Capitalism, utopian fantasy.

[Hegemonicretribution]

There are a lot of criticisms of communism, and the responses that are given are usually met with something along the lines of "I don't agree" or "It will never happen." These are implied as truisms by the less intelligent right wingers, whether or not the self evidence of the statements is a result of indoctrination via the school system or the media is not relavent. Of course there are better thought out criticisms, but dealing with them would not really be in the spirit of things here.

I start this brief criticism with the following assumption; that if criticisms against communism can apply just as well to capitalism, then they are not valid criticisms. Of course it could also mean that no-one is right, and we should continue in this mixed economy mess.

Human nature:

Human nature (or greed) is often claimed to be a reason as to why communism can never work. The standard response is that greed is a product of capitalist society; all examples showing greed have their origins in capitalist society, and are therefore not accurate. However, forgetting this for a moment, could a similar criticism not be made of capitalism? That is that human nature, or not being greedy, is an example as to why capitalism can't work.

The basic economic problem allegedly is how to satisfy unlimitted wants, with finite resources. However it does not take much hard observation to realise people do reach a level of material wealth where they are satisfied enough to take early retirement. Some reject wealth outright, the exact circumstances don't matter however because this shows that even if greed does exist (even in communism), then the absence of greed also exists (even in capitalism).

Capitalism is supposed to address greed, and I admit, if we were all infinitely greedy, it might prove a superior system of distribution. But this is simply not the case. Capitalism rears its flock to be greedy, although,this does not have an absolut effect.

Now the key question, does an absence of greed pose a problem for capitalism? The way I see it at least is no, at least not for the greedy, however is this a fair mark of the success of a system? It could be argued that, just as the non-greedy get screwed in capitalism, the greedy get screwed in communism, however there is still more to be said for communism.

Even greed up to the level of material satisfaction could potentially pose a problem for communism, the problem being how is it possible to accelerate people to this level? This is where a simple observation of current world economics comes in. People achieve more when they work together. It is this which is behing the division of labour, it is this that is also behind communism. If there is a bunch of people that want to all achieve something, then they will better do it by co-operation, than outright competition. Dawkins actually published some research on this a while ago, although I haven't yet got a link. What I am saying is that what greed that does exist is not a problem for communism, rather an added inscentive.

Do any rightwingers have a response to the problem for capitalism cause by a lack of greed?

[Hegemonicretribution]

I don't like bumping this, but I think it would be a shame not to hear a reply to what I raised in the first post.

I actually wrote this at the same time as another thread. The other one was more provocative, and less serious, yet that was taken up whilst this one died. This is the more serious of the two or so I thought.

[KC]

Originally posted by ComradeRed
On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkings and Sandra Blakeslee, Kunihiko Fukushima's article NNeocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position In "Biological Cybernetics", Maximilian Resenhuber and Tomaso Pogio's Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex in "Nature Neuroscience" and so forth.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 05:25 PM





There are a lot of criticisms of communism, and the responses that are given are usually met with something along the lines of "I don't agree" or "It will never happen." These are implied as truisms by the less intelligent right wingers, whether or not the self evidence of the statements is a result of indoctrination via the school system or the media is not relavent. Of course there are better thought out criticisms, but dealing with them would not really be in the spirit of things here.

No it wouldn't.



I start this brief criticism with the following assumption; that if criticisms against communism can apply just as well to capitalism, then they are not valid criticisms. Of course it could also mean that no-one is right, and we should continue in this mixed economy mess.

This implies that there are certain fundemental similarities between the two.

If you can stipulate this, I can stipulate it as well, rendering any discussion on communism moot from the start.

I don't think that's a valid assumption, according to my arguments or yours.



Human nature (or greed) is often claimed to be a reason as to why communism can never work. The standard response is that greed is a product of capitalist society; all examples showing greed have their origins in capitalist society, and are therefore not accurate.

But this is of course absurd.

Greed and selfishness really have nothing to do with capitalism.

Greed and selfishness are survival traits, as are altruism and kindness.

Basing a society entirely on one, while simultaneously repressing the other, is where problems arise.

