Another false premise

[t_wolves_fan]

Communism seems to rest on the premise that emotional, subjective arguments can be eliminated from debate over public policy. When this happens, the story goes, everyone will naturally see the empirical data and make the most rational choice based on the numbers.


It isn't going to happen. As a seasoned public policy analyst, I can put this dream to rest. You are not going to get people to abandon their subjective opinions and beliefs when it comes to making policy choices that will affect their wellbeing. You can come armed with all of the empirical data you want, if your policy choice scares a person or goes against their strongly-held belief system, you are not going to convince them.

Carry on.

[Enragé]

a group of people gathers

each in those groups put forward their subjective desires, with their subjective arguments

they discuss, compromise

they decide, taking into account therefore the wishes of all, whether subjective or not.

in this way the best solution for the problem is found, since all had a chance to talk about what they wanted, and support that with arguments

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Subjective opinions are, by and large, a result of the material conditions and political environment one is born into. Communism lies on the premise that these conditions and environments can change.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by NewKin[email protected] 9 2006, 06:27 PM
a group of people gathers...
How is the compromise enforced?

[Enragé]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 9 2006, 06:41 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 9 2006, 06:41 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 06:27 PM
a group of people gathers...
How is the compromise enforced? [/b]
well, either you go along with what the majority decides (say for example the decision is made to work an extra hour because needs are not being met sufficiently enough), or the majority cuts you off from the produce of the commune.

Its like this
if you dont express your solidarity for others, they wont express their solidarity for you either.

peer pressure-ish

cuz why should they work for YOU while you sit back and drink beer all day?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:36 PM
Subjective opinions are, by and large, a result of the material conditions and political environment one is born into. Communism lies on the premise that these conditions and environments can change.
Which is even more false than the original premise. Two people with nearly identical socioeconomic/political backgrounds can come to wildly different political opinions.

Worse, opinion is largely driven by experience. And you seem to think your new system will control people's experiences.

Where do you even get this stuff?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Which is even more false than the original premise. Two people with nearly identical socioeconomic/political backgrounds can come to wildly different political opinions.
Yes but it's highly likely (and keep in mind that nothing is certain in sociology, nor is it universally applicable) that two people from a working class background who work their asses off all day just to come home and see their children starve are both going to support better conditions and wages for workers, two people who are living in poverty because they can't find a job in the first place are both going to support more employment opportunities, two people who can't support their families because they were injured and can't work are both going to support better unemployment benefits, two members of an oppressed minority group are both going to support more rights and recognition for minorities, and of course two people who were born into rich backgrounds and have never had any difficulty in life are both going to support capitalism.


Worse, opinion is largely driven by experience. And you seem to think your new system will control people's experiences.

People's experiences are of course linked directly to the material conditions into which they were born. Somebody who has been brought into a rich family and has never had any financial difficulty is obviously not going to have experienced what it's like to be poor and/or working class, so they're very unlikely to give a shit about workers' rights or an increase in minimum wage. Similarly, someone who has been brought into a working class background and has never experienced luxury isn't going to feel too sympathetic towards the upper classes.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 01:27 PM
in this way the best solution for the problem is found, since all had a chance to talk about what they wanted, and support that with arguments
"the best solution" isn't at all dependent on everyone getting a say.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 01:36 PM
Subjective opinions are, by and large, a result of the material conditions and political environment one is born into. Communism lies on the premise that these conditions and environments can change.
and so they will just have different subjective opinions....

[Alexander Hamilton]

Subjective opinions are, by and large, a result of the material conditions and political environment one is born into.

What is the evience for this assertion?

This would imply that the less difference there is between the amount of wealth people have, the more ALL of their views would gel. Taken to its logical conclusion, where one would find true, pure Marxism practiced, thre would be NO subjective differences between any people.

Think about this notion. How could there be any difference if RedStar 1916 was correct.

If you live in a true Marxist society, there are no needs and no wants. There is generally no religious belief system, and children, if they are raised by their parents, have no unique identity to the way in which they live their lives. How could they be subjective? All the important questions about living in a society would have been discovered.

What I find interesting about what this thread brings up, is that it eventually becomes unnecessary to meet to decide any issues at all.

If subjective ones are removed, almost like a Star Trek Vulcan, one need not make any decisions in an emotional way. And since the most logical decision for the benefit of society would always prevail in Marxism, why bother to argue about anything.

Under this system, if the most logical way to do something requires the destruction of 200 homes, they are removed. The occupants will not need to show up to give subjective opinions of their emotional attachment to the homes. That would imply attachment to that particular land, as opposed to mere use and disinterest, which is the essence of Marxism.

So just have 10 people make every decision based on the best interests of society as a whole. These 10 already know all the non-existant subjective issues anyway. They only deal in the world of hard evidence.


A. Hamilton

[t_wolves_fan]

Bingo, AH.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

What is the evience for this assertion?


This is Marx


Not only do the objective conditions change in the act of reproduction, e.g. the village becomes a town, the wilderness a cleared field etc., but the producers change, too, in that they bring out new qualities in themselves, develop themselves in production, transform themselves, develop new powers and ideas, new modes of intercourse, new needs and new language

So he observed that is it the material conditions in which people live equates to what opinions/ideas/morals they tend to hold.

The new York of America in 2006 is much more socially liberal than in the 1950's.

To the same extent, bible belt is less socially liberal than new york because its material conditions are lower, or its simply poorer.

So, marx offers observations from history as best he can.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 03:11 PM

What is the evience for this assertion?


This is Marx


Not only do the objective conditions change in the act of reproduction, e.g. the village becomes a town, the wilderness a cleared field etc., but the producers change, too, in that they bring out new qualities in themselves, develop themselves in production, transform themselves, develop new powers and ideas, new modes of intercourse, new needs and new language

So he observed that is it the material conditions in which people live equates to what opinions/ideas/morals they tend to hold.

The new York of America in 2006 is much more socially liberal than in the 1950's.

To the same extent, bible belt is less socially liberal than new york because its material conditions are lower, or its simply poorer.

So, marx offers observations from history as best he can.
thats the grossest over simplification of the process i've ever seen.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Of what process?

[colonelguppy]

political socialization.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

My part or marx's quote?

Whats wrong with the idea of material conditions changing the people's ideas in society?

How else do you explain it?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 03:32 PM
My part or marx's quote?

Whats wrong with the idea of material conditions changing the people's ideas in society?

How else do you explain it?
no i'm not saying that material conditions don't, i'm saying thats its infinitely more complex than that and relies on other factors such as brain chemistry, culture, or family history which often over shadow material conditions in terms of influence over someones political views.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Oct 9 2006, 07:28 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Oct 9 2006, 07:28 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 01:27 PM
in this way the best solution for the problem is found, since all had a chance to talk about what they wanted, and support that with arguments
"the best solution" isn't at all dependent on everyone getting a say. [/b]
the best solution in the eyes of those who participated in making it, which in communism is all those who are effected by that decision.

it might not be the "best" in hindsight, or from a different perspective, but from the perspective of the people who took it, it is
and since it is only them who concern that decision, thats good enough.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Oct 9 2006, 08:43 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Oct 9 2006, 08:43 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 03:32 PM
My part or marx's quote?

