Trust in Humanity

[Loknar]

Do you trust in humanity? To be a communist I assume you have to. Communism (at least I take it) promotes that society can evolve it self, that mankind is capable of ushering in some sort of communist utopia.

I like the idea of communism, if it is perfectly carried out. If everybody cared it'd be great. But the problem is that the power often reverts to a few and the demands of a highly centralized society simply cant be met or managed properly.

IN order for a Communist society to work, come about ect.. you have to trust that mankind has the ability to carry it out. I do not have faith in humanity. We cant stop killing eatchtower and for the foreseeable future that wont change.

In order for a perfect world to come about, God will have to step in (which I believe he will one day, though that's a conversation for a different time) or all of us have to be exactly alike with no borders. Same skin, same hair, same nostril size ect..

I know I’m ranting on but this is my bottom line.

I believe communism is inevitable even though most people don’t see it/ But it wont take affect for hundreds of years. Until then, I chose to give into mans dark side, greed. I believe the true nature of capitalism is standing on the backs of less fortunate people but it is how we operate and how we will continue to operate. I support the unions %100 and I think what they are doing in New York kicks ass.

Humanity cant solve its problems. Communism may be achieved in a few hundred years but it will never be the perfect utopia because, mankind cant do it, simple fact, mankind sucks as ruling it self. Overall, I'd choose to live in a perfect communist utopia than a capitalist one, i just dont believe it can be achieved.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 11:30 AM
We cant stop killing eatchtower and for the foreseeable future that wont change.
If you think a second time, this is an argument against the possibility of capitalism, as well.

Luís Henrique

[Jadan ja]

If I remember correcly, marxists dont say that communism will not be perfect society, those are utopian socialist thoughts. In communist society there will certainly be problems, simply because people arent perfect.

The fact that absolutely perfect society cannot be achieved is not an excuse for not trying make society as close to the perfect society as possible.

But first we must establish socialism (and then start moving towards communist society).

[Enragé]

it doesnt matter if people are selfish, because all you have to do is structure society in such a way that solidarity and working together is beneficial to each and all. When you think about it, this actually makes alot more sense than structuring society in such a way that being assholes and greedy fucks is beneficial to yourself, because if you work together, according to the laws of common sense, building/making/doing stuff is easier than if everyone tries it alone or even works against eachother.

[Publius]

Do you trust in humanity?

No.



To be a communist I assume you have to. Communism (at least I take it) promotes that society can evolve it self, that mankind is capable of ushering in some sort of communist utopia.

The idiotic belief that mankind can rules itself better than it rules itself now; that the laws, institituions, societal structures, etc. can be replaced according to the whims of a few/many, to achieve some grandiose end.

There are reasons for things being the way they are. I'm not saying things SHOULD be the way they are, or that things can't change, but I am saying that communists, or any other type of rabid idealists, can nevery create a society in which people conform to their ideals.

It's almost circular in logic: For communism to work, people have to behave utterly communistically; catch, for people to behave communistically, they have to be in some sort of communistic system AND not be influenced by other factors.



I like the idea of communism, if it is perfectly carried out.

And I like the idea of flying like Superman; so what?

I would like the idea of every human on earth up and deciding to be my permanent slave.

Should I then fight for that? Say it's likely? That it's inevietable?

I mean, shit, that would be quite the utopia (For me at least).

Do you think its likely to happen?



If everybody cared it'd be great. But the problem is that the power often reverts to a few and the demands of a highly centralized society simply cant be met or managed properly.

Exactly.

WHY are current power institutions the way they are?

Why did they evolve this way?



IN order for a Communist society to work, come about ect.. you have to trust that mankind has the ability to carry it out. I do not have faith in humanity. We cant stop killing eatchtower and for the foreseeable future that wont change.

Indeed.

People are generally too stupid to coordinate even the most simple of tasks in their daily life, but are expected to know how to run their part of an intricate economy.



In order for a perfect world to come about, God will have to step in (which I believe he will one day, though that's a conversation for a different time) or all of us have to be exactly alike with no borders. Same skin, same hair, same nostril size ect..

Another problem.

People have prejudices that are hard to get rid of.



I know I’m ranting on but this is my bottom line.

I believe communism is inevitable even though most people don’t see it/ But it wont take affect for hundreds of years. Until then, I chose to give into mans dark side, greed. I believe the true nature of capitalism is standing on the backs of less fortunate people but it is how we operate and how we will continue to operate. I support the unions %100 and I think what they are doing in New York kicks ass.

'Standing on the backs' eh?

How so?

I think it's funny that when unions shut down the subway, it's good, but when terrorists did it in England, it was bad.

