American Leftism [Archive]

MKS

2nd May 2006, 05:54

Communism is a stateless, classless society. Hardly incompatible with the above, rather it is the realization of the above.

If you mean Stalinism, say Stalinism.

I mean, the historical models of the attempted socialist/communist nations that existed and do exist in the modern world. Those models are examples of the practical implementation of Communism. Marxism is modern communism, marxism begot Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism etc. etc. It all comes from the same base. Its the same with Christianity. No one says that modern christianity isnt christianity just beause the practised version or versions do not realize the ideals of Christianity. Ideals are the creation of man and are therfore subject to the nature of man,.

also a difference was that Lincoln was a racist, who only wanted to "free the slaves"for PR, and to "send them back to africa"

The Emancipation Proclomation freed all slaves in captured rebel territory it did not outlaw slavery in the U.S. However the symbolism of the Proclomation gave hope to all slaves that freedom is obtainable and will be realized. Why he did it should not matter, the ends are what matter. Lincoln freed the slaves in order to give the armies of the republic a reason to march into war, he did it to give the nation a new birth , so that the young republic could finally fullfill the propositions of equality and liberty for all men. I do not think he was a racist, and the idea of sending the slaves back to Africa pre-dates Lincoln, ever heard of Monrovia? And the idea persists in modern times with the "Back to Africa" movement. Its a bad idea, but not one of racism.

Jimmie Higgins

2nd May 2006, 06:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:48 AM
also a difference was that Lincoln was a racist, who only wanted to "free the slaves"for PR, and to "send them back to africa"
That's total BS. What he wanted to do for PR was try and make a deal with the south to keep the US together right after they seceeded. Ending slavery was never his goal, but it is what the material circumstances put him in the position to do.

As Marx said, in order for Lincoln to win, he would have to free the slaves - this would destroy the southern system and demoralize Southerners who didn't want to fight a war to help large slave-owners.

Besides, even if Lincoln didn't see the war as the end of slavery the slaves did and they simply left their plantations to go north or to Union camps long before the emancipation proclaimation.

IronColumn

2nd May 2006, 17:19

MKS, what about the Spanish Revolution? Or Hungary 1956, or Paris in 1871, or France 1968, or Ukraine 1918? Or the Zapatistas right now? Do you consider those people to be communist?

Whatever those were/are, sign me up for it.

2nd May 2006, 17:39

If you mean Stalinism, say Stalinism.

If you mean Stalinism, say Stalinism. ;)

redstar2000

2nd May 2006, 21:07

Originally posted by MKS
I mean, the historical models of the attempted socialist/communist nations that existed and do exist in the modern world. Those models are examples of the practical implementation of Communism. Marxism is modern communism, marxism begot Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism etc., etc. It all comes from the same base.

A statement of such astonishing ignorance that refuting it would only be appropriate in Opposing Ideologies.

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

Tungsten

2nd May 2006, 21:20

We're not doing your dirty work for you.

MKS

3rd May 2006, 03:35

A statement of such astonishing ignorance that refuting it would only be appropriate in Opposing Ideologies

How is this ignorance? It is historical truth. Despite the Communist apologetics and "purists", the modern models of "Socialist" or "Communist" nations are derived from interpertations of Marx and Engles as well as other modern Communists. Without Marx and his contemporaries it could be argued that the revolutions in Russia, China, Vietnam etc would not have taken place, and certainly would not have called themselves Communist Revolutions. Im sure that any arrogant domagtic Marxist could easily refute my statements however what Leftists must understand is that the nations who flew and still fly the "communist" banner (China, Russia, Cuba) have committed very real atrocities against their own people. So matter how much you argue that those nations were not truly Communist, the people will never accept such a argument. Either Communism has failed the people or the people have failed communism.

Sidenote: This post should not have been moved to Opposing Ideologies, there are many other threads and posts that critize Marxism and Communism that are not in this forum. I think RedStar needs to relax and not be so quick to dismiss or ignore ideas that he deems "unworthy". Who died and made him Comissar of Communication?

MKS, what about the Spanish Revolution? Or Hungary 1956, or Paris in 1871, or France 1968, or Ukraine 1918? Or the Zapatistas right now? Do you consider those people to be communist?

I will only comment on the groups or uprisings I have studied, the others I only have a basic understanding of and I do not want to speak “out of School”.

By the Spanish Revolution I take it you are speaking of the Spanish Civil War, which was actually a Fascist Revolution that threatened and ultimately destroyed the Spanish Republic. The Republican side of the conflict consisted of many political groups. There were Conservative Republicans, Moderates, Leftists, Anarchists, and Communists. The Republic fell to the Fascists due in part to the perversion of the Republican side by Soviet Communists, who used the Civil War to gain another foothold on the international proliferation of Bolshevism which in the late 1930’s scared the Western Democracies more than Fascism did. The Spanish Civil War however does give a great example of the plausibility of Anarchism. The CNT-FAI was successful in building sustainable models of syndicalism, which for a time thrived in Republican Spain. It also illustrated the Libertarian aspect of Anarchism, as some farmers and shops did not wish to join a collective they were left alone by the CNT and FAI, something that Communists would probably never let happen. The Spanish Civil War is very interesting to study, the struggle between not only Fascism and Democracy, but a struggle between Anarchism and Communism.

The Zapatistas to my knowledge are not Communists; they are indigenous Mexican rebels who wish to create an autonomous Democratic region or nation.

Everyday Anarchy

3rd May 2006, 03:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 08:03 PM
It's been tried.

The Communist Party U.S.A. back in the 1940s proclaimed that communism was 20th century Americanism and celebrated Jefferson and Lincoln as "worthy ancestors" of Lenin and Stalin.

Verdict of history: didn't work! :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Didn't Ho Chi Minh openly support America's Founding Fathers?
I might be mixing HCM up with somebody else, though.

which doctor

3rd May 2006, 03:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:03 PM
The Communist Party U.S.A. back in the 1940s proclaimed that communism was 20th century Americanism and celebrated Jefferson and Lincoln as "worthy ancestors" of Lenin and Stalin.
I encourage you all to do a little research on what Lincoln did during the Civil War. Trust me, he was no better than Bush is today.

He put martial law into place in several states. He instituted the unpopular draft. He jailed war-protesters (not just pro-confederates, but all people who disagreed with the war for any reason). All these acts, and many more.

chimx

3rd May 2006, 05:00

he was also president 150 years ago. stop applying 21st century morality to a 19th century situation.

Jimmie Higgins

3rd May 2006, 06:21

Originally posted by Fist of Blood+May 3 2006, 03:11 AM--> (Fist of Blood @ May 3 2006, 03:11 AM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 09:03 PM
The Communist Party U.S.A. back in the 1940s proclaimed that communism was 20th century Americanism and celebrated Jefferson and Lincoln as "worthy ancestors" of Lenin and Stalin.
I encourage you all to do a little research on what Lincoln did during the Civil War. Trust me, he was no better than Bush is today.

He put martial law into place in several states. He instituted the unpopular draft. He jailed war-protesters (not just pro-confederates, but all people who disagreed with the war for any reason). All these acts, and many more. [/b]
Lincoln was a bourgoise revolutionary, not a working class one. His plan for reconstruction included the redistribution of wealth from the old land/slave owning aristocracy to building scools and giving land and money to the former slaves. The very act of freeing the salves is a massive redistribution of wealth itself from a slave-owners perspective. Lincoln was a reluctant (small r) republican revolutionary, but the war brought about everything necissary for total bourgoise rule... the south now had "free-labor" and could be intergrated into the industrializing northern economy.

Bush is waging war to increase US imperialism and control over the world - Lincoln's war was between two classes: the bourgoise and the slave-owning class. In this class struggle, the bourgoise is the more progressive of the two and wage-slavery is far superior to slave-slavery if only that it allows the material conditions for the workers to both free themselves as well as take over. It was the last real transefer of power in the US (and it wasn't peaceful).

ColinH

3rd May 2006, 07:06

Either Communism has failed the people or the people have failed communism.

Short on options here, aren't we? Or perhaps, if you had an understanding of historical materialism and Marxism (not its "ideals"), you'd care to look at how far these countries progressed through capitalism before they became "communist."

Would you consider it an amazing feat if we could jump directly from various nomadic tribes to an industrialized market society?

redstar2000

3rd May 2006, 08:35

Originally posted by MKS
Despite the Communist apologetics and "purists", the modern models of "Socialist" or "Communist" nations are derived from interpretations of Marx and Engels as well as other modern Communists.

Derived from misinterpretations, to be more precise.

I expect future historians to regard 20th century Leninism as "proto-communist" movements; attempts that could never have succeeded due to the insufficient development of material conditions.

They sincerely wanted to "do the right thing" but were simply unable to manage it.

Those "communists" who deserve reproach are the ones of today who have reified Leninism and simply reject any attempt to "move on" and "do it better".