Whats wrong with the idea of material conditions changing the people's ideas in society?

How else do you explain it?
no i'm not saying that material conditions don't, i'm saying thats its infinitely more complex than that and relies on other factors such as brain chemistry, culture, or family history which often over shadow material conditions in terms of influence over someones political views. [/b]
culture and family history are material circumstances.

i think of it like this
each is born with certain predispositions to certain things

what decides which tendencies become dominant, and which not, thats material circumstance.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 03:46 PM
and since it is only them who concern that decision, thats good enough.
no it isn't, the people who ultimately make the decision aren't the only ones in the society to be effected.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Oct 9 2006, 03:48 PM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Oct 9 2006, 03:48 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 08:43 PM

[email protected] 9 2006, 03:32 PM
My part or marx's quote?

Whats wrong with the idea of material conditions changing the people's ideas in society?

How else do you explain it?
no i'm not saying that material conditions don't, i'm saying thats its infinitely more complex than that and relies on other factors such as brain chemistry, culture, or family history which often over shadow material conditions in terms of influence over someones political views.
culture and family history are material circumstances.

i think of it like this
each is born with certain predispositions to certain things

what decides which tendencies become dominant, and which not, thats material circumstance. [/b]
but when you think of it like that it takes the debate away from economics.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Oct 9 2006, 08:46 PM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Oct 9 2006, 08:46 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 07:28 PM

[email protected] 9 2006, 01:27 PM
in this way the best solution for the problem is found, since all had a chance to talk about what they wanted, and support that with arguments
"the best solution" isn't at all dependent on everyone getting a say.
the best solution in the eyes of those who participated in making it, which in communism is all those who are effected by that decision.

it might not be the "best" in hindsight, or from a different perspective, but from the perspective of the people who took it, it is
and since it is only them who concern that decision, thats good enough. [/b]
Even if it results in complete failure?

Even if someone has empirical evidence that another decision would have produced better results?

[t_wolves_fan]

culture

Would culture be eliminated?


and family history are material circumstances.

Explain why wealthy families have relatively healthy rates of drug addiction, abuse, and general dysfunction. Explain in detail why, if the rich have these problems even though they do not lack the basics in life, these problems would disappear if no one lacked the basics in life.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Oct 9 2006, 08:57 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Oct 9 2006, 08:57 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 03:46 PM
and since it is only them who concern that decision, thats good enough.
no it isn't, the people who ultimately make the decision aren't the only ones in the society to be effected. [/b]
in communism, it would be.

thats pretty much the point.


but when you think of it like that it takes the debate away from economics.

perhaps, but i was just stating my idea.

You can look at it like this
If you generate certain material circumstances which supresses the "bad" in man, promotes the "good", then you can make it so that the overall tendency in society will be towards "good"


Even if it results in complete failure?

Even if someone has empirical evidence that another decision would have produced better results?

If it results in complete failure, if those people also feel it is a failure, then next time they wont make that mistake.

Basicly
they harm themselves by not being rational/reasonable

and if thats what they want
well fuck them :P

their problem, i'll just move somewhere else were people arent like that


Would culture be eliminated?

ofcourse not, just changed.

Was culture eleminated when fuedalism changed into capitalism?
no, just changed


Explain why wealthy families have relatively healthy rates of drug addiction, abuse, and general dysfunction. Explain in detail why, if the rich have these problems even though they do not lack the basics in life, these problems would disappear if no one lacked the basics in life.

err
where am i saying those problems would disappear?

drug addiction has many different causes, abuse, dysfunction etc as well

well i dont really care about the drugs unless it harms other people
but abuse, "dysfunction" (whatever that is) should be fought against

patriarchal society btw does have an impact on (certain types of) abuse, it covers it up, sometimes even justifies it, so does racism, etc

all injustices must be fought
and injustice thrives under capitalism

[colonelguppy]

in communism, it would be.

thats pretty much the point.

no its impossible for everyone to make every decision in accordance to their will.


You can look at it like this
If you generate certain material circumstances which supresses the "bad" in man, promotes the "good", then you can make it so that the overall tendency in society will be towards "good"

i really don't know how that could be accomplished.

[Enragé]

no its impossible for everyone to make every decision in accordance to their will.


It is if its about what concerns them

most decisions only concern a small group or even an individual, the larger the group, the less often decisions are made.

federation-y

sure, it wont be perfect, certainly not in the beginning, but way better than it is now


i really don't know how that could be accomplished.

Simple really

Decide which things you see as "good" (in my case=)
solidarity
freedom
equality

well what would i most definitely NOT do?
Create a society revolving around profit, the acquisition of ever more wealth just for the self


what would i do then?
Create a society which is democratic, where everyone has an equal say, where people control the economy, where there is no "above" (no leaders) telling them what to do. Make it so that society rewards people for being nice to eachother, sharing, punishes when they are selfish --> if someone does not work, lets others work for him...or tries to amass more wealth for himself.. he is cut off, give people the ability to say "fuck you, if you dont help us we wont help you", and when someone works hard, is good for their fellow man, his status rises in the same way as status rises today if you oppress, exploit, become wealthy, "succesful"


or something along those lines, u get the idea

Its not about believing that people are altruistic, its about organising society in such a way that people are encouraged to work for eachother, together, instead of against eachother, for themselves alone.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Sorry about the late reply everybody, shit I've a lot to catch up on in this thread.

Alex:

What is the evience for this assertion?
I back up this assertion in my later post (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57179&view=findpost&p=1292185180).



This would imply that the less difference there is between the amount of wealth people have, the more ALL of their views would gel. Taken to its logical conclusion, where one would find true, pure Marxism practiced, thre would be NO subjective differences between any people.

Think about this notion. How could there be any difference if RedStar 1916 was correct.

If you live in a true Marxist society, there are no needs and no wants. There is generally no religious belief system, and children, if they are raised by their parents, have no unique identity to the way in which they live their lives. How could they be subjective? All the important questions about living in a society would have been discovered.
No, it implies that there would be no subjective difference between people as regards public policy. You are claiming that if what I say is true, then in a true Communist society people would compile public policy from objective facts. There would be no disagreement as subjective opinions would be identical to objective opinions. And of course, in a true Communist society, this would be exactly the case! How could it not be; after all, we can't have a stateless, classless society while the people remain subjectively didvided now, can we? So basically you're saying that if what I have just said is true, then what we Marxists have been saying all along must also be true. And I have attempted to show that what I have just said is indeed true, in the linked post which you conveniently ignored in your post.



Under this system, if the most logical way to do something requires the destruction of 200 homes, they are removed. The occupants will not need to show up to give subjective opinions of their emotional attachment to the homes. That would imply attachment to that particular land, as opposed to mere use and disinterest, which is the essence of Marxism.
If the destruction of 200 homes is of detriment to anybody in society, then that action would not be logical as it would be a premise in a Communist society that the satisfaction and happiness of society as a whole is sacrosanct.