There are specific cases when each of these is useful, when it is likely to occur and when it is avoidable and when it is not.



However, forgetting this for a moment, could a similar criticism not be made of capitalism? That is that human nature, or not being greedy, is an example as to why capitalism can't work.

Which is really an asinine place to start an argument from: a social system that currently works, can't work?

Good luck proving that.



The basic economic problem allegedly is how to satisfy unlimitted wants, with finite resources. However it does not take much hard observation to realise people do reach a level of material wealth where they are satisfied enough to take early retirement. Some reject wealth outright, the exact circumstances don't matter however because this shows that even if greed does exist (even in communism), then the absence of greed also exists (even in capitalism).

Which really is a fine point, but has little bearing to the actual argument or discussion.

None, with at least a modicum of intelligence, is saying that all people are greedy all the time.

But it seems to me that communists argue the opposite and expect me to buy it.

That people are always greedy is absurd, is it not? But that people will always be altruistic is axiomatic to you?

How absurd.



Capitalism is supposed to address greed, and I admit, if we were all infinitely greedy, it might prove a superior system of distribution. But this is simply not the case. Capitalism rears its flock to be greedy, although,this does not have an absolut effect.


Capitalism makes people greedy, or greedy people make capitalism?



Even greed up to the level of material satisfaction could potentially pose a problem for communism, the problem being how is it possible to accelerate people to this level? This is where a simple observation of current world economics comes in. People achieve more when they work together.

We've known this since the time of Smith.



It is this which is behing the division of labour, it is this that is also behind communism.

Not quite.

Division of labor is a specific economic principal.

You are trying to apply it in a much larger, societal manner, roughly quivilent to: "Everyone working together on everything is always better than any other combination of labor".

I think this argument is absurd, but it is the one you seem to be making.



If there is a bunch of people that want to all achieve something, then they will better do it by co-operation, than outright competition.

Like win a race?

People push each other to run faster by enouragement and cooperation? Or via competition? Or via a combination of both?

Cooperation is often lauded, but I fail to see how it's necessarily better.

Again, you're making an unteneble statement here, that cooperation is always going to achieve better results than competition.

What do you base this on? Actual data and research? Or you feelings or thoughts of how things 'should' work?





Dawkins actually published some research on this a while ago, although I haven't yet got a link. What I am saying is that what greed that does exist is not a problem for communism, rather an added inscentive.

I just finished the Selfish Gene tonight. Fabulous book.

[KC]

But this is of course absurd.

Greed and selfishness really have nothing to do with capitalism.

Greed and selfishness are survival traits, as are altruism and kindness.

Basing a society entirely on one, while simultaneously repressing the other, is where problems arise.

There are specific cases when each of these is useful, when it is likely to occur and when it is avoidable and when it is not.

So are you against the argument that communism can't work because people are inherently greedy, or are you in agreement with it?


Capitalism makes people greedy, or greedy people make capitalism?


Well, greedy people made capitalism. Capitalism makes people greedy. Social being determines consciousness.




I just finished the Selfish Gene tonight. Fabulous book.

I still have The Blank Slate sitting on my shelf. I should get around to reading that. However, I read part of the introduction one night before going to bed and he really has a horrible writing style.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:17 AM




So are you against the argument that communism can't work because people are inherently greedy, or are you in agreement with it?


There are numerous reasons why communism won't work (Not can't).

Simple human greed certainly is one of them, but I think it belies a facile understanding of both communism and human nature to simply say 'human nature makes communism impossible'.

It doesn't make it impossible, I still doubt that communism will work, for at least the forseeable future, which is all that really matters.



Well, greedy people made capitalism. Capitalism makes people greedy. Social being determines consciousness.

Or human conciousness constructs society.



I still have The Blank Slate sitting on my shelf. I should get around to reading that. However, I read part of the introduction one night before going to bed and he really has a horrible writing style.

I thought is writing style was pretty good. I thought he was a splendid writer, actually.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:42 PM
Or human conciousness constructs society.