Your blanket assertion that Marxism "always" equals despotism is just as a-historical as the beliefs of the remaining Leninists.

Without Marx and his contemporaries it could be argued that the revolutions in Russia, China, Vietnam, etc., would not have taken place, and certainly would not have called themselves Communist Revolutions.

The "philosophical idea" of communism began to emerge in the aftermath of the French Revolution. Something "like it" was probably inevitable.

Bourgeois revolutions were inevitable in the countries you mentioned.

It is indeed something of a historical accident that they came "wrapped in red flags"...the fine details of history are indeed contingent.

Historical regularities emerge over substantial periods of time.

I'm sure that any arrogant dogmatic Marxist could easily refute my statements...

Yeah, you make it pretty easy.

...however what Leftists must understand is that the nations who flew and still fly the "communist" banner (China, Russia, Cuba) have committed very real atrocities against their own people.

What nation-state hasn't?

The present Chinese government claims to be "socialist with Chinese characteristics" -- like the Shanghai stock exchange. :lol:

Russia has not claimed to be either "socialist" or "communist" since 1992.

Cuba is your only example of a country that still actually claims to be "socialist"...and its record of "atrocities" is really quite minimal compared to many countries.

Especially those of Central and South America. (!)

So matter how much you argue that those nations were not truly Communist, the people will never accept such a argument.

Why don't we "let the people decide" that one.

Either Communism has failed the people or the people have failed communism.

What bourgeois academic did you copy that from?

This post should not have been moved to Opposing Ideologies, there are many other threads and posts that criticize Marxism and Communism that are not in this forum.

None that paint the Communist Manifesto as an "enemy of freedom".

I think RedStar needs to relax and not be so quick to dismiss or ignore ideas that he deems "unworthy".

I'm always pretty "relaxed"...but I agree my tolerance for self-evident bullshit seems to decline with every passing year.

Who died and made him Commissar of Communication?

Such "authority" as I have in that regard is a consequence of Malte's confidence in me to carry out mod/admin functions in a fair and responsible way.

Malte is still alive...so you can take it up with him if you like. :lol:

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

MKS

3rd May 2006, 23:22

Your blanket assertion that Marxism "always" equals despotism is just as a-historical as the beliefs of the remaining Leninists.

Its not just my assertion, many people take from history the examples of Marxism turning into despotism. It has always led to despotism, you cant ignore that fact, but you seem to do a good job at it. give one practical example of Marxism that has not led to tyranny.

Russia has not claimed to be either "socialist" or "communist" since 1992.

Well if you had read my passage that you quoted i citied past and present "communist" nations. While Russia was the Soviet Union millions died in the name of Socialism/Communism. Cubas crimes, while may not yield a high body count, are crimes that have acted against human rights and civil liberties. As i stated before Cuba had the potential for real progression towards true equality, like CNT-FAI controlled Spain during the civil war, until "Soviet style Communism" perverted and destoryed that progress.

Either Communism has failed the people or the people have failed communism.

What bourgeois academic did you copy that from?

i pulled that out of my own ass thank you very much. Not bad for a college drop out huh.

Derived from misinterpretations, to be more precise

Isn’t that a subjective opinion not really an objective fact? How do you know Lenin's or Mao's interpretations were incorrect and others are? How could a document be so misinterpreted to allow for the establishment of Bolshevism or Maoism? The basis for both could be easily "interpreted" from portions of the Manifesto and other writings of Marx and Engles. Couldn’t one argue that any interpretations of Marx are incorrect other those of Marx himself? If Marx was so Libertarian why did Bakunin view him as an authoritarian? Bakunin realised the authorive nature of Marx and the danger of the establishment of a fixed centralized ruling party.

Anyways the main point of this argument is the desparity between the ideal and the reality. The ideal of Communism is a good one, however the reality has corrupted the ideal. The original ideal for Capitalism was a liberal one meant to proliferate liberty and equality, obviously that ideal has been corrupted by man, and present day capitalism is a horrible machine of oppression and expolitation. The nature of man is such that it will pervert, distort and at times destory any ideal in the pursuit of their own intrests.

redstar2000

4th May 2006, 02:42

Originally posted by MKS
The nature of man is such that it will pervert, distort and at times destory any ideal in the pursuit of their own intrests.

There is no "argument" against misanthropy as a "principle"...if the "nature of man" is shit, then everything will "always" be shit by definition. :o

This is a profoundly reactionary position, of course. But that seems to be the direction you are "going in"...so it probably doesn't bother you that you are trodding a "well-worn" path.

Those are the breaks. :(

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

MKS

4th May 2006, 04:05

There is no "argument" against misanthropy as a "principle"...if the "nature of man" is shit, then everything will "always" be shit by definition.

I never said the nature of man was "shit". But you cannot ignore the historical models of any ideal (religion, poltical or economic) or principle being distorted by the actions of man. We cannot approach an ideal as a divine reality, and ignore or seperate the attempts and practical applications of the ideal even if they have failed to realize the idealized principle.

This is a profoundly reactionary position, of course. But that seems to be the direction you are "going in"...so it probably doesn't bother you that you are trodding a "well-worn" path.

This is not a reactionary position, just a different one than you hold.

I have yet to hear a response from you to my assertions:
give one practical example of Marxism that has not led to tyranny.

JudeObscure84

4th May 2006, 06:19

Its about time someone brought this up. :lol:

There were always TWO outlooks on the Constitution and the American way. ONE was the libertarian-paleo-conservative Jeffersonian stance of less government, states rights and cheap labor. The SECOND was Federalism, i.e. Hamiltonianism. One based on a Federal Republic, protectionism, labour over profit, and civil rights.

They both have been enemies since the signing of the Declaration of Independence and later turned into outright war during the Civil War. Well what won was the latter, with Lincoln being victorious and crushing the idea of Jeffersonian libertarianism. Since then and especially in the past 50 years, its been making a comeback, with the paleo-conservative/libertarian movement. These movements pretty much want the CSA back (Confederate States of America), with its cheap labor, states rights rhetoric, personal liberty (code word for racist policies), and trying to privitize everything from public parks to fire stations! There are hardly any old school progressive Lincolnian Republicans left at all! If anything most modern day Republicans bash Lincoln and call him a tyrant!

Ask yourself. Since when has the GOP advocated states rights? Since when has it advocated less government, pandered to Southern Pride, bashed Lincoln, and opted to be the enemy of federalism?

Well its time to bring back the Hamiltonian Federalist roots that have been atleast the moral voice in America regardless of its past crimes. Henry Clay, who fought against the first DixieCrat Andrew Jackson against the Trail of Tears. The Republican Abolitionists, Linconianism, the progressives in the 19th and 20th Century. The American System and the works of Harrey Carey.
The Communist should not be so malign towards American Liberalism since it is the cousin of Socialism and Communism during thier births in the Englightment Era. Long Live Federalism!

overlord

4th May 2006, 11:13

There were always TWO outlooks on the Constitution and the American way. ONE was the libertarian-paleo-conservative Jeffersonian stance of less government, states rights and cheap labor. The SECOND was Federalism, i.e. Hamiltonianism. One based on a Federal Republic, protectionism, labour over profit, and civil rights.

Jefferson wanted states' rights because in history only small republics generally preserve the freedom of their citizens for extended periods of time. Looks like he was right considering the current state of the USA =united soviets of america.

These movements pretty much want the CSA back (Confederate States of America

The south will rise again!!!!

There are hardly any old school progressive Lincolnian Republicans left at all!

You taxed each other to death. :o

The Communist should not be so malign towards American Liberalism since it is the cousin of Socialism and Communism during thier births in the Englightment Era.

This is why heroic Joe Mcarthy had you all you Democrats quaking in your boots and dribbling all over the carpet.

Long Live Federalism!

LONG LIVE FREEDOM ! LONG LIVE FREEDOM !

Dimentio

4th May 2006, 11:23

Communism and marxism are to inherent to Europe and Asia to have success in America. I rather believe that technocracy is more adapted to America - otherwise, how could this be explained?

http://www.technocracy.org/media/video/Ope...nColumbiaSM.mov (http://www.technocracy.org/media/video/OperationColumbiaSM.mov)

redstar2000

4th May 2006, 12:53

Originally posted by MKS
Give one practical example of Marxism that has not led to tyranny.

There has not yet been "a practical example of Marxism" anywhere "leading to" anything.

It's like being back in 1900 and saying "give one practical example of heavier than air powered flight that hasn't crashed and burned". :lol:

I never said the nature of man was "shit".

Yes you did, you just balk at using plain language. Try reading the Federalist Papers...the authors used nice refined 18th century upper class English to say the same thing.

Or the Bible if you prefer. :lol:

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

MKS

5th May 2006, 02:54

There has not yet been "a practical example of Marxism" anywhere "leading to" anything.