Brings up the philosophical question: Which is more important, the intent, the means, or the end?

I would say the end, as I'm a consequentialist, generally.

Not much of an idealist.



Humanity cant solve its problems. Communism may be achieved in a few hundred years but it will never be the perfect utopia because, mankind cant do it, simple fact, mankind sucks as ruling it self. Overall, I'd choose to live in a perfect communist utopia than a capitalist one, i just dont believe it can be achieved.

And I'd rather fly.

See you in the clouds.

[Red Leader]

Do you trust in humanity?

Yeah, to a certain extent. However in today's society it seems that people aren't very trustworthy, however ther is still instincts that you can count on in times of need. In certain disasters it seems that people forget about class dfferences and actually help people out and stuff.


Exactly.

WHY are current power institutions the way they are?

Why did they evolve this way?

I agree that we have evolved to this stage, however it isnt true to say that it just stops there. We can and will evolve further within society, ultimatly trying to find the way that best suits everybody. Thats how it has been from the very begining, mankind has struggled trying to live the way that they think is the best.


'Standing on the backs' eh?

How so?

Seriously? You really dont understand how the system gives great pleasure to some at the expense of others? This is how we operate now but i definatly do not think it is how we will continue to operate. It just doesnt make sense that such a small percentage of the world's population and control so much and continue to do so without any sort of mass uprising in the future. It is illogical to believe that this sort of lyfestyle is as stable as you think it is.

[Loknar]

BY standing on the backs of others, I'm referring to the continuing attack on America's unions by the right. I'm a centrist, I support small and large business alike, However, what corporations do to limit their union (such as Wal-Mart) is so despicable. I know the Unions are at times out-rageous and at times even corrupt. But I don’t care. There needs to be a weight against corporations. The desire of a company is to make money, I don’t care about that, however, many times to do this they will cut expenses as much as possible even if it delves into the wages of employees (not cutting wages but certainly not raising them either). The fact is the minimum wage should be $7 an hour. I remember when I was younger…My mom was a a single mother, worked at Dominicks. The money she made back then money back then (early 90s) went way further than it does today.The problem is inflation goes up but wages stay the same so in fact by not giving raises employees are in fact taking a wage cut. I believe wages should be kept up with inflation.

Small business I'm a big fan of personally. I believe in allowing people to own their own business even if it turns into a large corporation (the corporations do benefit the average person) but as I said I cant stand the attacks on the unions and their ever increasing greed.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Loknar
In order for a perfect world to come about, God will have to step in...

May I suggest that your "distrust of humanity" lies precisely in that assumption.

If humanity is "always bad" -- because of "original sin"? -- then "of course" its attempts to build "better societies" must "always" turn to shit.

My own view is that a "perfect world" is unattainable even in principle.

What I do think is that humans can make a world that is as far above what we have now as our present day civilization is above a barbarian horde.

We do not "have" to be barbarians. Neither do we "have" to be workers and capitalists.

We can do better than that.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Loknar]

May I suggest that your "distrust of humanity" lies precisely in that assumption.


Tell me, looking at recorded history how can I be wrong? I firmly believe that only God has the ability to rule us properly. But please don’t grill me on this this is a topic for the religion forum.



My own view is that a "perfect world" is unattainable even in principle.

What I do think is that humans can make a world that is as far above what we have now as our present day civilization is above a barbarian horde.

We do not "have" to be barbarians. Neither do we "have" to be workers and capitalists.

We can do better than that.


Certainly we've come a long way, of that there can be no doubt. But we can never have a perfect society, on that we agree. I only believe that rule by a perfect being is the only way we can have a flawless society.

[Jadan ja]

Tell me, looking at recorded history how can I be wrong?

I look at history in a very different way than you do. If you look at hisory, you will see progress. Slavery, a horrible system, is repleaced by feudalism, a less horrible system, which is repleaced by capitalism, which is less horrible than feudalism. Obviously, you should not distrust humanity, because humanity repleaces inhumane social and economic systems by a less inhumane social and economic systems in which the working class, which exists in every economic system, is much more respected than in the prevous system.


But we can never have a perfect society, on that we agree. I only believe that rule by a perfect being is the only way we can have a flawless society.

Utopian socialists believe in perfect society, marxists dont. Communism is not a perfect society, it is simply a better society than all the previous social and economic systems. I agree that only God can create a perfect society, and therefore, since I dont believe in God, a perfect society cannot be created.

[Jadan ja]

QUOTE

Do you trust in humanity?



No.