So just have 10 people make every decision based on the best interests of society as a whole. These 10 already know all the non-existant subjective issues anyway. They only deal in the world of hard evidence.
Why should only 10 people make the decisions? Surely if there was no subjective difference between people as regards public policy then there would be no need for the concentration of power (in a true Communist society, of course). And if all the decision-making in society was left up to 10 people, then surely this would be the same as leaving it up to society as a whole, as these 10 people would agree with the rest of society on matters of public policy.

guppy:


no i'm not saying that material conditions don't, i'm saying thats its infinitely more complex than that and relies on other factors such as brain chemistry, culture, or family history which often over shadow material conditions in terms of influence over someones political views.

Brain chemistry has very little effect on the socio-economic opinions held by society as a whole. Culture is tied to material and political conditions (how many working-class Joes do you see at a Shakespeare production?) And the importance of the family's views have declined throughout history, as is evident by the emergence of a more revolutionary youth in recent times.

t_wolves:


Explain why wealthy families have relatively healthy rates of drug addiction, abuse, and general dysfunction. Explain in detail why, if the rich have these problems even though they do not lack the basics in life, these problems would disappear if no one lacked the basics in life.
The answer (which is only correct and, indeed, necessary if you can prove that the question is valid) is that these problems are obviously not related to the financial situations of the families.

[colonelguppy]

It is if its about what concerns them

most decisions only concern a small group or even an individual, the larger the group, the less often decisions are made.

federation-y

sure, it wont be perfect, certainly not in the beginning, but way better than it is now

no it doesn't matter if it concerns the individual because ultimately the masses prevail


Create a society which is democratic, where everyone has an equal say, where people control the economy, where there is no "above" (no leaders) telling them what to do. Make it so that society rewards people for being nice to eachother, sharing, punishes when they are selfish --> if someone does not work, lets others work for him...or tries to amass more wealth for himself.. he is cut off, give people the ability to say "fuck you, if you dont help us we wont help you", and when someone works hard, is good for their fellow man, his status rises in the same way as status rises today if you oppress, exploit, become wealthy, "succesful"

i don't see how introducing direct democracy is going to change conditions to make everyone go along with the ideal you have going


Its not about believing that people are altruistic, its about organising society in such a way that people are encouraged to work for eachother, together, instead of against eachother, for themselves alone.

yeah i don't see how your system accomplishes that.

[t_wolves_fan]

I back up this assertion in my later post (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57179&view=findpost&p=1292185180).

No you don't, you just repeat your proclamation.


No, it implies that there would be no subjective difference between people as regards public policy. You are claiming that if what I say is true, then in a true Communist society people would compile public policy from objective facts. There would be no disagreement as subjective opinions would be identical to objective opinions.

Impossible and, frankly, scary.


If the destruction of 200 homes is of detriment to anybody in society, then that action would not be logical as it would be a premise in a Communist society that the satisfaction and happiness of society as a whole is sacrosanct.

But what if under those 200 homes existed a resource that would be of great value to society, and the only way to get to it is to destroy those 200 homes.

Simply claiming these contingencies won't happen is not a sufficient answer, because they happen in real life all the time.


as is evident by the emergence of a more revolutionary youth in recent times.

:lol: You grant yourself too much credit. There is nothing new or exciting about how revolutionary you and the rest of your friends are. Youth have been rebelling against the established order since the beginning of time. They always end up growing up, save for the few die-hard burnouts you see at protest rallies.



The answer (which is only correct and, indeed, necessary if you can prove that the question is valid) is that these problems are obviously not related to the financial situations of the families.

:lol:

Good lord.

Of course the question is valid. Your entire premise is that people only have problems if they don't have their basic needs met.

You destroy your own argument with the second half of that statement: if people have problems and self-destructive behavior even without facing economic hardship, then removing economic hardship does nothing to guarantee that people won't continue those patterns.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

No you don't, you just repeat your proclamation.
I ellaborate and provide examples, the logic in each of which is clear.


Impossible and, frankly, scary.
This is the conclusion that has been reached based on the arguments of colonelguppy. If you think it's infeasible, take it up with him.

Also, whether or not something, namely the objective compliation of public policy, is "scary" is surely a subjective opinion and of course you would find it scary, because the objective complitaion of public policy would place the wellbeing of society as a whole before the economic superiority of a few. I am assuming that you are someone who would suffer from the application of such a policy, hence your conclusion that the aforementioned situation is "scary".



But what if under those 200 homes existed a resource that would be of great value to society, and the only way to get to it is to destroy those 200 homes.
But in retrieving this resource that may increase the happiness of some, they are making the displaced 200 people unhappy, thus violationg the premise put forward in my previous post.

Unless of course the 200 people don't mind moving which in such a society would be a likelyhood, in that case there would be no problem.



Simply claiming these contingencies won't happen is not a sufficient answer, because they happen in real life all the time.
That is because there is no such premise in today's society.



laugh.gif You grant yourself too much credit. There is nothing new or exciting about how revolutionary you and the rest of your friends are. Youth have been rebelling against the established order since the beginning of time. They always end up growing up, save for the few die-hard burnouts you see at protest rallies.
Em... No, I wasn't referring to myself or my friends at all. I was referring to the thousands of youth who have taken to the streets to protest in Europe and elsewhere in recent years, e.g. the 1967 riots in France.



Of course the question is valid. Your entire premise is that people only have problems if they don't have their basic needs met.
That's not my premise at all. Well done, you fail at basic comprehension.

My premise, as explicitly stated in my first post in this thread, is that material conditions and political environments can change.

And by the way, my assertion that the question may be invalid lay on my doubt that the proportion of drug addicts from a certain class in relation to the population of that class remains more or less constant regardless of the class, a doubt that you have yet to address.



You destroy your own argument with the second half of that statement: if people have problems and self-destructive behavior even without facing economic hardship, then removing economic hardship does nothing to guarantee that people won't continue those patterns.
Drug addiction is not a subjective opinion.

[Dimentio]

Well, the thread starter seems to mixture communism and liberalism.

Liberalism believes that all people could discuss together in a rational manner and always find the best solution, while communists generally believes that there are insolvable social conflicts.

[t_wolves_fan]

No you don't, you just repeat your proclamation.
I ellaborate and provide examples, the logic in each of which is clear.

Not really. You simply proclaim again that because two people share the same life circumstances, they are likely to support the same things. You simply presume that a working class drone would favor socialist economic policies due to their protections for working class drones. The problem is not that you say two working class drones would have similar opinions because that is likely correct. The problem is when you proclaim that the high probability of their similar attitudes is proof that their similar material condition means they'll have identical opinions on just about everything.