Oh please. More apologetic Marxist/Communist BS. If you went back to Revolutionary Cuba and asked Raul Castro and Che if they were Marxists I’m sure they would have said they were, and in Raul's case still is. Like I said before, giving your reasoning, Marx himself would be the only one who could implement "pure" Marxism/Communism. Almost all of the "Communist" revolutions have based their socio-economic policies on Marxism, or have used Marx as a foundation for their own ideology. Are these perversions of Marx? Of course they are, but there must have been some real basis for their actions within the Marxist writings. Since most of the modern "communist" nations were (are) authoritive, we can point to the authoritive nature of Marxism compared to the more Libertarian principles of Bakunin. Its like some polygamists point to certain biblical texts to justify their actions, or some American "patriots" use parts of the Constitution to justify their views.

Yes you did, you just balk at using plain language. Try reading the Federalist Papers...the authors used nice refined 18th century upper class English to say the same thing.

It is obvious the nature of man is not perfect, that we as a race have perpetrated great evils. But man is not shit, we are simply flawed and conditioned to act as we do. In order for any real social or economic equality we must first re-examine our ethical and moral viewpoints, and radically change our ethos. Notice I used the word "we" and not "them", because I consider myself a flawed person just like everyone else.

American Liberalism I believe could add some great things to the modern cause. Jefferson is often cited by many anarchist thinkers, and it is his idealism that we should attempt to resurrect in the United States. But can we accept his ideals and deny his crimes? He did own slaves; he did extend the American territory therefore beginning the great crimes against the natives. Can we separate his idealism and his actions, or would that be hypocritical?

black magick hustla

5th May 2006, 03:27

There were always TWO outlooks on the Constitution and the American way. ONE was the libertarian-paleo-conservative Jeffersonian stance of less government, states rights and cheap labor.

You are wrong about jefferson buddy. jefferson clearly stated that his ideal america was a country made out of small independent farmers. Thus you cannot argue he was in favor of "cheap-labor" because a country of "small farmers" is not a country of "cheap laborers".

If he really was for cheap labor, he would have supported industralization, which this wasn't the case.

Leo

5th May 2006, 03:51

Since most of the modern "communist" nations were (are) authoritive, we can point to the authoritive nature of Marxism compared to the more Libertarian principles of Bakunin.

Actually, despite his 'anarchist rhetoric', Bakunin was actually far more authoritarian than Marx. Bakunin believed that a 'secret society' of conspirators should promote so much violence to make the state disappear and then form a 'secret dictatorship' to make sure no one else form a 'dictatorship' in the next generations. With his student Nechayev, who was even more crazy about 'secret societies' than his mentor, they wrote a document called the 'Revolutionary Catechism', explaining how to make a revolution by disciplined and well-organized conspirators in Russia. Surprised? I'm coming to the best part. Irony of history was that Lenin read this document, and apparently he was very impressed by the method of organization, which he thought could manage to achieve a revolution in Russia. When you think about it, and as we know that Marx did not talk about any vanguard party, this idea came from Bakunin and it is accepted as the 'greatest' addition to Marxist theory.

Now, I am not saying that netiher Bakunin nor Lenin had bad intentions or anything (not that it would actually matter), I am talking about historical facts, nothing personal and, from your signature I can tell that you read Noam Chomsky and I've got nothing against that but just don't connect Marx with 21st century Communism based on Noam Chomsky. Again, there is nothing personal here, but when it comes to Marx, Noam Chomsky doesn't know anything, and he freely admits this.

It is obvious the nature of man is not perfect, that we as a race have perpetrated great evils. But man is not shit, we are simply flawed and conditioned to act as we do.

I don't understand this, what is the nature of man? Can you describe this nature? Individual beings are capable of doing bad things, but it all depends on other conditions, the conditions rest of the society live in, the historical conditions etc. Where does this human nature come from? What is this human nature? Can you explain that?

In order for any real social or economic equality we must first re-examine our ethical and moral viewpoints, and radically change our ethos.

The change our ethical and moral viewpoints will go through is not a factor of social and economical equality, but instead it is a result of it. It will take conscious practice of communal life and a little time.

American Liberalism I believe could add some great things to the modern cause. Jefferson is often cited by many anarchist thinkers, and it is his idealism that we should attempt to resurrect in the United States. But can we accept his ideals and deny his crimes? He did own slaves; he did extend the American territory therefore beginning the great crimes against the natives. Can we separate his idealism and his actions, or would that be hypocritical?

I don't think one's idealism and actions cannot be separated, if they differ, the person is hypocritical, a liar. The American Revolution is a rebellion occurring in a territory of an empire which concludes as a bourgeois revolution. Jefferson, Washington etc. were the richest men in New England, and they were for Independence not because of idealism but because the taxation done by England was really not profitable for them. This was their main motive. Of course, I am sure the romanticism of the era also became dominant, and probably this was why they wanted to separate themselves from the rest of Europe by adopting a system which has a different name. Regarding its historical significance, American Revolution was nothing compared to the French Revolution, but it did not overthrow an empire, it just made a territory gain its independence. Nevertheless, its historical significance was the inspiration given to French revolutionaries, and the irony of the situation for the French king who had supported the American Revolution.
After the revolution, nothing changed in the ex-colony. The ones who became leaders were members of the revolutionary elite. Then parties were formed, they followed legacy of the founding fathers. Even now, there are two parties in the United States that are not different from each other, and minor parties don't have a shot. If they were to grow, they were stopped. Debs and the Socialist Party is a good and sad example. One remembers most respectable Emma Goldman's words: "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
I don't think American Liberalism, or liberalism of any sorts, has anything to add to the cause. Why? Because what you call American Liberalism is the second most enthusiastic capitalist ideal, only below conservative capitalism.

MKS

5th May 2006, 04:07

just don't connect Marx with 21st century Communism based on Noam Chomsky

Yes but Chomsky does know about Lenin and his Bolshievk nightmare. Lenin did justify Bolshivism using Marx and Engels.

I don't understand this, what is the nature of man? Can you describe this nature? Individual beings are capable of doing bad things, but it all depends on other conditions, the conditions rest of the society live in, the historical conditions etc. Where does this human nature come from? What is this human nature? Can you explain that?

Human nature is derived from the socio-econmic conditions of a society, but there is also a biological factor. Simply said, the historical example revals the "nature" of man to be one of greed, violence, and shocking brutality. The nature of man is not a permanent flaw, but one that is deeply embedded into the charecter the race.

I don't think American Liberalism, or liberalism of any sorts, has anything to add to the cause. Why? Because what you call American Liberalism is the second most enthusiastic capitalist ideal, only below conservative capitalism

American Liberalism began and was culitvated in a pre-capitalist society. Capitalism was a derivative of Liberalism, it was an ideal that was feared by some of the more "conservative" framers like Madison who viewed emerging Capitalism as a threat to the rich elite who governed. Capitalism was viewed as too liberal by many during that time. If you think about it Capitalism is not a bad ideal; a free market creates free people. Well we all know how that idea turned out. Pure Capitalism has not and will never exist, just as pure Communism has not and will never exist.

Leo

5th May 2006, 05:00

Yes but Chomsky does know about Lenin and his Bolshievk nightmare. Lenin did justify Bolshivism using Marx and Engels.

Chomsky has good intentions but I think he fails to be objective in this topic, just from the quote which you wrote to your signature. Lenin is not the enemy who ruined everything intentionally for creating a dictatorship to rule all. Here's a brief paragraph about Lenin's daily life after the October Revolution by Slavoj Zizek.

"Here are some details of the daily life of Lenin and the Bolsheviks in 1917 and the following years, which, in their very triviality, render palpable the gap from the Stalinist nomenklatura. When, in the evening of 24 October 1917, Lenin left his flat for the Smolny Institute to coordinate the revolutionary takeover, he took a tram and asked the conductress if there was any fighting going on in the center that day. In the years after the October Revolution, Lenin was mostly driving around in a car only with his faithful driver and bodyguard Gil; a couple of times they were shot at, stopped by the police and arrested (the policemen did not recognize Lenin), once, after visiting a school in suburbs, even robbed of the car and their guns by bandits posing as police, and then compelled to walk to the nearest police station. When, on 30 August 1918, Lenin was shot, this occurred while he got in a conversation with a couple of complaining women in front of a factory he just visited; the bleeding Lenin was driven by Gil to Kremlin, were there were no doctors, so his wife Nadezhda Krupskaya suggested someone should run out to the nearest grocer’s shop for a lemon... The standard meal in the Kremlin kantina in 1918 was buckwheat porridge and thin vegetable soup. So much about the privileges of nomenklatura!"

