If Socialism had never existed.

[red team]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 03:21 pm
Just a question for socialists. How come almost every socialistic goverment that comes around has a horrible human rights record, a poor economy, an angry populace, a bad armed forces, and little inovation. I would be hard-pressed to name a Socialist country that doesn't have two or more of the facts.

Can you name one?
Would the world be any worse off if Socialism never existed? First, assuming that it never had what social-economic ideology would dominate the world without any alternative putting up a challenge? Suppose that there was nothing to explain objectively what makes the bosses so much more richer and powerful than the ordinary working person who works for him and no serious challenge put forward as a counter-example to end or alleviate the unequal arrangement then would even mild reformism of the form seen in social democratic governments stand a chance? The relatively minor concessions made to make the lives of working people at least bearable was made by reforming Capitalism because of the greater threat to the system from the challenge put up by Socialist countries.

In that way the Capitalist concession to workers in the form of reformism depended on the external threat and counter-example posed by Socialism. There's a reason why the current crop of politicians visit Nazi cemetaries, build memorials to Nazi collaborators and try the rewrite history so as to minimize the role played by the Soviet forces in defeating Nazi Germany. General Patton himself wanted to recruit capture Nazi military personnel for a continuing war against to Soviets. Now is this a position that a ideological opponent to fascist barbarism would take after the situation of defeating "enemy" forces? It would be more accurate then to describe "allies" and fascist powers during WW2 as not enemies as much more like rivals. Not that I am excusing any of the excesses and errors made because of wrong policy, "power-hungry" officials, material conditions or external threats that a revolution would inevitably have to deal with, but the fact remains that the present day situation even for workers in Capitalist countries depended on the challenge to the status quo put forward by the Socialists.

Note, I myself am not a Socialist. I believe it is past the time when a parallel alternative or reform of the present system is even viable or desirable, but that the system must be totally scrapped in one fell swoop in the coming collapse to its basic mechanism of trade (money) that will be all but inevitable.

So again, you must ask yourself what the present situation for workers would resemble if there wasn't even a parallel alternative system to put up a challenge and to give reformist in Capitalist countries the confidence to request concessions from the bosses for workers. I cannot really predict precisely what would have happened in that alternative history, but I have a pretty good idea in imagining what kind of society it would have resembled. It would not have been a nice society for workers, but with the absence of an alternative challenge it would have been justified in totality (which means without even the slightest concession) by the powers that be as something to do with "human nature" or "not enough to go around" or the "superior talents" of the Capitalists or some other such nonsense that all tyrants down through history have used to justify inequality and injustice.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Everyone of these people (Intellectual47 = ex.) ask the same questions, we should just have standard perfected answers to give them instead of wasting time composing a new variant each time.

[Intellectual47]

Red team, that is the smartest thing I have heard so far on these forums. Your idea that the reforms in capitalism are due to Socialistic counter-examples are remarkable. No I'm not going to insult you.
Except that idea that the monetery sytem will fall and that the US and the Nazis were rivals, not enemies. I'm not so sure I buy into those ideas.

But the other things are quite impressive.

One thing, what does this have to do with my first post? You quoted me on it, but you didn't mention it at all. Surely you could come up with a very good explanation for why Socialistic goverments never do to well. Without blaming capitalist for everything. You seem too smart to say something like that.

[red team]

The planet has a problem which was this: most people on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for the problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movement of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.

[Intellectual47]

These "small green pieces paper" are used to buy goods, which can make people happy. In the sense that they no longer have to worry about dying from the Flu, freezing to death(in most cases), having a bad harvest, getting enogh to eat, clean water, and invading armies.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 07:31 pm
These "small green pieces paper" are used to buy goods, which can make people happy.
We don't need to buy them. We don't need to make this food in order to generate profit for someone.

We can organise ourselves collectively so that everyone is provided for with food minus the alienating exploitative work that provides us with no joy.

We have the ability to make food, build houses, have clothes. The system of economics we have now is totally itrational because despite that fact, a small group of people control all of those things and monopolise on thme in order abilities to get lots of those little bits of green paper; while we have to work shit jobs making these them in the first place only to have to buy them back.

Surely it makes more rational sense to simply organise ourselves so we don't have to work shit jobs in order to buy back the things we have produced. Ok, some people might not be able to have big houses and posh cars and millions of pounds in the bank...

...But that's just too bad.


In the sense that they no longer have to worry about dying from the Flu, freezing to death(in most cases), having a bad harvest, getting enogh to eat, clean water, and invading armies.

Many people have to worry about dying of flu or freezing to death. Even in westernised countries.

There are bad harvests all over the world and I am constently worried about not having enough food to eat because I'm poor. In terms of water - It might be clean (most of the time), but it certainly isn't free and if I can't afford to pay for it (pay for water...:wacko:) I will go without.

[Intellectual47]

TAT, history has shown that when a country acquires more money, it becomes better, like the US. Also you don't seem to know how labor and money works.

We can organise ourselves collectively so that everyone is provided for iwth food minus the alienating exploitative work that provides us with no joy.
History has shown that we cannot on a large scale. "alienating exploitive work" also called a job, is neccesary to create the products that people need.