I doubt you get that so let me explain further:

Two working class drones who get hurt on the job and want higher levels of worker's comp show evidence that they agree on just one thing: an increased level of worker's comp. You are claiming that this agreement on this issue means they are likely to agree on everything else that you happen to believe. So, no doubt you assume that because you hate religion and hate capitalism and hate the state, their agreement with you on worker's comp and their status as fellow working class drones ensures that they too will hate religion, hate capitalism and hate the state. In all likelihood, any single working class drone will definitely disagree with you on one or a hundred other issues, from how to school children to the importance of religion to what basic human needs are.

To summarize very succinctly, look up the Hasty Generalization logical fallacy, because your premise here is a textbook case.


This is the conclusion that has been reached based on the arguments of colonelguppy. If you think it's infeasible, take it up with him.

My argument on this topic is not with him it's with you.


Also, whether or not something, namely the objective compliation of public policy, is "scary" is surely a subjective opinion and of course you would find it scary, because the objective complitaion of public policy would place the wellbeing of society as a whole before the economic superiority of a few. I am assuming that you are someone who would suffer from the application of such a policy, hence your conclusion that the aforementioned situation is "scary".

The idea that public policy be decided purely on objective criteria is not what's scary - because I wish it could be. The problem is, I am actually trained and experienced in making public policy and so I know based on that experience that eliminating subjective arguments is impossible. Your premise that it could be is laughable, what is scary is the means required to make it happen.




But what if under those 200 homes existed a resource that would be of great value to society, and the only way to get to it is to destroy those 200 homes.
But in retrieving this resource that may increase the happiness of some, they are making the displaced 200 people unhappy, thus violationg the premise put forward in my previous post.

Unless of course the 200 people don't mind moving which in such a society would be a likelyhood, in that case there would be no problem.

But there is a problem, that being that the resource burried under those 200 homes might increase the happiness of other members of society to a much greater degree than the unhappiness of the homeowners. Your principle would result in paralysis - no action could be taken that would make anyone unhappy. That is an absurdity based on your naive belief that subjectivity could be destroyed.




Simply claiming these contingencies won't happen is not a sufficient answer, because they happen in real life all the time.
That is because there is no such premise in today's society.

Yes there is and your lack of knowledge about it illustrates how naive you are.

Land is commonly taken by local governments from people for the betterment of society. If a school is dilapidated, eminent domain is used to acquire land to build a new one. Same with highways - they have to go somewhere. Not building the new school means kids go to a crappy school that may limit their opportunities. Not building the new highway means people are stuck in traffic. It is a simple matter of physics that if you want to build a highway to somewhere to help improve commerce and travel time, it has to go over some piece of land and rarely in urban areas is a nice clear right of way sitting there just waiting for a highway.


Em... No, I wasn't referring to myself or my friends at all. I was referring to the thousands of youth who have taken to the streets to protest in Europe and elsewhere in recent years, e.g. the 1967 riots in France.

Are you pretending that your riots in 1967 were some earth-shattering new occurrence? You understand that Napolean had Paris' streets widened to quell similar riots 100 years earlier right? Hell I bet I could find some riots in my Herodotus over economic conditions if I looked hard enough.

You really really want to believe that you're part of some new radical revolution, but you're not. Deal with it.


My premise, as explicitly stated in my first post in this thread, is that material conditions and political environments can change.

That was not your original premise. Your original premise is that subjective beliefs are tied explicitly and solely to material condition and political environment. They aren't.


And by the way, my assertion that the question may be invalid lay on my doubt that the proportion of drug addicts from a certain class in relation to the population of that class remains more or less constant regardless of the class, a doubt that you have yet to address.

Not a problem. Check out this study from the University of Pittsburgh (http://www.publichealth.pitt.edu/supercourse/SupercoursePPT/12011-13001/12271.ppt). Their survey reported more kids in the suburbs reporting anxiety problems and drug abuse.

Read about recreational drug use in New Zealand. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=181&objectid=10400439)

See how alcohol abuse rises in Norway based on education and income levels. (http://alcoholism.about.com/b/a/037399.htm)

Is the rate "the same"? Who knows. Maybe not. But the evidence shows that bad behavior is pretty common among those who needn't worry about their material well-being, which directly refutes your premise. Not that you'll admit to it, I'm sure.

Subjective opinion is not solely related to material well-being. Deal with it.

[Enragé]

no it doesn't matter if it concerns the individual because ultimately the masses prevail

Look, if it doesnt concern the community, it doesnt concern the community. For example, the community has no right to forbid anyone from jerking off 20 times a day
its not their business, it doesnt effect them, therefore they have no authority over it.

Individual things decided individual
Local things locally
Regional things regionally
etc
etc
etc
Global things globally


i don't see how introducing direct democracy is going to change conditions to make everyone go along with the ideal you have going

not just direct democracy
but control over the economy, over everything, no more "property".
Everyone gets an equal say in matters, things will be divided equally in relation to need, and people will work to their ability

If doesnt matter if people are selfish or anything
because if for example they stop working, let others work for them, they are cut off by the others from what they produce
so he'll either work, or go live in a cabin up on some hill in the forests somewhere.
either is fine by me.

Solidarity, working hard, will be rewarded by an increase in status, and an increase in personal living conditions since the produce of the commune goes back to everyone living in it.

Or if people get together and decide that they might as well work a bit less, and have more time to spend on other things, thats cool too.


yeah i don't see how your system accomplishes that.

Basicly
you are rewarded for working together (better personal living conditions, more status ["wow he/she's awesome!" whatever])
punished for trying to exploit your fellow man ("fuck off. If you dont help us, we dont help you")

collective egoism.

if people are altruistic, it works
if people are selfish, it works as well.

[t_wolves_fan]

Look, if it doesnt concern the community, it doesnt concern the community. For example, the community has no right to forbid anyone from jerking off 20 times a day
its not their business, it doesnt effect them, therefore they have no authority over it.

The community has a funny way of deciding what is and is not their business.

How do you guarantee that private matters stay private?


not just direct democracy
but control over the economy, over everything, no more "property".
Everyone gets an equal say in matters, things will be divided equally in relation to need, and people will work to their ability

Another poster (maybe it was you, I forget) stated that trolls and unruly people would be thrown out of meetings, thus negating their right to equal say. How do you choose who is and is not an unruly troll?


Solidarity, working hard, will be rewarded by an increase in status, and an increase in personal living conditions since the produce of the commune goes back to everyone living in it.

If my hard work results in the production of 2 extra units a year, how do I gain personally if the value of those 2 units cannot be spread over the entire community?


if people are altruistic, it works
if people are selfish, it works as well.

People are not altruistic, and if too many people are selfish it comes crashing down.

[Enragé]

The community has a funny way of deciding what is and is not their business.

How do you guarantee that private matters stay private?


1) constitution maybe.
2) collective self interest. If the community, individuals organised to be able to live together, have a nice life etc, meddles in the affairs of ONE individual, who's to say it wont meddle in the affairs of each individual that agreed with the meddling in the affairs of that ONE individual?
3) you can leave to go to another community if shit really gets unbearable, damaging the community which did the meddling and shit.