Lenin had good intentions, he was trying to do the the right thing but he made big mistakes. His biggest mistake was being a seperatist in the movement. He went into endless polemics with others, he antagonized and labeled others on extremely minor details. His second main mistake, was the vanguard party, actually believing that a revolutionary elite can achieve the revolution. He had gotten this idea from Bakunin, and after he wrote April thesis, he was labeled as the next 'Bakunin.' The combination of those two mistakes, which is called Leninism, led to greater mistakes, including the tragic crushing of Kronstadt and Makhnovshchina but it didn't get any worse than that during Lenin's time. What is ironic was that in Makhnovshchina, the practice was much closer to what Marx thought for Russia. He once wrote: "Everything depends upon the historical background in which it finds itself... If the revolution takes place at the right time, if it concentrates all its forces to ensure the free development of the village commune, the latter will soon emerge as the regenerative force in Russian society and as something superior to those countries enslaved by the capitalist regime" This was exactly what Makhno was doing! Nevertheless, those two great mistakes led to Stalin, we know the rest of the story.

Lenin might have justified himself with Marxism, but actually he had not read some of Marx's most important works and his mistakes had nothing to do with Marx or his theory. If a dog calls himself a wolf and bites you, would you blame the wolf for this? If there is someone to blame, other than Lenin, for the ills of Leninism, it is Bakunin, not Marx.

Human nature is derived from the socio-econmic conditions of a society, but there is also a biological factor. Simply said, the historical example revals the "nature" of man to be one of greed, violence, and shocking brutality.

Then how would you explain the hunter-gatherer societies? We can say biologically humans have constants, such as eating, drinking, sleeping etc. Socio-economic conditions set the norm for subconscious human mind, but the norm is not constant. Therefore human nature does not exist. Forming a new society is a totally conscious act, so there is no reason to worry about the remnants of the norms capitalism planted in our subconscious minds.

If you think about it Capitalism is not a bad ideal; a free market creates free people. Well we all know how that idea turned out. Pure Capitalism has not and will never exist, just as pure Communism has not and will never exist.

No, capitalism, or actually any society based on money is a bad ideal. A market is a bad ideal. Money enslaves people. You end up working for money, living for money, either always wanting more and more money, or hungry. The society we live in is as pure as it is going to get so we live in Pure Capitalism, and someday, whether we call it by that name or not, we will live in Pure Communism.

JudeObscure84

5th May 2006, 05:03

You are wrong about jefferson buddy. jefferson clearly stated that his ideal america was a country made out of small independent farmers. Thus you cannot argue he was in favor of "cheap-labor" because a country of "small farmers" is not a country of "cheap laborers".

If he really was for cheap labor, he would have supported industralization, while this wasn't the case.

Jefferson advocated small farmers and an economy based on agriculture. Most of the economic gain of the south was through its autocratic system of slavery and cheap labor. The South was highly in favor of Jeffersonian values while the North preferred Hamiltonianism.

redstar2000

5th May 2006, 05:51

Originally posted by MKS
Human nature is derived from the socio-econmic conditions of a society, but there is also a biological factor. Simply said, the historical example revals the "nature" of man to be one of greed, violence, and shocking brutality. The nature of man is not a permanent flaw, but one that is deeply embedded into the charecter the race.

If it's "biological", then it's permanent...unless you're talking about time on an evolutionary scale -- tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. :o

By all means indulge yourself in Jeffersonian banalities; they are irrelevant to a high-tech society but otherwise harmless enough. :lol:

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

Tungsten

6th May 2006, 22:33

Leo Uilleann

No, capitalism, or actually any society based on money is a bad ideal.
The free market is based on freedom, not money.

A market is a bad ideal.
Do you know what a market is?

Money enslaves people.
Oh. You're one of those.

You end up working for money, living for money, either always wanting more and more money, or hungry. The society we live in is as pure as it is going to get so we live in Pure Capitalism,
Stop deluding yourself. In "pure capitalism" there would be zero taxes and practically zero regulation. Do we have zero taxes and zero regulation? No. Do we have anything even remotely like zero taxes and zero regulation? No. (The tax issue is still open to debate, but the point still stands.)

Leo

7th May 2006, 02:07

The free market is based on freedom, not money.

This is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard in my life. :D

Do you know what a market is?

Oh why don't you explain it to me? :lol:

Oh. You're one of those.

Yeah, I'm one of those. Does that bother you? :lol: Well, tough shit!

Stop deluding yourself. In "pure capitalism" there would be zero taxes and practically zero regulation. Do we have zero taxes and zero regulation? No. Do we have anything even remotely like zero taxes and zero regulation? No.

Capitalism can't work without zero taxes and zero regulation. States can't raise armies, build nukes without taxes, and big capitalists can not use the resources and labor of third world and hold them back.

I could write more on what you said but you're not worth the time. If I was to get in to stupid polemics with mindless cappies, I'd go to one of their sides, it would be more fun :D . Just don't reply to anything I write ok?

MKS

7th May 2006, 02:54

The free market is based on freedom, not money.

This is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard in my life.

The earlier Capitalist thinkers could never have envisioned what their new socio-economic theory morphed into. Just as Communist or anarchist thinkers have no idea what Communism or Anarchism would actually look like (although some would say there are real world examples of both). Capitalism is not based on money, but on the principle that a market unrestricted by government, or by any group of man/woman, will allow for a greater distribution of resources, and consequently will level the socio-economic ladder that ruled Western Civilization for centuries. As I said before "Pure" capitalism has never and will never exist. There will always be governments, and individuals who use the free market to horde wealth and power. Why? Because human nature dictates it, the compulsion to divide, oppress and exploit whether a biological device or a conditional device, ultimately triumphs.

Capitalism can't work without zero taxes and zero regulation. States can't raise armies, build nukes without taxes, and big capitalists can not use the resources and labor of third world and hold them back.

Why can’t Capitalism work without taxes? The existence of a state pre-dates the existence of Capitalism. Therefore couldn’t you argue that Capitalism did not corrupt the state but the State corrupted Capitalism?

I hate that I’m arguing for Capitalism but some Leftist really need to open their minds and not be so myopic. Isn’t it odd that Communists will argue against the existence of "human nature" when they justify their utopian idealism, but they are more than willing to argue for the existence of "human nature" to denounce the evils of Capitalism? So does human nature exist or doesn’t it? Please make up your mind. The nature of man is an obvious fact, as is the nature of fish, apes or bears. However one unique facet of our nature is our ability to evolve and progress, to give definition to an ideal. Capitalism is not intrinsically evil, but man has made it so. Capitalism began as a progression of freedom and in my view has done a good job in some places. If it weren’t for Capitalism this website wouldn’t exist, the computers you use wouldn’t exist and the nations that most of you live would probably not be as they are now. Capitalism like Communism has also been at fault for some great crimes against mankind, but I think that communists or many leftist are too quick to blame the "system" and not each other for the state of the world. We have made Capitalism what it is today, we are the only ones who hold our chains.

The one thing I admire about Capitalists is that they never use the "pure" capitalism argument to justify the shortcomings of the system. You will rarely hear a Capitalist argue, that American (Western) Capitalism is not real Capitalism, unlike some Communists who almost always argue that Russian Communism was not "real" communism.

The point: The ideal is subject to the will of man.

Leo

7th May 2006, 03:45

The earlier Capitalist thinkers could never have envisioned what their new socio-economic theory morphed into. Just as Communist or anarchist thinkers have no idea what Communism or Anarchism would actually look like (although some would say there are real world examples of both). Capitalism is not based on money, but on the principle that a market unrestricted by government, or by any group of man/woman, will allow for a greater distribution of resources, and consequently will level the socio-economic ladder that ruled Western Civilization for centuries. As I said before "Pure" capitalism has never and will never exist. There will always be governments, and individuals who use the free market to horde wealth and power. Why? Because human nature dictates it, the compulsion to divide, oppress and exploit whether a biological device or a conditional device, ultimately triumphs.

Exploitation of labor and resources, and the inequality of income existed before capitalism. The distinction between pre-capitalist tyrannies and the capitalist tyranny is the usage of money. Before capitalism, the way to wealth, capital if we may call it, passed through politics, nobility etc. Production was made to meet needs. With the growth of the bourgeois class, who weren't thinkers to be taken seriously, (I am not talking about the philosophers who talked about capitalism such as Simith, Say, Ricardo etc. They did see the horrors of capitalism, but did not even think about any possibility of abolishing it.) the production was done to have more money. What actually made the growth of the bourgeois class possible was the siezure of Americas by the Europeans, so we can actually say that the origins of Capitalism date back to Coulomb's adventure, therefore, Capitalism had been caused by and dependent to imperialism all along. We can even go a step further and say capitalism is imperialism. Otherwise capitalism could not be possible. State is usefull for capitalism because in the times of colonialism big European states were used to provide opportinity for business in the colonies (of course, this was profitable for the state too), nowdays this is done by local states (which is profitable, at least for the individual members of those states). This is why capitalism cannot exist without states and pure capitalism is a myth. As for the free markets, well any market where you are forced to use something, such as money, to buy, is not free at all. Actual economic freedom is where every product is free and open to consumers to consume accordingly to their needs. Another point to prove that the free market has nothing to do with freedom is the condition of producers. Under the capitalist system they are slaves who are being paid, and the money their salaries go directly to the pool of big businesses for their most basic needs. Objectively, they are slaves. The free market is not open for anyone who doesn't have capital. Only then, the market becomes free for you, therefore only people with capital are free in the market, and producers are slaves. But, people with capital are also slaves, they are slaves of money, they work more and more for money, for more capital. The more capital they gain, the less human they become.