True, but consciousness is confined by social being (in other words, social being determines consciousness!). That is, if one is to build a new society, one is certainly mentally confined by one's current society. A society of feudal serfs cannot hope to create communism.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

greediness, selfishness, ambition, jelousy etc. i hope some of you grasp the meaning behind them, and understand that these are human conditions, they are human emotions that can't be changed by either economic/government/religious change, they are just like love, hate, passion, etc., if you believe that humans will loose the ability to be selfish under a communist or any economic society for that matter , than you must surely be saying that humans would also loose the ability to love or hate....

anyways, its a very complicated issue , but interesting nevertheless

[cyu]

Like win a race?

People push each other to run faster by enouragement and cooperation? Or via competition? Or via a combination of both?


So what good is being able to run faster? It's just something to brag about - is it useful? Now, if there were technology that allowed everyone to get from point A to point B faster, that would indeed be useful. But again, this goes back to cooperation. It's only useful because you've shared the technology with everyone else. If you don't share it and die with your secrets, then your innovation was useless.


Cooperation is often lauded, but I fail to see how it's necessarily better.

Again, you're making an unteneble statement here, that cooperation is always going to achieve better results than competition.

It is only the most simplistic reading of Darwinism that assumes competition is the source of all human advancement. Yes, competition exists, but not in the way you think. Competition exists between the systems and ideologies that best enable cooperation. Individual competition fails to explain the existence of religions, while competition between cooperative systems does. The religions that best enable their believers to work together to their mutual benefit are the religions that survive and are passed down to future generations.

If instead you had an ideology in which it was survival of the fittest, killing all the weaker or "deformed" until only one person is left, well, that one person isn't going to last long without help. This is one of the reasons Nazism's idea of a supreme race is pretty much an extinct ideology. Biological evolution for humans is no longer nearly as important as the evolution of ideas.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

If instead you had an ideology in which it was survival of the fittest, killing all the weaker or "deformed" until only one person is left, well, that one person isn't going to last long without help. This is one of the reasons Nazism's idea of a supreme race is pretty much an extinct ideology. Biological evolution for humans is no longer nearly as important as the evolution of ideas

do you know who Abraham Maslow was? i suggest you do some research into his studies, and analyze the pyramid he created titled the "Hierarchy of Human Needs"

[KC]

do you know who Abraham Maslow was? i suggest you do some research into his studies, and analyze the pyramid he created titled the "Hierarchy of Human Needs"

How is his Hierarchy against cooperation? All it does is outline human needs. He never claims that it isn't possible to cooperate to fulfill these needs, nor does he claim anything of the sort.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

well competition, for example, how humans are selfish. Every human strives to get the 5 needs of Maslow's Pyramid. So say that 10 people are stranded in an island do you believe that these 10 people would work cooperatively better than say 3 people? The cooperation that society will do in the communism theory can be compared to this; i would say it is almost rather impossible, because humans strive to get these 5 needs, and in a group this would create chaos/conflict. Do you understand what i mean? i would like to hear what you think of this

[KC]

well competition, for example, how humans are selfish.

When people are brought up in a competitive society they are conditioned to be greedy.


Every human strives to get the 5 needs of Maslow's Pyramid. So say that 10 people are stranded in an island do you believe that these 10 people would work cooperatively better than say 3 people?

Why couldn't 10 people work together as well as 3 people? I don't understand what you're trying to get at by this.



The cooperation that society will do in the communism theory can be compared to this; i would say it is almost rather impossible, because humans strive to get these 5 needs, and in a group this would create chaos/conflict. Do you understand what i mean? i would like to hear what you think of this

I don't understand what you mean at all. Are you trying to say that if there is a limited supply of life's necessities, that people will compete for them? If that's what you're saying, then that doesn't compare to communism as communism is the productive forces increased to the highest caliber. There will be no shortage in the supply of life's necessities (hell, there's enough food to feed the world right now; the problem is that it is unequally distributed).