Another poster (maybe it was you, I forget) stated that trolls and unruly people would be thrown out of meetings, thus negating their right to equal say. How do you choose who is and is not an unruly troll?

I dont think i said that.

In any case, those who harm the collective interest can be barred yes, just as they can be excluded from society/the community if they are parasitical upon it.

If you harm other people, if you take away other people's freedom, you negate any right you have to your own freedom. Makes sense in my book.

who decides that?
The community.

And no they wont just kick anybody out they want since that would also harm the community (less hands to do the work, so more work for every individual in the community)



If my hard work results in the production of 2 extra units a year, how do I gain personally if the value of those 2 units cannot be spread over the entire community?


..
At the moment i cannot think of any product of which at least the benefits cannot be spread over the entire community.

Since its public property, anybody has the right to use it.

(anyway, if you do not gain in a material way, your status still increases)


People are not altruistic, and if too many people are selfish it comes crashing down.

No, because as i said, if you are only out to ensure your own well being, you still have to help others since if you dont help others they wont help you, which would fuck up your well being.

[t_wolves_fan]

1) constitution maybe.

Which means government.


2) collective self interest. If the community, individuals organised to be able to live together, have a nice life etc, meddles in the affairs of ONE individual, who's to say it wont meddle in the affairs of each individual that agreed with the meddling in the affairs of that ONE individual?

Why don't you ask the culture warriors that same question? You give too much credit to people for making this rational calculus. People are going to meddle in each other's affairs over issues that they perceive have an effect on them whether it actually does (drug use) or not (homosexuality).



3) you can leave to go to another community if shit really gets unbearable, damaging the community which did the meddling and shit.

You can already do that today.

Before you answer "not if you can't afford it", consider that if someone wants to abandon one collective for another that is a great distance away, they still have to find a way to get there (i.e. plane ticket), which they're not guaranteed in your system either.



In any case, those who harm the collective interest can be barred yes,

But given that every person has an equal say, how do you determine who should be barred for their views?


If you harm other people, if you take away other people's freedom, you negate any right you have to your own freedom. Makes sense in my book.

Aldready works that way.



who decides that?
The community.

How? Remember, everyone ostensibly has an equal say, so how does the community live up to that principle yet still banish someone?


At the moment i cannot think of any product of which at least the benefits cannot be spread over the entire community.

If I produce 2 extra shoes per month with my hard work, how does the community benefit equally?


Since its public property, anybody has the right to use it.

Does that mean I can walk into your dwelling and take something if I need it and cannot find it elsewhere?


No, because as i said, if you are only out to ensure your own well being, you still have to help others since if you dont help others they wont help you, which would fuck up your well being.

Unless I am hoarding goods that people want but cannot get due to shortages that occur when a producing cooperative decides they will not or cannot meet demand...i.e. playing the black market.

[red team]

The community has a funny way of deciding what is and is not their business.

How do you guarantee that private matters stay private?

Since when is my parking violation ticket public news? And even if it is would it matter?

Same thing with your contrived example of housing build under valuable resources. If it is valuable enough and the resident refuses to move out then everybody else must pay for the cost of not extracting those valuable resources. The logical solution would be to have the stubborn residents who refuse to move to new accomodations pay for the difference in cost between building the new accomodations and the long term quantifiable benefits in extracting said resources. Logical isn't it? But, then again logic fails you as it fails most stupid, narrow-minded cows in this world.


If I produce 2 extra shoes per month with my hard work, how does the community benefit equally?

Then don't produce those 2 extra shoes if can't do it without holding a grudge against everybody else for not paying you the extra benefits for doing so. Besides, if human labour can be done in a step-by-step repetitive manner, like shoe making for example, what else could be done in a step-by-step repetitive manner?


Does that mean I can walk into your dwelling and take something if I need it and cannot find it elsewhere?

No, because it wouldn't be public property after you've done that now would it?

[Enragé]

Which means government.

as long as the people = the government

fine.


You give too much credit to people for making this rational calculus. People are going to meddle in each other's affairs over issues that they perceive have an effect on them whether it actually does (drug use) or not (homosexuality).


And you seem to think that all that people want is to oppress others.

people want a good life, thats it.
If you let me live a good life, i'll let you live yours, if people dont infringe on my freedom, i wont infringe on theirs.



You can already do that today.

You'll get shot, arrested, or otherwisely (is that a word? :P ) persecuted in many, many occasions


Before you answer "not if you can't afford it", consider that if someone wants to abandon one collective for another that is a great distance away, they still have to find a way to get there (i.e. plane ticket), which they're not guaranteed in your system either.


why not? they just get on the plane

no money.


But given that every person has an equal say, how do you determine who should be barred for their views?


not for their views.
only if by their action they harm the community, such as making such a fuss in the assembly hall or whatever normal decision making and discussion cant go on, which is what i think is meant by "trolling and unruly people" or whatever the guy said.


Aldready works that way.


Nope.

My freedom is taken away everyday
as is the freedom of the entire working class and many others as well worldwide.

This negates the freedom of the bourgeoisie
problem is, we arent powerful enough yet to make them feel it.


How? Remember, everyone ostensibly has an equal say, so how does the community live up to that principle yet still banish someone?

If they damage the community by being a parasite, or by actively destroying what the people made.
By doing that, they infringe on the freedom of others, they take advantage of others, and as such any claim to freedom they might have is null and void.

Everyone has an equal say as in 20 people outranks 3 people.
If this wouldnt be the case, those 3 people would in effect hold power over those 20 people (because they could make them continue doing things even though those twenty people dont want to, simply because those 3 people do want them too)


If I produce 2 extra shoes per month with my hard work, how does the community benefit equally?

because per person there are now extra shoes to go around (like 5,5 per person). Ofcourse it wouldnt make any sense that someone would have 5,5 shoes, but its not about everyone getting an equal share, but everyone getting an equal share in relation to what someone needs.

For example, someone who's a construction worker will run out of shoes faster than the average office worker, so the construction worker gets more shoes (per year, or whatever)
By doing this, the construction worker becomes more productive, since if he wouldnt have those shoes his feet would hurt, which then translates into more wealth for the community, therefore for you (who knows, that construction worker might be working on YOUR house..so that would mean YOUR house would become bigger/better FASTER... ;) )

And well if we really dont need those two extra shoes, you can either chill out some more, or go make something else? :P


Does that mean I can walk into your dwelling and take something if I need it and cannot find it elsewhere?


Providing im not using it at the moment, and that i can come get it back at any time/you'll bring it back when i need it, yea.

Would be nice of you to like knock on the door before you come barging in.

If i would have that one essential thing, just lying there on my couch or whatever, while you desperately need it...where would be the justice in not allowing you to use it?


Unless I am hoarding goods that people want but cannot get due to shortages that occur when a producing cooperative decides they will not or cannot meet demand...i.e. playing the black market.