You trust in humanity (in certain way). You believe that people "when left alone on the market" will create a better world. When Smith wrote "Wealth of Nations" the dominant social and economic system was feudalism. He certainly believed in humanity, becuse he believed that humanity "under a system of perfect liberty" will certainly prosper. Obvously, your ideology is also very optimistic and also requires some form of trust in humanity.


It's almost circular in logic: For communism to work, people have to behave utterly communistically; catch, for people to behave communistically, they have to be in some sort of communistic system AND not be influenced by other factors.

That is one of the reasons why a period of socialism is required between capitalism and communism. Look at history, and you will see that in despotism and slavery people behaved in a very different way. The (physically) weak become the slaves of the (physically) strong. The strong dont think about wether they are hurting the weak. To move to an advanced social and economic system, like feudalism or capitalism, that way of thinking must certainly change. For capitalism to work people must accept that forcing others to work for you is morally wrong. It is correct that for communist society to work people must behave in a way different than they behave in capitalism and that the change, just like the change between slavery and capitalism, is hard. Socialist society will slowly change the way people behave (trough education, extension of democracy and equality and so on) and slowly changing the way people behave will slowly change the socialist society until it communism repleaces socialism.


People are generally too stupid to coordinate even the most simple of tasks in their daily life, but are expected to know how to run their part of an intricate economy.

Would not an advocate of slavery and feudalism invent some similar argument to prove capitalism cannot work? Arent people too lazy to work and work only when they are forced to? Would not capitalism be a failure because people would try to steal and no one would try to create? Without anyone creating there would be nothing to eat and someone will start forcing people to work (and slavery and feudalism will be recreated)?


And I'd rather fly.

See you in the clouds.

When people are not satisfied with the current technology (or current social and economic system) they invent airplanes (or another social and economic system).

[Publius]

I agree that we have evolved to this stage, however it isnt true to say that it just stops there. We can and will evolve further within society, ultimatly trying to find the way that best suits everybody. Thats how it has been from the very begining, mankind has struggled trying to live the way that they think is the best.

Yes they have.

I don't see how that's likely to change.

Communism is supposed to be some end-game for humanity, our 'destiny' or 'inevietable future' according to the metaphysical claptrap.

I think that's doubtful.

I don't agree that what we have now is the 'end of history', truly, I think the actual end for human development is an economic system so efficient that production requires no effort -- the end of the economy and with it, politics, social problems and everything else in modern society -- and thus becomes secondary to other things; doubtlessly beyond our current scope.

More likely though, humanity gets wiped out by a diaster/kills itself/runs out of natural resources.

My dream for the future is nano-technology that can construct any needed material or item, something that is apparently within the realm of possibility.

I'm not much of a dreamer, but this is, I think, the future.

Politics, economics, etc. mean nothing; technology is all that matters.

'Capitalism', 'Communism', 'Socialism' will mean nothing when human production is unlimited.



Seriously? You really dont understand how the system gives great pleasure to some at the expense of others? This is how we operate now but i definatly do not think it is how we will continue to operate. It just doesnt make sense that such a small percentage of the world's population and control so much and continue to do so without any sort of mass uprising in the future. It is illogical to believe that this sort of lyfestyle is as stable as you think it is.

Yes and no.

I think it unlikely that THIS set of rulers will rule forever. Distinction.

I can fully see some sort of epic change in human relations soon, just not communism.

Maybe some radical form of state-socialism brought about by recent technological advancement, perhaps some form of market economy expanded to deal in non-monetary things, perhaps forces inside capitalism cause world conditions to improve, perhaps humanity will 'wake up' and, instead of destroying the current ediface, repaints it to better fit humanity.

A system is only as good as the people that engage in it is my maxim. Capitalism could be perfect if the people were perfect.



If you can't tell, I'm somewhat of a budding social theorist.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Jadan [email protected] 29 2005, 02:35 AM







You trust in humanity (in certain way). You believe that people "when left alone on the market" will create a better world. When Smith wrote "Wealth of Nations" the dominant social and economic system was feudalism. He certainly believed in humanity, becuse he believed that humanity "under a system of perfect liberty" will certainly prosper. Obvously, your ideology is also very optimistic and also requires some form of trust in humanity.

Not really.

You missed the key passage in the text. It starts: It is not from the benevealance of...

Finish it if you may, for in it lies the key to understanding capitalism.