Why can’t Capitalism work without taxes? The existence of a state pre-dates the existence of Capitalism. Therefore couldn’t you argue that Capitalism did not corrupt the state but the State corrupted Capitalism?

First of all, with all institutions of the capitalist system, we must be cynical. The wages paid do not go to poor, they go to army budgets, nukes etc. The reason capitalism can't work without taxes is the same reason capitalism can't work without brutal force. And as the existance of state pre-dates Capitalism, I would instead argue that Capitalism uses the state in such horrible ways that kings of the past couldn't even imagine, therefore I would argue that Capitalism made the state much worse.

Isn’t it odd that Communists will argue against the existence of "human nature" when they justify their utopian idealism, but they are more than willing to argue for the existence of "human nature" to denounce the evils of Capitalism?

I did not say or even imply anything regarding human nature to justify anything. Human nature is eating, drinking, sleeping, having sex etc, just like the nature of bears, fish etc.

Capitalism is not intrinsically evil, but man has made it so. Capitalism began as a progression of freedom and in my view has done a good job in some places.

Capitalism is intrinsically evil, because it is a form, and worst so far, of exploitation. It began as a progression of freedom for some, and slavery for others, such as the inhabitants of the Americas. Did it do a good job? Well, under capitalism, more than 85% of the worlds population were mostly producers, and we know the conditions they live in. Is that good? I don't think so. But no one argues that capitalism did a bad job for capitalists.

If it weren’t for Capitalism this website wouldn’t exist

True, why would we need a place to talk about abolishing capitalism if it weren't for capitalism :lol:

We have made Capitalism what it is today

No, capitalism made us what we are today.

we are the only ones who hold our chains.

I most definetly agree with this one. :lol:

FAI_Liberation

7th May 2006, 04:12

The free market is not open for anyone who doesn't have capital. Only then, the market becomes free for you, therefore only people with capital are free in the market, and producers are slaves. But, people with capital are also slaves, they are slaves of money, they work more and more for money, for more capital. The more capital they gain, the less human they become.

I agree with you, but I think you are confusing the "ideal" for the reality. The ideal of Capitalism as propsed by Adam Smith and his contemperoaries was to abolish the current oligarchies and "feudal" systems of the time. Neo-Liberalism was supposed to make Capital available to more people than Feudalism did, or Mercantilism etc. However this ideal was corrupted by mans greed, his willingness to abandon the liberal idealism that accompied the free market system, and to create new systems of tyranny and exploitation. Capitalism was used by the State much like any other economic system has been, to secure and expand power and influence. To say Capitalism is dependent on Imperialism is a fallacy. I assert that Capitalism can thrive in smaller Confederated systems. Man manipulates markets, ideals etc in order to meet his own needs or achieve his ends. Just as the Bolsheviks used Communism in Russia to establish their own power system, the Republicans, Aristocrats and Oligarchs use Capitalism.

I would instead argue that Capitalism uses the state in such horrible ways that kings of the past couldn't even imagine, therefore I would argue that Capitalism made the state much worse.

Go back in time, to say 1066 a.d. and ask a serf living in England if he would prefer Capitalism over Feudalism. I will assert that just as many crimes against humanity have been committed in the name of "Communism" as have been in the name of Capitalist-Imperialism. Millions died in Russia, China, and Cambodia etc. Each ideology has a shameful past.

No, capitalism made us what we are today

Are you saying we are mindless drones who are subject to the whims of a market? that we are incapable of self determination and evolution?

Like I said before; I hate arguing for Capitalism, but it seems like your arguments against it are regurgitated sound bytes from Marxist/Communist sources. Capitalism has its faults, but it has done some good in the world. Imagine if we still lived in a rigid socio-economic class system that dominated Western Civ. during the 18th Century. The history of mankind is one of progress, we progressed to Capitalism, and we shall progress to something better.

OneBrickOneVoice

7th May 2006, 04:20

Go back in time, to say 1066 a.d. and ask a serf living in England if he would prefer Capitalism over Feudalism. I will assert that just as many crimes against humanity have been committed in the name of "Communism" as have been in the name of Capitalist-Imperialism. Millions died in Russia, China, and Cambodia etc. Each ideology has a shameful past.

Yes each does. Capitalism has been able to cover it's up better as it is more discreet and less extreme.

Leo

7th May 2006, 06:09

I agree with you, but I think you are confusing the "ideal" for the reality. The ideal of Capitalism as propsed by Adam Smith and his contemperoaries was to abolish the current oligarchies and "feudal" systems of the time. Neo-Liberalism was supposed to make Capital available to more people than Feudalism did, or Mercantilism etc. However this ideal was corrupted by mans greed, his willingness to abandon the liberal idealism that accompied the free market system, and to create new systems of tyranny and exploitation.

The written ideal is unimportant. Adam Smith, and people like him, had a limited perspective, they thought the country they lived in was the world itself for them and they were suggesting ways for the country to be richer than other countries who were competing in the capitalist arena. Capitalism had started its practice long before its theory was written. It wasn't supposed to make Capital available to more people than Feudalism, it didn't care about making more Capital available to more people than Feudalism, it cared about making capital available to Capitalists.

Capitalism was used by the State much like any other economic system has been, to secure and expand power and influence.

This is the point where I have a problem with the way most of current Anarchists think. State did not use capitalism, it served capitalism and it benefited from this, it still does. Most of the Anarchists think that the state is the arch-villain and capitalism is a servant of the state, but the reality is the reverse. Don't misunderstand me, I am against the institution of state by all means, but the actual cause of worlds current problems is capitalism, and state is a tool of capitalists.

To say Capitalism is dependent on Imperialism is a fallacy. I assert that Capitalism can thrive in smaller Confederated systems.

Without recources and labor to exploit, capitalism cannot survive. Exploiting resources and labor is imperialism.

Man manipulates markets, ideals etc in order to meet his own needs or achieve his ends.

No, market manipulates man. As for ideals, they are pretty unimportant actually. What matters is the social-economical conditions, the system. Man doesn't have a nature which will make him do bad things, what he will do is determined by the social-economical conditions, there is no biological factor. Proof: Look at hunter-gatherer societies, Native American indians etc. They are not biologically different from us one bit but because of the social-economical conditions they were living in they did not act greedy, manupulate others etc. We learn from the past, we fight for the future. An ideal is as valuable as its ability to tell us where we have came from where we are right now and maybe where we might go. The rest depends of the practice, the reality, that's the important part.

Go back in time, to say 1066 a.d. and ask a serf living in England if he would prefer Capitalism over Feudalism.

Honestly, I would prefer to work as a serf in a farm, under the sun rather than working in a sweatshop.

I will assert that just as many crimes against humanity have been committed in the name of "Communism" as have been in the name of Capitalist-Imperialism. Millions died in Russia, China, and Cambodia etc. Each ideology has a shameful past.

Ideologies are not important. What matters is the practice, the reality. Capitalism existed before Adam Smith's theories, but it wasn't called capitalism. What was practiced in Russia, China, Cambodia etc. was called communism but it wasn't communism in reality. Guess what? Doesn't matter! It is the reality that is important.

Are you saying we are mindless drones who are subject to the whims of a market? that we are incapable of self determination and evolution?

Of course not! I am saying that social-economical conditions determine our subconscious norm, and that norm, which you call Human Nature, is a product of Capitalism. As systems change, and we are the ones who abolish them and build new ones, we are most capable of self determination and evolution! Saying that man corrupted the system is saying we are incapable of self determination and evolution.

Like I said before; I hate arguing for Capitalism

You said before? Wait, are you MKS? Why did you change your username?

but it seems like your arguments against it are regrgiutated sound bytes from Marxist/Communist sources.

I believe there is a serious trouble in the logic you used to say this, and I don't take this as a polemic. I'm just wandering, did you ever read Marx? Look, nothing personal, and I actually enjoy arguing with you, but I think you have prejudices against Marx to an extensive level. In fact it is so extensive that you seem like a dogmatic anti-Marxist which is something I couldn't care less because Marx died long time ago and I don't care what anyone thinks about him except my own thought, but if you want to objectively judge history and the world we live in today, you can't take Chomsky's words for Marx, you'll need to read Marx's works. And, for myself, I am not someone who regrgiutated sound bytes from any sources (but even if I was, you can't judge me), I read and learn from Marx and I make up my mind if I agree with him, and the rest of my opinions on Marx is my own business, it has nothing to do with building a better future. You can't dogmatically say 'everything this person says is wrong' or 'everything this person says is right', you'll lose your own judgement if you do this.