[Oh-Dae-Su]

how can you not understand? if you would know Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs you would know what im talking about. Take 1 of the 5 needs for example , it is, in short , "to become somebody", or to be powerful or known, make a name for yourself. Do you still believe that this would be easier to achieve in a group of 10 people than 3? you have to be kidding me! In the group of 10 there would be more competition, in the group of 3 the leader would be easier to recognize. Anyways, the social conditioning thats bullshit, you can put 10 babies in the island with no knowledge of society, and make them grow up, and there will still be selfishness, its a human emotion, so than would you say love and hate are the product of social conditioning as well? like i said give me a break man.

[KC]

Your claim that people inherently desire power over others is baseless. Prove it. I've cited articles that disprove this notion. I suggest you read them.

[cyu]

Take 1 of the 5 needs for example , it is, in short , "to become somebody", or to be powerful or known, make a name for yourself.

Yes, pride is one of the prime motivations of humans, but unlike survival or the desire to reproduce, what a person is proud of is entirely determined by culture.

This motivation can be used to make a person behave cooperatively. A person's sense of pride can be used quite effectively if you don't want to reward them with more money than everyone else. They can be given awards, titles, things that do not make them economically more powerful than everyone else.

The point is to motivate people without having to reward them so much that they cause a large percentage of the economic output to be devoted to them instead of available to serve everyone else. That's the major problem with having a large gap between rich and poor in a capitalist system.

[Dyst]

Anyways, the social conditioning thats bullshit, you can put 10 babies in the island with no knowledge of society, and make them grow up, and there will still be selfishness, its a human emotion, so than would you say love and hate are the product of social conditioning as well?

Actually, I doubt that. In any case, you are making a claim without any possibility to prove it.

It would be interesting to see how the society would evolve if we did just that, put 10 newborn babies on an island where their survival is not a problem the first years (so they don't just die.)

I can't imagine there would be selfishness of any kind. The people would do whatever was necessary for them to survive as a group. Hunt, gather, and enjoy the food together.

Anyways, love and hate are human emotions. Selfishness is not a human emotion. It is what you get when you live in a society where commodities are all that matters.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Anyways, love and hate are human emotions. Selfishness is not a human emotion. It is what you get when you live in a society where commodities are all that matters.

so you don't feel selfishness?? you dont "FEEL" jelousy? so when a human is under these states how would you describe them? a verb? an adgetive, you can see physicaly when someone is selfish? lol :lol:

anyways, you all say that what i say is baseless, and for me to prove it. Well i have used a form of phylosophy called deductive reasoning. I have also used Maslow's theory. What articles have you given me Lazar that prove that humans are not naturally selfish, jelous, and that they naturally desire to strive for better things, this could mean be more powerful, it all depends on what a person defines as happiness, if the person defines in his mind that happiness is to be rich than he will strive for it, if the other decides that happiness is the farmer in nature thats what he will strive for.

all i want is for you all to prove to me, since i am making the things i say up, i want to be converted than if im ignorant and im in wrong saying the things im saying! please! lmao

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Actually, I doubt that. In any case, you are making a claim without any possibility to prove it.

great thanks for convincing me and proving me wrong, that magical word always seems to do the trick right, I DOUBT. Thank you for that insightful anwser.

[RebelDog]

Capitalism encourages people to be greedy and take far more than they need. Humans can be very greedy.

Consider this;
If you and I haven't eaten in days and I am faced with a situation where I cannot share food, ie; I either must eat it all myself -or- give it all to you, then I will likely, through chronic hunger, eat it all myself. But that is because the situation required me, for reasons of self preservation, to eat the food and deny any to you.

Now consider this;
We live in the world of the future, an advanced communist society. In this world of maximum cooperation, altruism and free goods and services for all there would exist not the opportunity to be greedy or selfish. There would be no point in hoarding things as everyone would have free and equal access to them and thus there would exist no market to sell surplus goods. Greed and Bill Gates would be pointless and so in this society would not manifest itself and that to me is as good as it not existing in human nature, even though it does.