We have the ability to make food, build houses, have clothes. The system of economics we have now is totally unrational because despite that fact, a small group of people control all of those things and monopolise on those abilities to make these little bits of green paper while we ahve to work shit jobs making these things only to have to buy them back.
Ya'll as a single person cannot create evrything that is neccesary to maintain a high lifestyle. If you tried here's how it would go. Bob has the ability to hunt animals, but cannot make clothes. So he gives his surplus of animals to his neighbor, Jim, who gives BoB his surplus clothes. Bob and Jim cannot make good houses, so they give their stuff to the man who can make houses.
Jim may later decide that other people cannot make clothes, so he sets up a shop or "buisness" and sells the clothes he makes to people who cannot make clothes. This batering system will later evolve into capitalism.
If Bob tried to do everything himself, he would die because he can't do all things himself. So he shares the responsibility of his care with other people and takes a piece of the responsibility for their care.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 08:51 pm
TAT, history has shown that when a country acquires more money, it becomes better, like the US.
It doesn't become "better" it simply means you have more stuff to spend your money on.


History has shown that we cannot on a large scale. "alienating exploitive work" also called a job, is neccesary to create the products that people need.

Yes, we need to create products in order to maintain our subsistence, but it's how we do that; this is the question.

We can either have a small percentage of the world using our need to sell our labour to make the products in order for them to make profit, or we can control what we "need" and create these products collectively for the benefit of everyone.


Ya'll as a single person cannot create evrything that is neccesary to maintain a high lifestyle.

First of all I haven't suggested anything of the sort.

Secondly, what is a "high lifetsyle"? In a communist society, international economics would be geared towards what we needed in order to survive. For example, food, materials to build houses, water and electricity production.

The economy would not be based on creating items to sell for profit. People wouldn't make goods to earn money to buy food - They'd just help make the food. There woudn't be mass productions of DVD players or cars.

What I assume you mean by "high lifestyle" wouldn't exist anymore and why should it? You don't need to have three DVD players and two cars. You don't need an IPOD. We need food so that we can feed everyone - We need electricity so people can see in the dark - We need water so that don't die of dehydration and we need houses so that we can be safe from the elements.


If you tried here's how it would go. Bob has the ability to hunt animals, but cannot make clothes. So he gives his surplus of animals to his neighbor, Jim, who gives BoB his surplus clothes. Bob and Jim cannot make good houses, so they give their stuff to the man who can make houses.
Jim may later decide that other people cannot make clothes, so he sets up a shop or "buisness" and sells the clothes he makes to people who cannot make clothes. This batering system will later evolve into capitalism.

All that is irrelevant.

Communism is based on the maxim "from each according to ability; from each according to need."

Jim and Bob would not produce their own goods in order to barter, they would work with their community to do socially necessary work. Each person in a community and thus in a region and thus in a nation and thus internationally would give their time freely to the production of necessary goods. This in turn would provide each what they needed.

For example. I live in a city in the middle of England. After national and regional planning and organisation it may be that in Sheffield we have two power stations that must be manned, 12 factories that produce bread and a water treatment plant.

I attend a community meeting and we receive a report back from our Spokesperson who attended the regional assembly meeting and we are told that we need to provide 139 people to work in factory # 1 and 74 people to work in the water treatment plant. I volunteer my time and along with the other 138 I spend 10 hours a week making bread.

For that service to the community I receive the food I need and am given the accomodation I need. In my house I have electricty, heat and water. I have given my time to society and in return society has given me what I need to survive.

What I do with the rest of my time is totally up to me - Perhaps I get involved in the DVD production collective who meet freely to produce DVD players, perhaps I don't. Whatever I do I don't have to worry about where my next meal is coming from.

I don't have to sell my labour in order to pay rent or my water bill because 74 other people from my community have given 10 hours of their time a week in making sure the community has water - Just as I did with bread.

And thus the cycle continues regionally, nationally and internationally.

[Intellectual47]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 03, 2006 09:46 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 03, 2006 09:46 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2006 08:51 pm
TAT, history has shown that when a country acquires more money, it becomes better, like the US.
It doesn't become "better" it simply means you have more stuff to spend your money on.

[/b]
yes it does.Problems such as diesease, hunger, unemployment, the environment, infrastructure, street militias, education, and other things have all been historically shown to go down as nations get richer. My source is "the Skeptical Enviormentalist.

All your other arguement is easily disproven by one statement. You assume to much of humans. The whole of history has shown that we as humans are an evil, uncaring, manipulative, and selfish species. This arguement is a key difference in Communism/Anarchism (ya'll both use this point) and Capitalism. Capitalists assume humanity is naturally evil, Communists assume humanity is naturally good. And History is on the Capitalists side.

Many people have debated this before Communism existed. Have you not heard of "the problem of the Commons" or "Everyone's responsibility is no ones responsibility"?.

P.S. Seriously, do you listen to country music?

[Connolly]

Problems such as diesease, hunger, unemployment, the environment, infrastructure, street militias, education, and other things have all been historically shown to go down as nations get richer.

So money solves the problems in society does it?

Exactly how does money operate machines, drive tractors, cure medical problems, help the environment, build roads, educate children and other things that money has been "historically shown" to do?

Keep in mind that money is made from paper and void of any intelligence and self movement. According to the Guiness book of records - money cant do anything but lie on its back.


The whole of history has shown that we as humans are an evil, uncaring, manipulative, and selfish species.

No it has not.

God has said we are evil.

Capitalism has said we are selfish.