If you do that we'll beat the shit out of you and take those goods that rightfully belong to us all

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Two working class drones who get hurt on the job and want higher levels of worker's comp show evidence that they agree on just one thing: an increased level of worker's comp. You are claiming that this agreement on this issue means they are likely to agree on everything else that you happen to believe. So, no doubt you assume that because you hate religion and hate capitalism and hate the state, their agreement with you on worker's comp and their status as fellow working class drones ensures that they too will hate religion, hate capitalism and hate the state. In all likelihood, any single working class drone will definitely disagree with you on one or a hundred other issues, from how to school children to the importance of religion to what basic human needs are.
Subjective opinions are based on experience, which is directly linked to material conditions as explained earlier. Obviously certain material conditions are only going to influence certain subjective opinions, I never claimed otherwise. I never claimed that because two people are injured at work they are going to adapt identical socio-economic stances on everything, and you know it. I claimed that because workers' comp would be of benefit to them both they are both going to support increased workers' comp. That's my point, people for the most part are going to support whatever benefits them, i.e. whatever improves their material conditions. In other words, peoples' subjective opinions (as regards what policies they support, which is what this debate is about) are influenced by their material conditions.



To summarize very succinctly, look up the Hasty Generalization logical fallacy, because your premise here is a textbook case.
:lol: You're hardly in a position to lecture me on logical fallacies, your post consists mainly of strawman and ad hominem arguments!


My argument on this topic is not with him it's with you.
First of all, my apologies, I meant Alex Hamilton, not colonelguppy.

Second of all, if your argument doesn't involve AH then maybe you shouldn't jump in on the discussion that was taking place between AH and myself. Note that the argument in question, in which I claim that people would compile their opinions on public policy objectively in a Communist society, is based on the assumption made in AH's argument, most of which are false. Therefore I made this argument knowing full well that it was false, as an attempt to disprove AH's arguments. Whether or not I succeeded in this is irrelevant; the point is that you then assumed that it is a personal belief of mine that in a Communist society there will be no such thing as subjective opinions.



The idea that public policy be decided purely on objective criteria is not what's scary - because I wish it could be. The problem is, I am actually trained and experienced in making public policy and so I know based on that experience that eliminating subjective arguments is impossible. Your premise that it could be is laughable, what is scary is the means required to make it happen.
See above.



But there is a problem, that being that the resource burried under those 200 homes might increase the happiness of other members of society to a much greater degree than the unhappiness of the homeowners. Your principle would result in paralysis - no action could be taken that would make anyone unhappy. That is an absurdity based on your naive belief that subjectivity could be destroyed.

The extent to which the happiness of some would be increased is irrelevant. The premise in question is still being violated; the premise that, in a Communist society, the happiness of society as a whole is top priority. Society as a whole. All-inclusive. Ar fad.


Yes there is and your lack of knowledge about it illustrates how naive you are.

Land is commonly taken by local governments from people for the betterment of society. If a school is dilapidated, eminent domain is used to acquire land to build a new one. Same with highways - they have to go somewhere. Not building the new school means kids go to a crappy school that may limit their opportunities. Not building the new highway means people are stuck in traffic. It is a simple matter of physics that if you want to build a highway to somewhere to help improve commerce and travel time, it has to go over some piece of land and rarely in urban areas is a nice clear right of way sitting there just waiting for a highway.
It's funny because the quoted paragraph illustrates how there is in fact no such premise in today's society.



That was not your original premise. Your original premise is that subjective beliefs are tied explicitly and solely to material condition and political environment. They aren't.
Explicitly and solely? Wrong. I never said that. I said subjective opinions by and large, meaning in general. Not explicitly and solely.



Is the rate "the same"? Who knows. Maybe not. But the evidence shows that bad behavior is pretty common among those who needn't worry about their material well-being, which directly refutes your premise. Not that you'll admit to it, I'm sure.
Once again, "bad behaviour" is not a subjective opinion. So it isn't linked to my premise in any way.

[t_wolves_fan]

OK, let's start over then because we're going in circles.

What is your point. Specifically.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Okay. My point is that (a) people's subjective opinions on public policy as it affects material conditions can be linked to their own material conditions.

The logic in this is that people are usually going to try and improve their material conditions, especially when there are other people in the same society living in better material conditions than them. (Even capitalists don't deny this, as to do so would immediately invalidate their arguments based on human self-interest).

Also, I am pointing out that (b) material conditions can change over time (come on, history proves that).

And so, using points (a) and (b) as premises, I come to the conclusion that as material conditions change, so can people's subjective opinions on public policy as it affects material conditions.

That's my point, really. It is not impossible for Communism to work on the above premise, so you can not say that Communism lies on the premise that "emotional, subjective arguments can be eliminated from debate over public policy".

[t_wolves_fan]

Okay. My point is that (a) people's subjective opinions on public policy as it affects material conditions can be linked to their own material conditions.

The logic in this is that people are usually going to try and improve their material conditions, especially when there are other people in the same society living in better material conditions than them. (Even capitalists don't deny this, as to do so would immediately invalidate their arguments based on human self-interest).

Also, I am pointing out that (b) material conditions can change over time (come on, history proves that).

And so, using points (a) and (b) as premises, I come to the conclusion that as material conditions change, so can people's subjective opinions on public policy as it affects material conditions.

That's my point, really. It is not impossible for Communism to work on the above premise, so you can not say that Communism lies on the premise that "emotional, subjective arguments can be eliminated from debate over public policy".

The problem is that your premise relies on people with the same material conditions coming to the same conclusion on public policies designed to improve those material conditions.

Take two working class drones. They both make very little money and are in danger of losing their health insurance.

Do those circumstances guarantee they will support a policy choice that government will pay them more money and guarantee their health insurace?

No, because the two drones may have radically different political opinions based on other factors that go beyond their immediate material condition.

Drone A may be younger, and therefore more likely to assume he can improve his lot in life through his own initiative. He may have a conservative religious capitalist family background that rejects government assistance. Maybe the government took an action that his family perceived as harmful, such as taking land or denying them a permit to do something that makes him distrustful of government assistance. Maybe one day he found a copy of "The Road to Serfdom" and read it and it made a big impression. Maybe he has no interest in maintaining his current field and is only working to save up for school.

Drone B may be older, meaning he's given up on improving his own lot in life and now needs the government to protect him. Maybe he's from a family of liberals. Maybe he has a positive past experience with the government where it helped him out significantly. Maybe he found a copy of "The Communist Manifesto" and read it and made an impression on him.

Do you understand? Current material condition is merely one of many factors that will lead people support or reject different policy choices. The condition may be a huge factor, or it may be superficial and have little meaning. It all depends on which people of the group you are comparing.

[KC]

The problem is that your premise relies on people with the same material conditions coming to the same conclusion on public policies designed to improve those material conditions.

I don't think Redstar1916 is explaining his argument correctly. Material conditions change consciousness; how our consciousness develops is based on our experiences with the environment and others living in that environment.