Capitalism has its faults, but it has done some good in the world. Imagine if we still lived in a rigid socio-economic class system that dominated Western Civ. during the 18th Century. The history of mankind is one of progress, we progressed to Capitalism, and we shall progress to something better.

The rigid socio-economic class system of 18th Century is not actually better than the current situation. In that time, the Western (so-called) Civilization exploited its own labor force, and resources of the rest of the world. Now, it looks better because it also exploits the labor force of the rest of the world among with its resources. Actually, it is a world which is much worse, much fake, much disgusting. History of Mankind is not one of complete progress. Some things had increased so far, but I can say that the relationship between the individual and society, relationships between individuals and relationships between societies recessed instead of progressing. Nevertheless, this can change, a revolution can change the way those relationships go. We can hope and imagine this, therefore we can make it happen as well.

redstar2000

7th May 2006, 09:48

Originally posted by MKS
The nature of man is an obvious fact, as is the nature of fish, apes or bears.

Nope.

Fish, bears, and apes behave in fairly limited and easily predictable ways.

Human behavior is far more complex and far more difficult to predict.

To this point, no one has demonstrated scientifically "the nature of man" or even if such a thing exists.

There will always be governments, and individuals who use the free market to horde wealth and power. Why? Because human nature dictates it.

And there "will always be" people who come to this board blowing smoke out of their asses about "human nature". :lol:

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

Tungsten

7th May 2006, 14:36

Leo Uilleann

This is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard in my life.
Well that's put me back in my place. How am I supposed to get a look in with intellectual prowess like that?

Oh why don't you explain it to me?
A market is a system where we trade stuff we don't want for stuff we do, voluntarily, for a mutually agreed on price. Presumably you want to circumvent this in favour of some system whereby prices and values are dictated by some centralised authority. What you have then is a pretend market and a pretend economy.

Capitalism can't work without zero taxes and zero regulation. States can't raise armies, build nukes without taxes, and big capitalists can not use the resources and labor of third world and hold them back.
Well I agree with that. I do believe in taxation for certain things- namely defence, nukes, police etc. Of course some believe these things should be privatised (bad idea), others believe in voluntary contributions should be made to the government to pay for these things (not likely to happen any time soon).

I could write more on what you said but you're not worth the time.
Bullshit excuse #1732

If I was to get in to stupid polemics with mindless cappies, I'd go to one of their sides, it would be more fun . Just don't reply to anything I write ok?
Okay, I won't. I wouldn't want to put any of your sacred cows in danger. Oops. Too late.

We can even go a step further and say capitalism is imperialism.
The two contradict one another in principle.

This is why capitalism cannot exist without states and pure capitalism is a myth.
Capitalism can't exist without a state, it's a necessary evil. People need protecting from each other.

As for the free markets, well any market where you are forced to use something, such as money, to buy, is not free at all.
"Free" in terms of "free to trade", not "free to purchase".

Actual economic freedom is where every product is free and open to consumers to consume accordingly to their needs.
That invariably results in freedom for the consumer and slavery for the producer.

Under the capitalist system they are slaves who are being paid, and the money their salaries go directly to the pool of big businesses for their most basic needs.
Really? My salary goes in my bank account.

Objectively, they are slaves.
:lol:

The free market is not open for anyone who doesn't have capital.
Well, the idea of trade is that something is traded for something else. If something was being traded for nothing, it wouldn't be a market. It would be a collection point. It sounds like you're another member of the dreamy-headed something-for-nothing brigade. Like that's going to work.

Only then, the market becomes free for you, therefore only people with capital are free in the market,
You don't know what a market is or what you're talking about.

and producers are slaves.
They will be if their products are handed out according to need, as there's no guarantee they'll be given anything in return and it's doubtful if they'll be able to refuse to associate with the needy for whatever reason.

But, people with capital are also slaves, they are slaves of money, they work more and more for money, for more capital. The more capital they gain, the less human they become.
I think you abandoned your humanity- and your mind - long ago.

First of all, with all institutions of the capitalist system, we must be cynical. The wages paid do not go to poor, they go to army budgets, nukes etc.
In my country, that's 2.5% of my taxes.

The reason capitalism can't work without taxes is the same reason capitalism can't work without brutal force.
What brutal force are you referring to?

And as the existance of state pre-dates Capitalism, I would instead argue that Capitalism uses the state in such horrible ways that kings of the past couldn't even imagine, therefore I would argue that Capitalism made the state much worse.
The more ambiguous the statement, the more meaningless it invariably is.

Capitalism is intrinsically evil,
Nothing is intrinsically evil.

because it is a form, and worst so far, of exploitation. It began as a progression of freedom for some, and slavery for others, such as the inhabitants of the Americas. Did it do a good job? Well, under capitalism, more than 85% of the worlds population were mostly producers, and we know the conditions they live in. Is that good? I don't think so. But no one argues that capitalism did a bad job for capitalists.
Are you implying that the whole world lives under a system identical to the one in, say, the United States? That's ridiculous.

No, capitalism made us what we are today.
I think you made you what you are today.

No, market manipulates man.
How?

Man doesn't have a nature which will make him do bad things,
Of course he does. Some of us are bad all the time and it's not usually about money.

what he will do is determined by the social-economical conditions, there is no biological factor.
I don't agree. I think our instincts have more than a little say in it, which would explain - ironically - why the idea of socialism has survived for as long as it has despite repeated failiure.

Proof: Look at hunter-gatherer societies, Native American indians etc. They are not biologically different from us one bit but because of the social-economical conditions they were living in they did not act greedy, manupulate others etc.
Do you have proof of this?

Of course not! I am saying that social-economical conditions determine our subconscious norm, and that norm, which you call Human Nature, is a product of Capitalism. As systems change, and we are the ones who abolish them and build new ones, we are most capable of self determination and evolution! Saying that man corrupted the system is saying we are incapable of self determination and evolution.
A society that bases itself on distribution according to need and removes the incentive to produce, therefore driving those who produce to leave it, is a society heading for exctinction. How's that for a lesson in evolution?
MKS

As I said before "Pure" capitalism has never and will never exist.
Pure capitalism is what happens every time you buy something from a flea market without interference from an outside source.
redstar2000

Human behavior is far more complex and far more difficult to predict.
I have a better understaning of it than most. Behaviour can be unusual and contradictory at times, but it does have a lot in common with the instincs of our tree-dwelling ancestors, but we do have some instincts quite unique to our species.

Leo

7th May 2006, 18:49

And there "will always be" people who come to this board blowing smoke out of their asses about "human nature". :lol:

(Sigh) True...

MKS

8th May 2006, 00:21

Nope.

Fish, bears, and apes behave in fairly limited and easily predictable ways.

Human behavior is far more complex and far more difficult to predict.

To this point, no one has demonstrated scientifically "the nature of man" or even if such a thing exists

My point was that the existence of human nature is obivous. Man is an animal and like all animals we behave according to biological instincts but also according to environmental conditioning and adaptation. Lets take bears as a comparison, it is not a biological instinct for bears to raid garbage cans, but it is an instinct to gather food and energy, therfore the bears natural inlcination towards self preservation warrants the adaptation to its surroundings. The bear's nature has forced an adaptation, mans nature works the same way. To say human nature is non-existant is ridiculous and illogical.

Someone once said; 'man gets the government he deserves', I couldnt agree more. We have failed eachother and to blame a "system" for evil or exploitation is also ridiculous.

Look at hunter-gatherer societies, Native American indians etc. They are not biologically different from us one bit but because of the social-economical conditions they were living in they did not act greedy, manupulate others etc.

They did act greedy, just look at the Empires of the Aztecs, Incans and Mayans. Also the natives of New England constantly fought each other over land and resources. Their world view was different from ours true, but they acted as all men do, towards self preservation and conquest.

bcbm

8th May 2006, 02:33

Proof: Look at hunter-gatherer societies, Native American indians etc. They are not biologically different from us one bit but because of the social-economical conditions they were living in they did not act greedy, manupulate others etc.

I thought the whole "Noble Savage" thing went out of style around the turn of the century. Plenty of American Indian societies were greedy, manipulative and a whole lot of other bad things, as were plenty of hunter-gatherer societies. Other's weren't. There isn't anything true across the board though.

redstar2000

8th May 2006, 03:31

Originally posted by MKS
My point was that the existence of human nature is obivous. Man is an animal and like all animals we behave according to biological instincts...

No, it's not the least bit "obvious".

Do we have a "biological instinct" to make paintings on cave walls?

Or scratch drawings on the sides of cliffs?

Well some of us did...some 25,000-50,000 years ago.

Do we have a "biological instinct" to build spacecraft?

Well, I guess some of us do.

The idea of "human nature" is just flatly without empirical justification.

Hell, we don't even mate in order to reproduce any more...much to the distress of the Pope.

We mate because it's fun. :lol:

Perhaps the human species should be hauled before the Special Committee on Unbiological Activities. :lol:

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

MKS

8th May 2006, 03:46

Do we have a "biological instinct" to make paintings on cave walls

We do have a biological or physiological inclination towards expression and communication through non-verbal mediums.