Both we REJECT.


And History is on the Capitalists side.

:lol: (laughable)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 11:21 pm

[QUOTE=Intellectual47,December 03, 2006 08:51 pm] TAT, history has shown that when a country acquires more money, it becomes better, like the US.
It doesn't become "better" it simply means you have more stuff to spend your money on.
Perhaps in your nice safe, clear world disease, hunger and unemployment don't exist, but in reality - In western societies all of those things exist.


All your other arguement is easily disproven by one statement. You assume to much of humans.

It's easily disproved in your mind because thus far you are either refusing to or incapable of engaging your reason in any critical way. You are not analysing societies and understanding there complexities. You are simply repeating a well established status quo opinion.


The whole of history has shown that we as humans are an evil, uncaring, manipulative, and selfish species.

Then why do we have people who do good? Why do we have people who will run into a burning building to save someone? Why do we have people who help feed the homeless or fight HIV/AIDS?

Regardless of all this there is absolutely no objective evidence that proves your assertion. In fact, using the same logic the fact that there are human beings in the world that will do good proves that there is no objective fact which goes on to prove your assertion.

If there was, no human would be anything other than what you describe - Unless you argue there are two different types of humans? If you do, can you prove that?

"Uncaring", "selfish", "manipulative" - These are social constructs like "racism" and "homophobia" and they can be destroyed just as easily.


This arguement is a key difference in Communism/Anarchism (ya'll both use this point) and Capitalism. Capitalists assume humanity is naturally evil, Communists assume humanity is naturally good.

We don't assume it. We reject the concept that human beings are anything other than what they choose to become or what they are forced to be due to their social conditioning.

Human beings can be both "bad" and "good", depending on many factors.


P.S. Seriously, do you listen to country music?

Absolutely and unequivocally not!

[Intellectual47]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 03, 2006 10:32 pm
Problems such as diesease, hunger, unemployment, the environment, infrastructure, street militias, education, and other things have all been historically shown to go down as nations get richer.

I may not know exactly how money does this, but I do know this. Third-World countries have less money then devoloped countries. The lack of most Third-World problems in devolped societies may have something to do with the amount of money that devoloped nations have

You reject that Humans are evil and selfish? Than you must also reject that humans has two arms and two legs. Every evil thing that has ever been done was done because we are naturally evil creatures. I have never met anyone who was never selfish or evil. Except Jesus.

How can you laugh at all of history? Do you have an example of a human who is perfectly good (except Jesus)? If so I would like to meet him.

Anrchist Tension, Humans can do both good things and bad things. My Father is a doctor and saves people's lives on a daily basis. But he also desires to have more stuff. You yourself call yourself an "Evil anrchist Tyrant" and yet you..... umm...this could take a while.

Our nature is to do evil but we can do good as well.


Perhaps in your nice safe, clear world disease, hunger and unemployment don't exist, but in reality - In western societies all of those things exist.
Yes but not to the extent that they do in the Third-World. They are huge problems in Africa, but not in the US.

[Moderation: Please make sure your quoting is done properly, otherwise it looks a mess and I have to sort it out. If your quotes go wrong, click the edit box and make sure that each one is correct]

[Connolly]

I may not know exactly how money does this, but I do know this. Third-World countries have less money then devoloped countries. The lack of most Third-World problems in devolped societies may have something to do with the amount of money that devoloped nations have

The FACT is, money cannot do these things - its a piece of paper or coinage used for exchange.

The LABOUR of others builds roads and operates the machinary which makes a nation wealthy and feeds its population.

Money is a tool for which the ruling class few extract and gain from the labour of the many - without necessarily contributing to the production of anything.


Africa has the labour, much resources and the ability to do something constructive.

A poor man also has his labour and the ability to do something constructive.

The poor man wont get rich, even though he might work for a lifetime, and neither will Africa - both are oppressed, subjugated, raped and thieved by the structure of the capitalist system.

[Connolly]

I have never met anyone who was never selfish or evil. Except Jesus.

You met Jesus? :o


How can you laugh at all of history? Do you have an example of a human who is perfectly good (except Jesus)? If so I would like to meet him.

Define "good".

Give some example as to what's "good" and whats "evil".

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 11:42 pm
Anrchist Tension, Humans can do both good things and bad things. My Father is a doctor and saves people's lives on a daily basis. But he also desires to have more stuff.
So we both agree then that this concept of "selfishness" and "evilness" are social constructs?

The desire to have more stuff happens because we believe it makes us happy and we have attached value to these objects. We believe they make us happier because we are told that by having them, our lives will be better. Of course this is nonsense.

Working class people are no happier because they have a DVD player to go home to after they have finished a day of work making things that don't belong to them for very little money.


You yourself call yourself an "Evil anrchist Tyrant" and yet you..... umm...this could take a while.

That was humour; perhaps bad humour, but humour nonetheless.


Our nature is to do evil but we can do good as well.

Why is it our nature?



Perhaps in your nice safe, clear world disease, hunger and unemployment don't exist, but in reality - In western societies all of those things exist.
Yes but not to the extent that they do in the Third-World. They are huge problems in Africa, but not in the US.