This explains the point that two different people living in the same material conditions at any one given point in time come up with different opinions on public policy. It is because, although they are living in the same material conditions, their consciousness is different because throughout their life those material conditions have been different from one another. Each has developed a different consciousness because of their different experiences with the world throughout their lives.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Okay, valid argument t_wolves. However it does not prove that subjective opinion is static, and so your original point (that Communism rests on the premise the people can disregard subjective opinions) has not been proven, as you cannot prove that the subjective opinions of society at large cannot sway in favor of Communism.


Do those circumstances guarantee they will support a policy choice that government will pay them more money and guarantee their health insurace?
Nothing is guaranteed when talking about subjective opinions, nor is anything universally applicable, as I have said before. Also I agree with you the there will be other factors in foming subjective opinions, however I think that as self-interest is one of the more dominant traits of the human psyche, material conditions would be a very large factor.


Drone A may be younger, and therefore more likely to assume he can improve his lot in life through his own initiative. He may have a conservative religious capitalist family background that rejects government assistance. Maybe the government took an action that his family perceived as harmful, such as taking land or denying them a permit to do something that makes him distrustful of government assistance. Maybe one day he found a copy of "The Road to Serfdom" and read it and it made a big impression. Maybe he has no interest in maintaining his current field and is only working to save up for school.

Drone B may be older, meaning he's given up on improving his own lot in life and now needs the government to protect him. Maybe he's from a family of liberals. Maybe he has a positive past experience with the government where it helped him out significantly. Maybe he found a copy of "The Communist Manifesto" and read it and made an impression on him.
Well first of all, you claim these two drones to be different because one is old and the other is young (these are the reasons you give for claiming that they differ in their opinions on whether or not they can improve their lot). However, it is important to note that Drone A will someday be old, and Drone B was once young. Because everyone (or at least the vast majority of them in a first world country) is both young and old during the course of their lifetime, everyone is going to go through both mindsets described here, so you can't really say people differ fundamentally in this way. Also, if age was that big a factor in people's subjective opinions, then you could basically predict people's political opinion judging by their age, and you can't.

Also, family opinion is either not that big a factor or it is highly changeable, which is evident in the fact the public opinion is not nearly as static as it would be if everyone held their families' opinion to be of utmost importance.

[t_wolves_fan]

Okay, valid argument t_wolves. However it does not prove that subjective opinion is static, and so your original point (that Communism rests on the premise the people can disregard subjective opinions) has not been proven, as you cannot prove that the subjective opinions of society at large cannot sway in favor of Communism.

Oh lord he we go with the juvenile demands for proof. Give me a break, this is a theoretical and philosophical discussion. There is no proof.

Of course subjective opinions change over time. I went from being a fairly liberal democrat to a pretty conservative republican to a moderately conservative independent. Interestingly enough material conditions had little to play in my conversions since I'm basically in the same spot as I was when I began paying attention to politics.


Nothing is guaranteed when talking about subjective opinions, nor is anything universally applicable, as I have said before. Also I agree with you the there will be other factors in foming subjective opinions, however I think that as self-interest is one of the more dominant traits of the human psyche, material conditions would be a very large factor.

But self interest manifests itself in different ways. A conservative working-class stiff who opposes gun control laws and eminent domain takings is going to distrust government enough to oppose its involvement in setting salaries and providing health care. You seem to arrogantly think that you know what's best for the working class stiff regardless of his opinion, quite frankly. Maybe the working class stiff is happy working at the truck repair shop so long as he can afford to put food on the table and have time to go to church 3 times a week. Do you ever stop and think of that?



Well first of all, you claim these two drones to be different because one is old and the other is young (these are the reasons you give for claiming that they differ in their opinions on whether or not they can improve their lot)

I said their age may be a factor that would cause them to have differing opinions, not that it would guarantee differing opinions.


However, it is important to note that Drone A will someday be old, and Drone B was once young. Because everyone (or at least the vast majority of them in a first world country) is both young and old during the course of their lifetime, everyone is going to go through both mindsets described here, so you can't really say people differ fundamentally in this way.

I did not say everyone of different ages will have fundamentally different opinions. But the fact is young people tend to reject the opinions of the old because they haven't experienced the things that the old people have. This trend is borne out by history - it's an objective fact (note I said TREND, which means it doesn't apply to every single person) that has been noted since before you and I were ever around.


Also, family opinion is either not that big a factor or it is highly changeable, which is evident in the fact the public opinion is not nearly as static as it would be if everyone held their families' opinion to be of utmost importance.

You drastically undervalue the role of family in passing on political philosophy. You have to do this to argue that no one factor is a big deal and any one factor can be overcome. It is true that some individuals will refine or totally reject the political leanings of family, but even you must admit that an entire childhood spent listening to how Republicans are for rich fatcats or Democrats are liars who support welfare queens will have an effect on how a person looks at the world.

No, no one factor from age to family status to socioeconomic status is going to guarantee that any one person will have a given political philosophy or that they'll keep a given philosophy through life. But remember that all of these factors vary wildly among the population. This is simply proof of the fact that two individual people can have the exact same thing happen to them and come to different conclusions. It's the reason two witnesses to a crime or an accident report the events differently.

Every individual has his own set of unique circumstances that lead them to believe what they do. It's irrational and naive to assume you can get everyone close to being on the same page on a wide variety of issues simply by making one of those circumstances (material condition) equal across everyone. What's worse is that you actually think you can equalize any individual circumstance.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 11 2006, 05:12 PM
I don't think Redstar1916 is explaining his argument correctly. Material conditions change consciousness; how our consciousness develops is based on our experiences with the environment and others living in that environment.

This explains the point that two different people living in the same material conditions at any one given point in time come up with different opinions on public policy. It is because, although they are living in the same material conditions, their consciousness is different because throughout their life those material conditions have been different from one another. Each has developed a different consciousness because of their different experiences with the world throughout their lives.
So you pretend that if people just have the exact same circumstances for a long enough time, eventually their consciousness will come together.

In order to have people live under the exact same circumstances for a long period of time, you need to control their experiences over that timeframe.

Will the elite members of the vanguard be allowed to turn off their telescreens on occasion?

[KC]

So you pretend that if people just have the exact same circumstances for a long enough time, eventually their consciousness will come together.

Not at all. Nobody has the "exact same circumstances". Not even twins living in the same household. No two lives are identical. But it sounds like you agree with me. Am I correct in that you agree with my original post?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 11 2006, 06:16 PM

So you pretend that if people just have the exact same circumstances for a long enough time, eventually their consciousness will come together.

Not at all. Nobody has the "exact same circumstances". Not even twins living in the same household. No two lives are identical. But it sounds like you agree with me. Am I correct in that you agree with my original post?
From what I've read your original post makes sense.

That begs the question, how does communism work given that reality? Communism requires everyone to achieve class consciousness, but it's highly unlikely that they'll achieve it together and when they do, it'll manifest itself differently anyway.

That is why I responded as I did: for enough people to achieve the same consciousness, and to have it mean the same thing, their lives are going to have to be pretty similar for quite a long time.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Oh lord he we go with the juvenile demands for proof. Give me a break, this is a theoretical and philosophical discussion. There is no proof.