Do we have a "biological instinct" to build spacecraft

We do have a biological instinct towards survival, and a physiological inclination towards exploration.

Hell, we don't even mate in order to reproduce any more...much to the distress of the Pope

The drive for sexual intercourse is biological. Some men experience a medical condition called Erectile Dysfunction, which means their biological drive towards sex is diminished or non-existent, we replace that natural drive using drugs. The impetus to procreate always drives sexual action, whether we are conscious of it or not.

Perhaps the human species should be hauled before the Special Committee on Unbiological Activities

The human species is an animal, highly evolved and intelligent and able in some instances to control certain biological traits, and able in some instances to transcend their nature. But I would argue that this ability is a derivative of our nature, not a characteristic separate from it.

Leo

8th May 2006, 04:55

Someone once said; 'man gets the government he deserves', I couldnt agree more. We have failed eachother and to blame a "system" for evil or exploitation is also ridiculous.

I don't think you managed to explain this 'human nature' thing to me. You are telling the same thing over and over again, you are saying it's obvious, you are saying we failed each other, you are saying blaming a system is ridiculous, you're saying we get what we deserve but you don't explain what makes you say those. This 'human nature' of yours, for example, makes the victims part of the crime. It's all human nature right? We failed each other, if we didn't each other would fail us and for example I can't understand how genocide victims have deserved what happened to them, how sweatshop workers deserved the horrible conditions they are living in. It is the social economical conditions, not the nature of man. Social economical conditions are real, obvious and horrific, nature of man is a myth which in fact denies the very existance of the individual, our difference from animals.

They did act greedy, just look at the Empires of the Aztecs, Incans and Mayans. Also the natives of New England constantly fought each other over land and resources. Their world view was different from ours true, but they acted as all men do, towards self preservation and conquest.

Aztecs, Incans and Mayans were not hunter-gatherer societies, they were in fact empires, as you said, not much different from Egypt or Rome.
The natives of New England founded a fraternal confederacy. I would think that some of them might have found against each other, which is actually something you can't prove, but if they did, they did it because it was absolutely necassary for their survival.

Plenty of American Indian societies were greedy, manipulative and a whole lot of other bad things, as were plenty of hunter-gatherer societies. Other's weren't. There isn't anything true across the board though.

Some American Indians societies got greedy and manipulative after the white mans invasion of their lands, they learned techniques of the invaders, others didn't but none were not greedy before the white man's arrival. Read the stories of first encounters with the whites, read Coulomb's journals for example. All hunter-gatherer societes were good to whites just because their social economical conditions set up that norm for them.

We have a biological nature, eating, drinking, sleeping, fucking is a part of this. But, our mind doesn't have a biological nature determining how we think. The psychological norms we set in our subconscious mind is set by the social economical conditions we were born in, they are irrelevant to building a new future.

MKS

8th May 2006, 05:17

I can't understand how genocide victims have deserved what happened to them, how sweatshop workers deserved the horrible conditions they are living in. It is the social economical conditions, not the nature of man. Social economical conditions are real, obvious and horrific, nature of man is a myth which in fact denies the very existance of the individual, our difference from animals.

Modern man has almost complete control over the manipulation of resources and material conditions. Man created monarchies, they created Democracies, they created Capitalism etc. Sweatshop workers have every ability to stop working, to rise and to fight and to change the conditions they live in, but they do not. Adult Genocide vicitims do have the ability to fight against those who seek their demise. (take Sobibor, Warsaw etc) Socio-econmoic conditions are real, but they do not exist independently of man, they are in fact creations of man or at the very least subject to the manipulations of man. We have failed and continue to fail each other.

The natives of New England founded a fraternal confederacy. I would think that some of them might have found against each other, which is actually something you can't prove, but if they did, they did it because it was absolutely necassary for their survival.

The Pequots and Mohegans were rivals who fought brutal wars against each other for control of Eastern Connecticut and Rhode Island. The Hurons of the Lower Hudson Valley were also very aggressive towards the tribes of Northern New England. These are established facts. There is an island just a few miles from where I live in Guilford, Ct where a Pequot Sachem was beheaded by the Mohegan chief Uncas. The Sachem and several other Pequots were fleeing from a Mohegan raid that killed 400 Pequots (men, women and children). But I guess thats not real brutality.

theraven

8th May 2006, 05:20

Some American Indians societies got greedy and manipulative after the white mans invasion of their lands, they learned techniques of the invaders, others didn't but none were not greedy before the white man's arrival. Read the stories of first encounters with the whites, read Coulomb's journals for example. All hunter-gatherer societes were good to whites just because their social economical conditions set up that norm for them.

thats insane and you know it. all tribal soceities are very friendly to guests by nature, but to deny people are greedy is to deny reality,

Leo

8th May 2006, 05:29

Modern man has almost complete control over the manipulation of resources and material conditions. Man created monarchies, they created Democracies, they created Capitalism etc. Sweatshop workers have every ability to stop working, to rise and to fight and to change the conditions they live in, but they do not. Adult Genocide vicitims do have the ability to fight against those who seek their demise. (take Sobibor, Warsaw etc) Socio-econmoic conditions are real, but they do not exist independently of man, they are in fact creations of man or at the very least subject to the manipulations of man. We have failed and continue to fail each other.

You are repeating the same thing over and over again. Saying that Sweatshop workers have the ability to stop or working genocide victims had the ability to resist doesn't mean anything by itself. Resistance doesn't happen without organization, but if people are organized and united, then we have a chance. People rise up as well, how do you explain that? You are denying the existance of the individual by this nonsense of Human Nature, indeed a very interesting thought for an anarchist to have.

The Pequots and Mohegans were rivals who fought brutal wars against each other for control of Eastern Connecticut and Rhode Island. The Hurons of the Lower Hudson Valley were also very aggressive towards the tribes of Northern New England. These are established facts. There is an island just a few miles from where I live in Guilford, Ct where a Pequot Sachem was beheaded by the Mohegan chief Uncas. The Sachem and several other Pequots were fleeing from a Mohegan raid that killed 400 Pequots (men, women and children). But I guess thats not real brutality.

Yes, I know this event, but I also know why the Pequots and Mohengans were fighting: Pequots were kicked out of the places they lived by the English, and were sent to the land Mohegans lived which was also very tiny. First of all still, it was a fight of survival, secondly, the social-economical conditions of the English were already becoming dominant in the Americas.

MKS

8th May 2006, 05:41

You are repeating the same thing over and over again. Saying that Sweatshop workers have the ability to stop or working genocide victims had the ability to resist doesn't mean anything by itself. Resistance doesn't happen without organization, but if people are organized and united, then we have a chance. People rise up as well, how do you explain that? You are denying the existance of the individual by this nonsense of Human Nature, indeed a very interesting thought for an anarchist to have.

Recgonizing the existence of human nature is not an automatic denial of the indvidual, in fact it is an assertion of the indviduals responsibilty to act. It is totaly within the nature of man to act against the socio-economic conditions of his environment. My argument this whole time has been against the idea that the human condition is subject to the whims of an independent system or systems, that the nature of man allows for almost endless possibilities but for some reason history shows us an almost constant example of greed, war, and self-destruction. Man has the ability to reason, to make choices, and it seems we almost always choose against the common good in pursuit of self intrest.

Yes, I know this event, but I also know why the Pequots and Mohengans were fighting: Pequots were kicked out of the places they lived by the English, and were sent to the land Mohegans lived which was also very tiny. First of all still, it was a fight of survival, secondly, the social-economical conditions of the English were already becoming dominant in the Americas.

So why didnt the Mohegans and Pequots ally against the English, the two tribes could have easily wiped the English off the land. The Mohegans acted in their own self intrests, the acted out of greed, just as the English did by taking native land.

STI

8th May 2006, 06:03

My point was that the existence of human nature is obivous. Man is an animal and like all animals we behave according to biological instincts but also according to environmental conditioning and adaptation.

Ok, so then all you can really conclude that it's "human nature" to eat, drink, sleep, and whatever else is necessary to be kept alive.

Congratulations :lol:

The bear's nature has forced an adaptation, mans nature works the same way. To say human nature is non-existant is ridiculous and illogical.

Humans feel a pretty common range of emotions. We all have the ability to feel the same basic sensations. We divide colours into the same general categories. We all produce hormones that compell us to eat, sleep, dilate our pupils, or increase our heart rate The list goes on.

This all has to do with biological functions, though. When we're talking about behavior (which can only be determined in terms of trends, of course), it becomes clear that there is no natural, universal (or even near-universal) set of behaviours.

Genetic predispositions are a factor in behaviour, of course. Thing with these is that they exist across a whole range of different behaviours, so there's nothing that can be concluded from this fact about the existence "human nature", much less what that nature is.

If you're really interested in finding anything out about "human nature", take a psychology course - you'll find that there's not a lot to find.