In comparison you're right. But that's besides the point. You seem to think that capitalism has the ability to solve these problems. It doesn't. If it had, it would have already.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 01:31 pm
These "small green pieces paper" are used to buy goods, which can make people happy. In the sense that they no longer have to worry about dying from the Flu, freezing to death(in most cases), having a bad harvest, getting enogh to eat, clean water, and invading armies.
But there is only a finite amount of wealth on the planet. If one person hoards a mssive amount of goods, then many other people go statgo hungry and cold. This is why we advocate socialism.

[red team]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 06:31 pm
These "small green pieces paper" are used to buy goods, which can make people happy. In the sense that they no longer have to worry about dying from the Flu, freezing to death(in most cases), having a bad harvest, getting enogh to eat, clean water, and invading armies.
There's basic problems with money that most people seem to overlook which are these:

the value of money is relative. It doesn't have any value unless measured against someone who has a relative lack of it. In that way no matter how productive your society the way money is deemed to have value means that something as ridiculous as a market glut in obviously useful items and services is possible as well as price gouging by withholding abundant supplies of obviously consumer demanded products and services. This is a result of purchase prices of products being measured in monetary amounts when in reality money measures nothing physically, but becomes psychologically valuable the scarcer it is, therefore you can't have consumer items be too abundant to be profitable for the sellers or the sellers won't sell. The seller can also play the game of manipulating supplies so that consumer items reflects the way money is valued, that is the scarcer it is the more "valuable" it becomes which does not necessarily means the said items could not be produced in sufficient quantities from available resources.

Further, money is circulated when consumer items are obvioiusly not circulated, but is consumed over time with some items consumed immediately upon purchase, so now you can have sellers with an abundance of money who are "rich", but have nothing to support being rich because what was originally real material wealth supporting the fact that they "own" more resources and therefore "rich" has long since been consumed upon completing the transaction in trading the consumer money with the originally owned resource. So now the seller is "rich" because of what? An abundance of "small green pieces paper"? :lol: If I've eaten the food I've traded with you for x amount of money then what does that x amount of money represent now? Labour? The food? The labour's been done and the food has long since been consumed. Money therefore is not a representative measure of anything. So why is it used in practice as if it is a representative measure because if I were to purchase 10 times the quantity of an item it would cost me 10 times the original quantity in money. Multiply this contradiction in using money to quantitively represent consumable items when money itself clearly isn't a representative measure of anything and you get something like the American economy which is the largest in the world in producing American dollars. :lol: But, this is the same problem all monetary economies share.

[ComradeR]

I may not know exactly how money does this, but I do know this. Third-World countries have less money then devoloped countries. The lack of most Third-World problems in devolped societies may have something to do with the amount of money that devoloped nations have

This is ignoring the fact that the only way the world powers can maintain their wealth is by exploiting third-world countries economically, and have often used them to fight proxy wars with their rivals. Not to mention the fact that devoloped countries fuel conflicts in third-world countries for profit through arms sells ect. (the top five arms dealers are the governments of the US, England, France, Russia, and China, who also happen to hold the five permanent seats of the UN security council) and even go so far as to train commanders in these conflicts, i use the US School of the Americas as an example of this.



You reject that Humans are evil and selfish? Than you must also reject that humans has two arms and two legs. Every evil thing that has ever been done was done because we are naturally evil creatures. I have never met anyone who was never selfish or evil.

I'll use a quote from Albert Einstein's Why Socialism
"Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate."


Except Jesus.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49-53)

"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)

"But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

Yep a great selfless, kind, pacifist :rolleyes:

[Intellectual47]

This is ignoring the fact that the only way the world powers can maintain their wealth is by exploiting third-world countries economically, and have often used them to fight proxy wars with their rivals. Not to mention the fact that devoloped countries fuel conflicts in third-world countries for profit through arms sells ect. (the top five arms dealers are the governments of the US, England, France, Russia, and China, who also happen to hold the five permanent seats of the UN security council) and even go so far as to train commanders in these conflicts,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but how can Africa blame it's problems on capitalists? Africa's problems are caused by evil dictators and ethnic hatred. The US didn't start the Darfur genocide. Or the Rawandan genocide. Or Zimbabwe's dictator. In fact, Socialism has done nothing for Africa except fuel conflicts there. Oh, and we sell arms to people because they buy them. And we don't sell arms to nations at war.
Who the hell would want to buy a French weapon anyway? All they do is copy them of us.

"Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate."
I must disagree with Einstein here. Humans are evil from birth. Society does not make evil in a person, it frees it. Even the animals show traits that have been called "evil". A lion will keep it's prey all to itself. Wolves have a heirachy of who gets to eat first. Many animals are cannibilistic. To say that society corrupts humans is dreadfully uninformed because ALL societies have evil in them.

But there is only a finite amount of wealth on the planet. If one person hoards a mssive amount of goods, then many other people go statgo hungry and cold.
Actually the market can creat wealth. Modern Capitalism has proven this.

In comparison you're right. But that's besides the point. You seem to think that capitalism has the ability to solve these problems. It doesn't. If it had, it would have already.
Ah, but it has. America used to have a smallpox problem. This was fixed thanks to funded scientific research. We also had a poverty problem. That has been solved with more money. India had a lot of econmic problems. Then they went from socilistic tendentcies to capitalism and their econmoy is booming.


P.S. I define "evil" as an action that causes a human harm. This has a few whole in it, but it works. Evolution has holes in it but people still accept it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Again, you haven't responded to my points. Why?