Of course subjective opinions change over time. I went from being a fairly liberal democrat to a pretty conservative republican to a moderately conservative independent. Interestingly enough material conditions had little to play in my conversions since I'm basically in the same spot as I was when I began paying attention to politics.

Nothing you have said refutes my point that it is not impossible for Communism to work in a society where subjective arguments exist. Subjective opinions aren't inherently anti-Communist. And so you still can not say that Communism lies on the premise that "emotional, subjective arguments can be eliminated from debate over public policy".

[KC]

That begs the question, how does communism work given that reality? Communism requires everyone to achieve class consciousness, but it's highly unlikely that they'll achieve it together and when they do, it'll manifest itself differently anyway.

That is why I responded as I did: for enough people to achieve the same consciousness, and to have it mean the same thing, their lives are going to have to be pretty similar for quite a long time.

People don't need to have the same consciousness to become class conscious. Consciousness is unique in every individual at all times. What must happen is that the proletariat must organize itself into a class "for itself" and not just a class "against capital".

We already see the proletarian class organizing as a class against capital, and we have seen this countless times throughout history. What remains is for the proletariat to make that jump from being against capital to being for itself. This will happen with both the further development of capitalism (and therefore an increase in the tendency of the rate of profit to fall) and the organization of the proletariat into a class for itself by proletarians that are already class conscious.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:57 PM
Nothing you have said refutes my point that it is not impossible for Communism to work in a society where subjective arguments exist. Subjective opinions aren't inherently anti-Communist. And so you still can not say that Communism lies on the premise that "emotional, subjective arguments can be eliminated from debate over public policy".
Of course I can't refute your opinion that your utopian Candy Land would work. It's a fantasy land dreamed up in your head where everything works - there is no proof against that.

Instead of demanding that I prove a negative about Candy Land, why not explain specifically how individual people's subjective opinions would be taken into account when making policy decisions that are supposed to benefit everyone equally.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 11 2006, 09:17 PM

People don't need to have the same consciousness to become class conscious. Consciousness is unique in every individual at all times. What must happen is that the proletariat must organize itself into a class "for itself" and not just a class "against capital".


OK, the proles are "class conscious" and out for their class.

Yet their consciousness varies wildly across individuals.

What next.

[KC]

OK, the proles are "class conscious" and out for their class.

Yet their consciousness varies wildly across individuals.

The whole point is that the variations in individual consciousness doesn't matter, as they all have class consciousness.


What next.

Revolution.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Instead of demanding that I prove a negative about Candy Land, why not explain specifically how individual people's subjective opinions would be taken into account when making policy decisions that are supposed to benefit everyone equally.
That would be tantamount to proof, which apparently is not necessary in a philosophical discussion such as this. Point is that, within the boundaries of this debate, such a society is theoretically possible (that is, not impossible) based on undefined subjective opinions.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 10:19 PM


Instead of demanding that I prove a negative about Candy Land, why not explain specifically how individual people's subjective opinions would be taken into account when making policy decisions that are supposed to benefit everyone equally.
That would be tantamount to proof, which apparently is not necessary in a philosophical discussion such as this. Point is that, within the boundaries of this debate, such a society is theoretically possible (that is, not impossible) based on undefined subjective opinions.
Good lord. Are you being this obtuse on purpose?

It's theoretically possible the way that laissez-faire capitalism theoretically would make everyone rich so long as it worked the way some dumbass kid dreamed it did.


Again:

Why not explain specifically how individual people's subjective opinions would be taken into account when making policy decisions that are supposed to benefit everyone equally.

[t_wolves_fan]

The whole point is that the variations in individual consciousness doesn't matter, as they all have class consciousness.

Yet their individual consciousness could tell them that capitalism would benefit them more than communism.

So specifically, what happens?

[Enragé]

Why not explain specifically how individual people's subjective opinions would be taken into account when making policy decisions that are supposed to benefit everyone equally.

I once wrote this essay basicly about this.

If one guy rules, as in a monarchy, the things he decides would benefit him.
If a group rules, it would benefit that group.

If everyone rules, it would benefit everyone.

Now, ofcourse, sometimes, some people will be unhappy about how things go, but well, sometimes, thats the only way to go. You cannot always decide things on consensus cuz then nothing would get done
you can however ensure that MOST people are happy, most people support it (aka democracy).

As in benefitting equally, well everyone just gets an equal share in relation to their need of what the community produces, as long as they put in their share of work as well. The burdens of society must be carried equally (in relation to ability), and so too must the benefits be carried equally (in relation to need)

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 11:31 AM

The whole point is that the variations in individual consciousness doesn't matter, as they all have class consciousness.

Yet their individual consciousness could tell them that capitalism would benefit them more than communism.

So specifically, what happens?
doesnt matter

Its about the overall tendency in society, which would be towards communism

so nothing happens
just like nothing happens right now in the US, or here in the netherlands, though there are LOADS of people who dont like capitalism.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:17 PM
I once wrote this essay basicly about this.

As in benefitting equally, well everyone just gets an equal share in relation to their need of what the community produces, as long as they put in their share of work as well. The burdens of society must be carried equally (in relation to ability), and so too must the benefits be carried equally (in relation to need)
Did your essay go into any specifics, or did it simply repeat the same slogans with which you and all the other communists' routinely respond?

[KC]

Yet their individual consciousness could tell them that capitalism would benefit them more than communism.

So specifically, what happens?

Then they're obviously not class conscious. :rolleyes:

Moreover, we see on a daily basis the fact that many workers today don't see capitalism as "beneficial" to them. That is, we see workers organized as a class against capital.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 12 2006, 01:07 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 12 2006, 01:07 PM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 12:17 PM
I once wrote this essay basicly about this.

As in benefitting equally, well everyone just gets an equal share in relation to their need of what the community produces, as long as they put in their share of work as well. The burdens of society must be carried equally (in relation to ability), and so too must the benefits be carried equally (in relation to need)
Did your essay go into any specifics, or did it simply repeat the same slogans with which you and all the other communists' routinely respond? [/b]
basicly, it was just a two page thing outlining on how you could reason from what basicly are hobbesian axioms to collectivist/communist society (whereas hobbes himself ended up with a totalitarian-ish state).

it wasnt that big and extensive but it got me an A in philosophy :wub:

:P just in case you were actually interested.


edit: oh and good for you
ignoring stuff is way more fun than actually going into it <3

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It&#39;s theoretically possible the way that laissez-faire capitalism theoretically would make everyone rich so long as it worked the way some dumbass kid dreamed it did.
And since this debate does not specify how exactly any given ideology would work, and because, as the whole point of this debate is to prove that Communism cannot work, you cannot use the assertion that Communism does not work as a premise, one must conclude that, within the limits and boundaries imposed by the theoretical and philosophical nature of this debate which you yourself stressed, Communism is theoretically possible.



Why not explain specifically how individual people&#39;s subjective opinions would be taken into account when making policy decisions that are supposed to benefit everyone equally.
If you want to go into specifics create another thread.