today, but because one has never existed to any great extent at all. I'm sure there have been anomalies, but Man is programmed internally for survival, of which a heirarchal society is essential.

Not every individual has the ability to think for himself or provide for himself. For example, children. The fact that a child must be cared for by its mother sets a structure of top to bottom in place directly.

As for democracy, that too is an heirarchal system. In theory I suppose it should not be, but the reality is very different. As it is for all political theories.

Could Man evolve from this state ? I suppose anything is possible, but the odds don't look good to me.

So I don't really think my opinion is baseless. To me heirarchy is intuitive because I've lived my life within it's system.

Man created robots by manipulating his external environment to create an extension of himself. In the future he will manipulate his internal environment as well. I seriously doubt that any of the goals of this manipulation will be to create a classless being.

[encephalon]

O.k heres the support for my claim. Father -Mother- Child. The basic family unit is an heirarchy. In hunter- gatherer society Men - Women - Children. Later on Cheifs - Men - Women - Children. Later on Cheifs - Priests - Men - Women - chidren. So on and so forth. There were also societies in which Women were in the first position.

you are referring to role assignment, not hierarchy. In the hunter-gatherer societies, the function of each member is seen as important as anothers.


I'm not trying to say that a non- heirarchal society will never exist because one does not exist today, but because one has never existed to any great extent at all. I'm sure there have been anomalies, but Man is programmed internally for survival, of which a heirarchal society is essential.

First, you once again state this without providing proof. Second, this is entirely false. Hierarchy has never been shown to be essential for survival; it is intuitively counter to it, actually. Hierarchy creates a rigid system less able to adapt. That is why cooperation exists to such a high degree in complex systems: each unit is a part of the whole, concerned with the survival of the whole, but individually. I'd suggest you look into artificial life some time.


Not every individual has the ability to think for himself or provide for himself. For example, children. The fact that a child must be cared for by its mother sets a structure of top to bottom in place directly.

If you're such an admirer of paternalism, I'm willing to bet you would have loved the USSR. Are you saying that citizens, then, are unable to efficiently rule themselves, and someone should act as a father or mother? That is a fallacy of overextension.


As for democracy, that too is an heirarchal system. In theory I suppose it should not be, but the reality is very different. As it is for all political theories.

you're still not getting the role dialectics play here, do you? It's about progression towards equalization, not everything happening by magic. As for the schism between theory and practice: that is a poor excuse.. It only justifies a flawed system. People wouldn't accept those flaws if it were anything else. Those flaws are retained because the status quo enforces its preservation.


Could Man evolve from this state ? I suppose anything is possible, but the odds don't look good to me.

Man already has evolved into a social being. It is society that primarily affects the individual, not the individual that primarily affects society.


So I don't really think my opinion is baseless. To me heirarchy is intuitive because I've lived my life within it's system.

And if you lived your life in another system, that system would seem intuitive and the current one against human nature. Human nature is dependent on social interaction. It is not static.


Man created robots by manipulating his external environment to create an extension of himself. In the future he will manipulate his internal environment as well. I seriously doubt that any of the goals of this manipulation will be to create a classless being.

I think you missed the point of using the robot substitute. An arguments form must be universal if it is valid. Read up on logical fallacies for more information.

[thorgar]

Haahmuhna Haahmuhna Haahmuhna ...

[thorgar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 05:35 AM


If you're such an admirer of paternalism, I'm willing to bet you would have loved the USSR. Are you saying that citizens, then, are unable to efficiently rule themselves, and someone should act as a father or mother? That is a fallacy of overextension.


[QUOTE]

Yes I'm saying that most citizens want leaders.
And yes my fallacy has been known to become overextended. I did'nt realize it was showing.

[thorgar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 05:35 AM

First, you once again state this without providing proof. Second, this is entirely false. Hierarchy has never been shown to be essential for survival; it is intuitively counter to it, actually. Hierarchy creates a rigid system less able to adapt. That is why cooperation exists to such a high degree in complex systems: each unit is a part of the whole, concerned with the survival of the whole, but individually. I'd suggest you look into artificial life some time.


[QUOTE]

I'm not talking about artificial life, I'm talking real life. As far as whether or not heirarchy is essential to survival : I'll prove mine if you prove yours, and not intuitively either.

By the way What complex systems ? You mean like the human body? We all know that's a heirarchy. You know who the boss is right ? No not the brain. Not the heart either. It's the asshole silly . Once that shuts down the whole system is screwed.

[thorgar]

[QUOTE=encephalon,Dec 28 2004, 05:35 AM] you are referring to role assignment, not hierarchy. In the hunter-gatherer societies, the function of each member is seen as important as anothers.





No I'm referring to heirarchy. I didn't live with any hunter - gatherers but I'm willing to bet if anyone got out of line the alpha male would put them in their place right quick.

[thorgar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 05:35 AM
As for the schism between theory and practice: that is a poor excuse.. It only justifies a flawed system.



Its not a poor excuse its a true excuse

[thorgar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 05:35 AM



Read up on logical fallacies for more information.
[QUOTE]

I don't need to read about them I have a pretty good sized one of my own.
Although when it gets going it's really not that logical . Know what I mean enceph?

[encephalon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 02:46 AM




Yes I'm saying that most citizens want leaders.

as society raises them to want.


And yes my fallacy has been known to become overextended. I did'nt realize it was showing.

clever. i didn't realize this was just a "who has the biggest fallacy" argument.

they really should add "appeal to humor" to the list of logical fallacies.