[Herman]

I must disagree with Einstein here. Humans are evil from birth. Society does not make evil in a person, it frees it. Even the animals show traits that have been called "evil". A lion will keep it's prey all to itself. Wolves have a heirachy of who gets to eat first. Many animals are cannibilistic. To say that society corrupts humans is dreadfully uninformed because ALL societies have evil in them.

Wow, talk about a misinformed person. Please ask any biologist, psychologist or whatever about this. They'll be laughing at your face for an hour.

[Intellectual47]

Wow, talk about a misinformed person. Please ask any biologist, psychologist or whatever about this. They'll be laughing at your face for an hour.
Actually I did. Both a teacher and a psychologist agreed with me on this issue. If you think about it, being selfish and greedy would help us in a cavemen setting. Since I believe that most our traits come from that period of history. Which is what leads to many of the problems in today's society. We are all acting like cavemen in a modern society.

The desire to have more stuff happens because we believe it makes us happy and we have attached value to these objects. We believe they make us happier because we are told that by having them, our lives will be better. Of course this is nonsense.
Of course this is true. But the money-happinness graph has a curve. If you have no car and you then recieve one, you are extremely happy. If you have a Caddilac and you get a Lexus, you're not as happy. If you are in an African village and you get an anti-biotic, you are extremely happy. If you live in the US and you get a braces, you aren't that happy.
Oh and I swear there is a money-happiness graph. Time magazine did a story on it.

Why is it our nature?
I believe I said above that it is because of the things that were bred into us during the Stone age. Modern Society trys to change that and control it. Otherwise civilisation would be quite difficult.
I believe Freud called this nature the "Id"

[Tungsten]

The Anarchist Tension

Working class people are no happier because they have a DVD player to go home to after they have finished a day of work making things that don't belong to them for very little money.
Speak for yourself. What other purpose would there be for buying any entertainment system other than for entertainment and personal pleasure?
Muigwithania

But there is only a finite amount of wealth on the planet.
This is wrong. If you were stop time and count it, it would be true, but weath generation is a continual dynamic process.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 06:05 pm
If you think about it, being selfish and greedy would help us in a cavemen setting.
The naturist and anarchist Peter Kropotkin spent most of his early adult life studying animals and in his book 'Mutual Aid' (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html) he refutes Darwin's theory of 'survival of the fittest' and argues that the species of creature on the planet that survived the most were not the "fittest" but those that worked in solidarity.

If you take a look at the mammel we specifically evolved from, you can see that the complexities of ape and monkey societies are based on co-operation and solidarity. Your assertion that these "traits" developed as a subsequence of our evolving is impossible. Furthermore, there is no medical evidence to suppose that assertion.


Since I believe that most our traits come from that period of history. Which is what leads to many of the problems in today's society. We are all acting like cavemen in a modern society.

Wat is your evidence to support that?

Selfishness and greed only began to exist when we were able to attach value to certain things and then attach overall concepts to those values.

History has developed based on our need to produce our existance and with this concepts of "selfishness" and "greed".

So do you agree that it is a social construct and not a biological trait?


I believe I said above that it is because of the things that were bred into us during the Stone age.

You gave an opinion but you failed to explain why your opinion is fact. Why and how was it "bred" into us? Especially during the "stone age"?


Modern Society trys to change that and control it. Otherwise civilisation would be quite difficult.

Human society developed concepts of ethics and morality, so of course things like killing people or having sex with your daughter became restricted by further societal constructs.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 07:22 pm
The Anarchist Tension

Working class people are no happier because they have a DVD player to go home to after they have finished a day of work making things that don't belong to them for very little money.
Speak for yourself. What other purpose would there be for buying any entertainment system other than for entertainment and personal pleasure?
Being happy is not the same as having pleasure.

[Intellectual47]

Being happy is not the same as having pleasure.
Can you please explain the difference to me?

Selfishness and greed only began to exist when we were able to attach value to certain things and then attach overall concepts to those values.
Actually some things have an inborn value. Like a dead animal has value to a human as food. This was in the beginning. Society didn't have to attach a value to it. The same is true with water. Or pesticides, wood, oil, coal, cotton, silicon, and many other things we need. We do attach value to money, gold, and things that are strictly for show. But everything else has an inborn value.

So do you agree that it is a social construct and not a biological trait?
No I do not for the reasons above. Greed and selfishness were neccesary for survival, whether as a group or a solitary organism, so therefore those who were most selfish would survive. Hence we get a society with what is now "evil" bred into it.

[red team]

No I do not for the reasons above. Greed and selfishness were neccesary for survival, whether as a group or a solitary organism, so therefore those who were most selfish would survive. Hence we get a society with what is now "evil" bred into it.

True, but selfishness can only get you rewards up to point because pure "selfishness" implies taking things beneficial to oneself regardless of any consequences for others. Others being as selfish as you would get angry at being taken advantage of and if you make enough people poor from taking from them for your own benefit then revolution would be inevitable. Further, the mass of working people seeing that individual selfishness gets them nowhere and that they are still stuck at being poor from a system which rewards selfishness would then develop two strategies for coping. First, they can hope to be more selfish, brutal, "clever", or violent at taking advantage of somebody else's generosity or fair mindedness for their own gain. In other words, be in a controlling position within the selfishness hierarchy of the system. Second, they can see that the system only rewards selfishness at the expense of somebody else's willingness to be fairminded and conclude that the system must be abolished with a better system to take it's place which rewards "selfishness" from individual contribution to societal productive capacity. The problem is people fail to see that you can be "selfish" all you want, but you can do it without having it be a zero-sum game where your selfishness means you taking from somebody else. If you are selfish, but take the approach of enlarging the pie then it doesn't make any difference to somebody else who has a share of the pie. Would people eventually realize that individual selfishness at the expense of others is a fool's game? One can only hope.