That is one of the reasons why a period of socialism is required between capitalism and communism. Look at history, and you will see that in despotism and slavery people behaved in a very different way. The (physically) weak become the slaves of the (physically) strong. The strong dont think about wether they are hurting the weak. To move to an advanced social and economic system, like feudalism or capitalism, that way of thinking must certainly change. For capitalism to work people must accept that forcing others to work for you is morally wrong. It is correct that for communist society to work people must behave in a way different than they behave in capitalism and that the change, just like the change between slavery and capitalism, is hard. Socialist society will slowly change the way people behave (trough education, extension of democracy and equality and so on) and slowly changing the way people behave will slowly change the socialist society until it communism repleaces socialism.

Just like what happend in the Soviet Union, right?


Would not an advocate of slavery and feudalism invent some similar argument to prove capitalism cannot work? Arent people too lazy to work and work only when they are forced to?

Sort of how it works now...



Would not capitalism be a failure because people would try to steal and no one would try to create?

Enter Leviathan.



Without anyone creating there would be nothing to eat and someone will start forcing people to work (and slavery and feudalism will be recreated)?

See points 1 and 2.



When people are not satisfied with the current technology (or current social and economic system) they invent airplanes (or another social and economic system).

One cannot 'invent' a social system.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Publius
Politics, economics, etc. mean nothing; technology is all that matters.

Well, in Marx's view "politics, economics, etc." are all derivatives of technology (more or less).

So, in a kind of "ultimate sense", I agree with you.

Here is the difficulty: Marx contended that capitalism would evolve in such a way as to "slow down" and then "halt" the development of new technology...and that's why communism would come to be perceived as a "common sense" alternative.

Defenders of capitalism argue vehemently that this "hasn't happened yet" and even that "it can't happen" because technological innovation is "always profitable".

Marxists respond that what makes technological innovation profitable is the existence of a market...and if nearly all of us are eventually reduced to sweatshop "life" or permanent unemployment, then profit will disappear as a "motor force" for lack of customers.

Throughout the last century, capitalist ideologues proclaimed that that "Marxist prediction" had been falsified...that workers were becoming better off in every capitalist country and that this was an "irreversible trend". The market for new technology would "grow forever".

But things are not looking so good these days, are they? What we hear now is the "need" for us to "work harder" for less!

In the name of "global competitiveness".

To me, it's starting to sound like Marx was right...but we'll see.


One cannot 'invent' a social system.

Well, people do try to do that...with, I agree, a notable lack of success.

What does seem to happen is that some especially creative people are more "sensitive" to the inadequacies of whatever society they find themselves in...and forcefully articulate such improvements as seem reasonable to them.

Their new ideas "percolate" through a society and, sometimes, seem to make a lot of sense to large numbers of people.

I think it's because those new ideas are more appropriate to existing material conditions than the "old traditions". In fact, those "old ways" come to be seen as obstacles to what people want to do..."outrageous" and "intolerable".

And revolution starts to look like it just might be worth the risk!

Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Today's capitalist Russia might well have existed as early as 1930. But today's capitalist China, it seems to me, needed the Maoists (or people like them) to smash the accumulated centuries of stagnation there.

And so it goes. If capitalism "keeps working" indefinitely, then communist ideas will dwindle into a "footnote" to history. But if capitalism falters, then communist ideas will begin to "make sense" to growing numbers of people.

We'll see how it goes.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Enragé]

But things are not looking so good these days, are they? What we hear now is the "need" for us to "work harder" for less!

In the name of "global competitiveness".

To me, it's starting to sound like Marx was right...but we'll see.

very true

Was watchin tv this morning and our minister of finance was saying that "the poverty over here is relative" (all poverty is relative duhhh)

and this employer's org fuck was saying we should have less time off from work and that wages should be moderated or else the slight improvement of the economy would be fucked

and the sick part is....he was right....in capitalism shit really does work like that.

[Jadan ja]

Not really.

You missed the key passage in the text. It starts: It is not from the benevealance of...

Finish it if you may, for in it lies the key to understanding capitalism.


Yes, self-interest is neccesary for exchange on the market to happen the way it happens. But, what is also a precondition for exchange in the markets to happen is trust. Consumer must have a certain level of trust in seller (that producers, or most of them, are selling what they say they are selling) and seller must trust consumer (that consumer, or at least most of consumers, wont simply take the product and leave).

All advocates of market systems, therefore must believe that society is able to create trust and all advocates of market system must believe that "people are good."

System of redistribution based completely on self-interest cannot be a market system, because trust that the other side "good" and that they are selling what they say they are selling is eliminated. Without trust, goods cannot be exchanged on the market, they are being stolen.


Just like what happend in the Soviet Union, right?

I wrote what are the goals of socialism not which country is a perfect example how can it be achieved. People disagree on the question was USSR a good socialist country, or was it socialist country at all (was it simply state-capitalist?), but that is for completely another dicussion.