Leo

8th May 2006, 06:16

Recgonizing the existence of human nature is not an automatic denial of the indvidual, in fact it is an assertion of the indviduals responsibilty to act. It is totaly within the nature of man to act against the socio-economic conditions of his environment.

So are you saying that we are greedy by nature but it is also within our nature to act against the social-economical conditions in a totally selfless way, sacrificing our every chance of satisfying our greed? How interesting!!!

My argument this whole time has been against the idea that the human condition is subject to the whims of an independent system or systems, that the nature of man allows for almost endless possibilities but for some reason history shows us an almost constant example of greed, war, and self-destruction. Man has the ability to reason, to make choices, and it seems we almost always choose against the common good in pursuit of self intrest.

I am beginning to understand why you insist so much on the existance of the human nature, you are looking for one solid reason, one solid answer, like explaining it by saying 'human nature' and BOOM now the whole question is answered for you. But NO! It is a whole process of evolution, there is not one 'human nature' that causes everything, that answers evrey question. There isn't one answer for everything, it is much complicated then that. Everything has their own little cause and eveything causes something else. This is why human history is so wonderful, everyone is different, everyone has the potential to shine briliantly and live mindlessly like animals, there are really endless possibilites and you can't answer the question 'Why we are where we are right now' by just saying 'It's human nature', it is much more complicated than that. But this gives us hope that what there is right now can change, that we can turn anything we imagine into reality, independently. This is the point of being human, the only limit humanity knows is our imagination and we progress as we imagine new things.

So why didnt the Mohegans and Pequots ally against the English, the two tribes could have easily wiped the English off the land. The Mohegans acted in their own self intrests, the acted out of greed, just as the English did by taking native land.

English weren't relevant at the time they were figting and no, there was no way two hunter-gatherer tribes to wipe the English Empire off the land. Both tribes needed a place to live, they fought over the life space, not greed.

MKS

13th May 2006, 16:41

So are you saying that we are greedy by nature but it is also within our nature to act against the social-economical conditions in a totally selfless way, sacrificing our every chance of satisfying our greed? How interesting!!!

I can’t determine if you're being sarcastic when saying, 'how interesting' that bugs me...oh well. To answer your question, yes, man like most mammals or any animal will always work towards its own survival, Darwinism, however the nature of man, his complex evolution of reason and thought, make it completely possible to ignore the 'pangs of greed' and to act for the general welfare of the entire community, nation etc. It is obvious this is a fact since we live in societies that demonstrate mans willingness to act socially and not individually.

by just saying 'It's human nature', it is much more complicated than that. But this gives us hope that what there is right now can change, that we can turn anything we imagine into reality, independently. This is the point of being human, the only limit humanity knows is our imagination and we progress as we imagine new things.

I understand the complex nature of the condition of man; however is it wrong to identify themes or patterns of history which point to a trait or traits of the human which have caused great disaster, war, famine, genocide, slavery etc. These traits in my opinion can only be explained by the unique 'nature' of man. That nature whether biological, conditioned or a combination of both is something that most communists and leftist easily dismiss, but to me it is something that should be dissected and examined in order to establish any real change.

English weren't relevant at the time they were figting and no, there was no way two hunter-gatherer tribes to wipe the English Empire off the land. Both tribes needed a place to live, they fought over the life space, not greed.

The English presented a real threat to the natives of New England, but in the early 17th century their numbers were so small that if the tribes had acted together they could have easily decimated the English settlements and sent those Limey bastards back to merry ole England, and I’m sure that there was plenty of room in all of New England for more than one tribe to cohabitate peacefully and still be able to thrive as they did.

Leo

14th May 2006, 21:11

I can’t determine if you're being sarcastic when saying, 'how interesting' that bugs me...oh well.

No, I was trying to make a point, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic.

To answer your question, yes, man like most mammals or any animal will always work towards its own survival, Darwinism, however the nature of man, his complex evolution of reason and thought, make it completely possible to ignore the 'pangs of greed' and to act for the general welfare of the entire community, nation etc. It is obvious this is a fact since we live in societies that demonstrate mans willingness to act socially and not individually.

If what you explain as human nature contradicts himself, then this indeed proves that human nature doesn't exist.

I understand the complex nature of the condition of man; however is it wrong to identify themes or patterns of history which point to a trait or traits of the human which have caused great disaster, war, famine, genocide, slavery etc. These traits in my opinion can only be explained by the unique 'nature' of man. That nature whether biological, conditioned or a combination of both is something that most communists and leftist easily dismiss, but to me it is something that should be dissected and examined in order to establish any real change.

The only theme or pattern of (human) history which can be identified that easily is that every thing in that history had been done by humans. This doesn't give anything else, and doesn't seem significant, but it actually is. Because humans are not enslaved and limited by a biological nature, we are free to make choices. We can't blame our biology for the things we do, the person who made the wrong choice, individually is responsible. This significance, this freedom of choice between good and bad doings is what makes us above animals. The subconscious norms are set by the current social-economical conditions. They work different in each individual, but those norms are actually a natural spectacle, they are not important because building a better, a different future is a conscious act.

The English presented a real threat to the natives of New England, but in the early 17th century their numbers were so small that if the tribes had acted together they could have easily decimated the English settlements and sent those Limey bastards back to merry ole England, and I’m sure that there was plenty of room in all of New England for more than one tribe to cohabitate peacefully and still be able to thrive as they did.

English were always strong and technologically advanced. You might have a point here, but still, the time English spent in New England was enough to affect the Native Americans living there. English did change their social-economical conditions.

MKS

15th May 2006, 01:08

If what you explain as human nature contradicts himself, then this indeed proves that human nature doesn't exist.

it dosent contradict itself, human nature includes the highly evolved mind, logic, reason etc. But there is something about human nature that has repreatledy staggered progression towards equality. Man, for the most part acts as apart of the whole, that is to say with a degree of apathy and acceptance of "what is". It is not easy to determine the 'nature of man' and it shouldnt be, but the Leftist or anyone for that matter cannot easily dismiss its existence and its role in shaping human history.

Leo

15th May 2006, 05:05

it dosent contradict itself, human nature includes the highly evolved mind, logic, reason etc. But there is something about human nature that has repreatledy staggered progression towards equality. Man, for the most part acts as apart of the whole, that is to say with a degree of apathy and acceptance of "what is". It is not easy to determine the 'nature of man' and it shouldnt be, but the Leftist or anyone for that matter cannot easily dismiss its existence and its role in shaping human history.

I don't really think you understand the concept of history. The progression towards equality, or to use a better term, good relationships between individual and the society, good relationships between societies and good relationships between individuals are not a subject of human nature. An action which is completely done in good intentions can lead another action done for greed. This is not 'greed in human nature', this is material historical conditions and events creating greed.

Accepting human nature is, in its own way, existing the existance of the individual creator. Saying "The way god created us" or "The way our nature is" are practically the same thing, and like the concept of an individual creator, a ruler, the concept of 'the human nature' rules us, limits us.

We can do anything we imagine. Our only limit is our imagination and we develop as we imagine new things.

MKS

15th May 2006, 05:21

this is material historical conditions and events creating greed.

Events creating greed? So man isn’t controlled by a god, but by the conditions of the material? I thought man could do anything he imagined, why is he so easily motivated by the material? Couldn’t those same events create community or sharing, aren’t the ideals of man what determine his practices?

Most leftist don’t listen to the whole argument and are closed to new ideas or concepts if they don’t fit their pre-determined ideology. What I get from you and from most on this forum is regurgitated Marxist/communist dogma, you are either unable or unwilling to step out of the antiquated and in my opinion erroneous precepts of "Communist" theory.

Leo

15th May 2006, 06:14

Events creating greed? So man isn’t controlled by a god, but by the conditions of the material? I thought man could do anything he imagined, why is he so easily motivated by the material? Couldn’t those same events create community or sharing, aren’t the ideals of man what determine his practices?

You misunderstood me. Events can end up creating greed, but this is because we don't know what's going to happen in the future! Think about it, private property was created as a result of the agricultural life. The first ones who started the agricultural life would not want private property. That historical condition eventually changed human beings. Now, we do not want private property. Sum of our actions create the events, the situations, and then the situations affects our lives, our subconscious norms.

Most leftist don’t listen to the whole argument and are closed to new ideas or concepts if they don’t fit their pre-determined ideology.

But you don't listen to them either! Just because your pre-determined ideology is different doesn't mean you act in a different way.

What I get from you and from most on this forum is regurgitated Marxist/communist dogma, you are either unable or unwilling to step out of the antiquated and in my opinion erroneous precepts of "Communist" theory.

The position you take against Marxism is much more dogmatic then almost all of Leninists in this site, maybe with the exception of a few Maoists. Throughout the entire arguement, when you couldn't rebute my points, you repeated what you said, over and over again in the most dogmatic way.

As for my own position with the Marxist theory, I've already stated what I thought, in this topic. Read it again, if you want to.