Further, your are mistaken that only selfishness is natural in some way for people since it would never occur to people to have a definition for generosity, good will or charity if selfishness is the only natural instinct of humans to follow. The fact that there exists a dictionary definition for generosity and altruism implies that people also have the potential for them and see those traits as beneficial, otherwise generosity and altruism would be treated as a mental disorder.

[ComradeR]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how can Africa blame it's problems on capitalists? Africa's problems are caused by evil dictators and ethnic hatred. The US didn't start the Darfur genocide. Or the Rawandan genocide. Or Zimbabwe's dictator. In fact, Socialism has done nothing for Africa except fuel conflicts there. Oh, and we sell arms to people because they buy them.

No the capitalist powers aren't responsible for all of Africa's problems but they are for a lot. The world powers support those "evil dictators" and supply them with arms, and a lot of the ethnic hatred stems from the colonial age when European empires often used ethnic differences to maintain control of the African colonies. When the colonial empires collapsed all that pent up tension often exploded into revenge killings sometimes escalating into full blown genocides, the third-world (especially Africa) is still feeling the effects of the colonial era today. Let's take the case of Rwanda, for years it was a Belgium colony and to suppress the Hutu majorty the Belgiums used the Tutsi minority to brutally repress the Hutus. When the Belgiums left the Hutus took power and suppressed the Tutsis which lead to their civil war, but there were elements in the Hutu population that wanted revenge against the Tutsis and when the Rwandan President was assassinated they lanched their genocide to wipe out the Tutsis. So in the end the capitalist powers are often responsible for a large number of conflicts in the third-world (there's even been evidence that the french trained commanders of the Interahamwe) many of which are fueled by old problems imposed on them during the colonial era.


Who the hell would want to buy a French weapon anyway? All they do is copy them of us.

What the hell does this have to do with this discussion?


And we don't sell arms to nations at war.

I laughed when i read this, you dont actually believe it do you? Like you said "we sell arms to people because they buy them" therefore profit can be made, and as long as money can be made by it capitalists will do it, dosen't matter to them if some Africans over in Africa die because of it.


I must disagree with Einstein here. Humans are evil from birth. Society does not make evil in a person, it frees it. Even the animals show traits that have been called "evil". A lion will keep it's prey all to itself. Wolves have a heirachy of who gets to eat first. Many animals are cannibilistic. To say that society corrupts humans is dreadfully uninformed because ALL societies have evil in them.

Really? so the social environment in which a person grows up in has no effect on their relationship with the rest of society? If you actually believe this then you are ether delusional or an idiot. Einstein was dead on with this, one needs only to look around to see it, i'll give an example. Say there are two children who are adopted at birth, one goes to a caring loving family, this family loves and provides for the child, sets a good example and teaches the child good characteristics (treating others nice, sharing ect.) and kindly encourages the child to emulate these traits, and lives in an safe secure area. The other child goes to a family thats broken and dysfunctional, who abuses the child physically/mentally, and lives in a area prone to crime and violence. Now which of these children is most likely to wind up in crime and or being violent?


Actually the market can creat wealth. Modern Capitalism has proven this
Only by exploiting the third-world economically.


Ah, but it has. America used to have a smallpox problem. This was fixed thanks to funded scientific research. We also had a poverty problem. That has been solved with more money. India had a lot of econmic problems. Then they went from socilistic tendentcies to capitalism and their econmoy is booming

What are you talking about? there still IS a poverty problem, the US has many impoverished (over 40 million) and has a unequal healthcare system which due to climbing prices is continually becoming unavailable to many americans. And as for India it was never Socialist to begin with so thats a useless example. But for arguments sake lets take Venezuela in which the working class people's lives have been improving more and more as it moves closer to Socialism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 09:51 pm

Being happy is not the same as having pleasure.
Can you please explain the difference to me?
If you are rapped you will feel pleasure but you won't be happy about it.

Something that gives you pleasure is a momentary enjoyment. Something that makes you happy instills in you a feeling of value, joy, motivation, kindness and confidence.


Actually some things have an inborn value. Like a dead animal has value to a human as food. This was in the beginning. Society didn't have to attach a value to it. The same is true with water. Or pesticides, wood, oil, coal, cotton, silicon, and many other things we need. We do attach value to money, gold, and things that are strictly for show. But everything else has an inborn value.

What does this have to do with anything I've said?



So do you agree that it is a social construct and not a biological trait?
No I do not for the reasons above. Greed and selfishness were neccesary for survival

You need food, house, water, heat and freedom to survive. How is greed and selfishness a necessity for those things?


whether as a group or a solitary organism, so therefore those who were most selfish would survive. Hence we get a society with what is now "evil" bred into it.

What does it mean having something "inbred" in us? You have to make those things clear? Are you saying that it was "inbred" in us during our evolution?

Are you claiming that greed and selfishness are inalienable characteristics? If you are claiming that then how are they inalienable?