Communism cannot instantly change inherent human nature but it can harness the power of the good side of humans. Capitalism does encourage greed but capitalism is somewhat collective and cooperative in practice too. In order to produce goods and distribute them capitalism must have a certain deal of cooperation and the factory is the crude collective effort. But that is why we discuss these ideas; because capitalism had to bring us together to achieve its production and that shall be its downfall. If a system didn't exploit at least some human traits would it work?

[Oh-Dae-Su]

its true what you say, i have to say you pointed out some strong points, at least you do understand some of the things i said.

lets say i have a blue car identical to yours, and i get it horribly scratched, don't you think that i would obviously want to trade? this can be seen in childern, who are not "conditioned" by society as some people here say it. The children are pure, innocent, so maybe you can see what im trying to say in them more closely.

Also, what makes you think that humans are going to be happy even if everything is totally the same. Have you seen movies such as the Island? these clones pretty much live in a communist society, they all have the right to eat, to live perfectly the same, to work, they even wear the same clothes, yet even though they are freaking clones, even so, one of them still manages to think, to question. Human's have naturally also a rebellious attitude, to question, to find awnsers. You can take physically for example a persons freedom, but you can't take that person's freedom to think.

anyways, it all goes back to why communism is an utopian idea.

[Publius]

So what good is being able to run faster? It's just something to brag about - is it useful? Now, if there were technology that allowed everyone to get from point A to point B faster, that would indeed be useful. But again, this goes back to cooperation. It's only useful because you've shared the technology with everyone else. If you don't share it and die with your secrets, then your innovation was useless.

It was an illustration, an example.




It is only the most simplistic reading of Darwinism that assumes competition is the source of all human advancement. Yes, competition exists, but not in the way you think. Competition exists between the systems and ideologies that best enable cooperation. Individual competition fails to explain the existence of religions, while competition between cooperative systems does. The religions that best enable their believers to work together to their mutual benefit are the religions that survive and are passed down to future generations.


I have no idea what you're talking about or how it applies to anything I actually said.



If instead you had an ideology in which it was survival of the fittest, killing all the weaker or "deformed" until only one person is left, well, that one person isn't going to last long without help. This is one of the reasons Nazism's idea of a supreme race is pretty much an extinct ideology. Biological evolution for humans is no longer nearly as important as the evolution of ideas.

'Memes' to use the correct term.

[Publius]

Your claim that people inherently desire power over others is baseless. Prove it. I've cited articles that disprove this notion. I suggest you read them.

People seek acceptance and social stature.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

lets say i have a blue car identical to yours, and i get it horribly scratched, don't you think that i would obviously want to trade?

No. You can get the scratch fixed.


this can be seen in childern, who are not "conditioned" by society as some people here say it. The children are pure, innocent, so maybe you can see what im trying to say in them more closely.

So because children do it out of ignorance, you're saying it's perfectly alright for responsible adults to do the same?


Also, what makes you think that humans are going to be happy even if everything is totally the same. Have you seen movies such as the Island? these clones pretty much live in a communist society, they all have the right to eat, to live perfectly the same, to work, they even wear the same clothes, yet even though they are freaking clones, even so, one of them still manages to think, to question. Human's have naturally also a rebellious attitude, to question, to find awnsers. You can take physically for example a persons freedom, but you can't take that person's freedom to think.

What the hell makes you think everybody in a communist society will be treated "the same"? Do you seriously think a pregnant woman and an elderly man will recieve exactly the same food? Are you on drugs?

Remember, it's "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

and before you start, entertainment is a "need". Without it we would go crazy.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 03:18 AM

Your claim that people inherently desire power over others is baseless. Prove it. I've cited articles that disprove this notion. I suggest you read them.

People seek acceptance and social stature.
Middle class or above (in western countries) does. But this is a rather small percentage of the world.

Normal people, who has to work in order to survive, does not desire power over others. They desire whatever will help them survive.

Sure, they may wish to be wealthy, but who wouldn't, considering the luxury the upper class lives in in western countries.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

"It is the sign of a weak mind to be unable to bear wealth."
Seneca

[KC]

People seek acceptance and social stature.

You're right when you say people seek acceptance. People are social beings. But this supports communist theory.