[Intellectual47]

If you are rapped you will feel pleasure but you won't be happy about it.
I have never been raped, but I'm assuming that you don't feel pleasure becasue it wouldn't sem a very great situation. But I've never been so I can't say.

What does this have to do with anything I've said?
I believe you said that things only have value because society attaches value to them.

You need food, house, water, heat and freedom to survive. How is greed and selfishness a necessity for those things?
In Siberia there aren't many resources. So if there are barely enough, then you must be brutal and selfish to survive. Of course this only works in a area with very limited resources, but the selfishness trait as been shown elsewhere where there are virtually unlimited resources.

What does it mean having something "inbred" in us? You have to make those things clear? Are you saying that it was "inbred" in us during our evolution?
Because of Darwin's theory of naturaul selection, The man who was selfish was more likely to live and reproduce than the man who was genarous. So therefore the genorous gene would remain recceseive and the selfish gene may become dominant. I'll admit scientists havn't found a selfish gene, but I think it exists.

No the capitalist powers aren't responsible for all of Africa's problems but they are for a lot. The world powers support those "evil dictators" and supply them with arms, and a lot of the ethnic hatred stems from the colonial age when European empires often used ethnic differences to maintain control of the African colonies. When the colonial empires collapsed all that pent up tension often exploded into revenge killings sometimes escalating into full blown genocides, the third-world (especially Africa) is still feeling the effects of the colonial era today. Let's take the case of Rwanda, for years it was a Belgium colony and to suppress the Hutu majorty the Belgiums used the Tutsi minority to brutally repress the Hutus. When the Belgiums left the Hutus took power and suppressed the Tutsis which lead to their civil war, but there were elements in the Hutu population that wanted revenge against the Tutsis and when the Rwandan President was assassinated they lanched their genocide to wipe out the Tutsis. So in the end the capitalist powers are often responsible for a large number of conflicts in the third-world (there's even been evidence that the french trained commanders of the Interahamwe) many of which are fueled by old problems imposed on them during the colonial era.
The colonial powers weren't capitalist, so therefore it isn't capitalitilism fault. Oh and the problems of Zimbabwe are their problems, not ours. Capitalists can't be blamed for Africa since colovialism isn't capitalism and we try to help Africa, which as I recall you don't try to help.

What the hell does this have to do with this discussion?
It's an American thing.

Really? so the social environment in which a person grows up in has no effect on their relationship with the rest of society? If you actually believe this then you are ether delusional or an idiot. Einstein was dead on with this, one needs only to look around to see it, i'll give an example. Say there are two children who are adopted at birth, one goes to a caring loving family, this family loves and provides for the child, sets a good example and teaches the child good characteristics (treating others nice, sharing ect.) and kindly encourages the child to emulate these traits, and lives in an safe secure area. The other child goes to a family thats broken and dysfunctional, who abuses the child physically/mentally, and lives in a area prone to crime and violence. Now which of these children is most likely to wind up in crime and or being violent?
Have you read "Freakanomics"? I believe they used an example just like this. The Loving family kid grew up to be the Unabomber and the Hated family kid grew up to help write the book. And Einstein was in physics, not biology. So waht makes him qualified to say that?

Only by exploiting the third-world economically.
By providing jobs and pumping money into thier economoy?

But for arguments sake lets take Venezuela in which the working class people's lives have been improving more and more as it moves closer to Socialism.
Actually the lot of the middle and lower class has gotten worse. Poverty has risen and the money remains in the hand of Chavez and his cronies. His populism will only get him so far.

P.S. how many here listen to country music?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 04:34 pm

If you are rapped you will feel pleasure but you won't be happy about it.
I have never been raped, but I'm assuming that you don't feel pleasure becasue it wouldn't sem a very great situation.
When a penis enters a vagina and stimulates the clitoris, the woman will feel pleasure.



What does this have to do with anything I've said?
I believe you said that things only have value because society attaches value to them.

Water is free. We can get it anywhere we want, yet water is given a price and sold to us.



You need food, house, water, heat and freedom to survive. How is greed and selfishness a necessity for those things?
In Siberia there aren't many resources. So if there are barely enough, then you must be brutal and selfish to survive.

Yes, that's one way but as I said already and provided a link to the book, which obviously you have no intention of reading, the species most likely to survive are those that work in co-operation and solidarity with each other.

Ants and bee's for example.



What does it mean having something "inbred" in us? You have to make those things clear? Are you saying that it was "inbred" in us during our evolution?
Because of Darwin's theory of naturaul selection, The man who was selfish was more likely to live and reproduce than the man who was genarous.

The theory of "survival of the fittest" has been proven to be incorrect.


So therefore the genorous gene would remain recceseive and the selfish gene may become dominant. I'll admit scientists havn't found a selfish gene, but I think it exists.

This is crux of the entire argument. Scientists have mapped the human genome; there are 30,000 genes in human DNA and not one of them has anything to do with being selfish.

If scientists haven't found a "selfish gene" it' not because they haven't found it yet, it's because it doesn't exist.

[Intellectual47]

When a penis enters a vagina and stimulates the clitoris, the woman will feel pleasure.
I'm not a rape expert (and nether are you), but it would seem that the sheer terror, fear, and tramua of the incident would cancel out any pleasure from the event.

Water is free. We can get it anywhere we want, yet water is given a price and sold to us.
Where do you get your water? Water is not everywhere. If you do not have the tools to collect and purify the water, than you will not be able to drink it. And there are places like deserts and wasteleands where you would have to fight for water.

Yes, that's one way but as I said already and provided a link to the book, which obviously you have no intention of reading, the species most likely to survive are those that work in co-operation and solidarity with each other.
Okay I didn't read the book. But we are not ants or bees. We are Humans.

The theory of "survival of the fittest" has been proven to be incorrect.
By whom? Scientists still agree that the theory of evolution is still correct. Despite what this guy says.

This is crux of the entire argument. Scientists have mapped the human genome; there are 30,000 genes in human DNA and not one of them has anything to do with being selfish.
Here you apparently don't know how that works. When we mapped the gene code we figured out where all the base pairs are, not what each individual gene does. That requires much more scientific study.

[Tungsten]

The Anarchist Tension

The naturist and anarchist Peter Kropotkin spent most of his early adult life studying animals and in his book 'Mutual Aid' (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html) he refutes Darwin's theory of 'survival of the fittest' and argues that the species of creature on the planet that survived the most were not the "fittest" but those that worked in solidarity.
Darwin said the creatures that were likey to survive were those that were most adaptive to change, which is true. He never mentioned "survival of the fittest".

When a penis enters a vagina and stimulates the clitoris, the woman will feel pleasure.
Go and ask a woman who's been raped if she felt pleasure.

Water is free. We can get it anywhere we want, yet water is given a price and sold to us.
Water needs to be pumped, purified and the systems to transport it installed -all at cost. Help yourself to a glass of sea water- that's free.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 08:07 pm
The Anarchist Tension

The naturist and anarchist Peter Kropotkin spent most of his early adult life studying animals and in his book 'Mutual Aid' (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html) he refutes Darwin's theory of 'survival of the fittest' and argues that the species of creature on the planet that survived the most were not the "fittest" but those that worked in solidarity.
Darwin said the creatures that were likey to survive were those that were most adaptive to change, which is true. He never mentioned "survival of the fittest".
:rolleyes:

Are you seriously claiming that Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest"?



Water is free. We can get it anywhere we want, yet water is given a price and sold to us.
Water needs to be pumped, purified and the systems to transport it installed -all at cost. Help yourself to a glass of sea water- that's free.

The only reason it requires cost is due to the system of profit making. Remove the system of profit and ensure that all socially necessary work is complete, all these things can be done for free.

It will require people having to do socially necessary work, but that's the point of creating communism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 07:13 pm

When a penis enters a vagina and stimulates the clitoris, the woman will feel pleasure.
I'm not a rape expert (and nether are you), but it would seem that the sheer terror, fear, and tramua of the incident would cancel out any pleasure from the event.
Pleasure is often a physical thing. If someone masturbated your penis and you didn't want them to, when you came you would still feel pleasure.

I think, however, my analgy doesn't work because pleasure isn't always physical.



Water is free. We can get it anywhere we want, yet water is given a price and sold to us.
Where do you get your water? Water is not everywhere. If you do not have the tools to collect and purify the water, than you will not be able to drink it. And there are places like deserts and wasteleands where you would have to fight for water.

So then society organises it so that everyone can be provided with water; but instead of you paying money for someone to do that in order for them to make a profit, groups of people volunteer their time as socially necessary and the water is provided for free.



Yes, that's one way but as I said already and provided a link to the book, which obviously you have no intention of reading, the species most likely to survive are those that work in co-operation and solidarity with each other.
Okay I didn't read the book. But we are not ants or bees. We are Humans.

That's besides the point. The point is, the species that survives the most are those that work in co-operation and solidarity, not those that are the strongest.



The theory of "survival of the fittest" has been proven to be incorrect.
By whom? Scientists still agree that the theory of evolution is still correct. Despite what this guy says.

Several scientists have discovered that human beings will release dopamine and seratonine into the blood stream when they have primarily accomplished a good ( there is a leading article on the net, but I can't find it)

This is not to mention the fact that human beings are social animals.



This is crux of the entire argument. Scientists have mapped the human genome; there are 30,000 genes in human DNA and not one of them has anything to do with being selfish.
Here you apparently don't know how that works. When we mapped the gene code we figured out where all the base pairs are, not what each individual gene does. That requires much more scientific study.

The majority of scientists reject the notion that there is or ever will be a gene that programmes our levels of "selfishness".

[RNK]

Can you please explain the difference to me?

I'll put it in very easy-to-understand terms.

I can masturbate for an entire day, but it doesn't change the fact that I have $500 of bills to pay every month and only $200 to pay them. Which makes me unhappy.


I believe you said that things only have value because society attaches value to them.

I'd disagree with that. Certain members of society attached value to things, not society as a whole.

[KC]

Are you seriously claiming that Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest"?

Actually, he didn't. Herbert Spencer is attributed with first using the phrase in his book Principles of Biology in 1864, five years after Darwin's The Origin of Species was published. Although Spencer claims that he developed the phrase from reading The Origin of Species Darwin never himself used the phrase, preferring the term "natural selection".

Also, many people misunderstand Darwin's theories because of various misinterpretations and theories developed out of these misinterpretations (social Darwinism being the most well-known). Darwin never claimed that species compete with each other, but rather that they compete with nature and that those that survive do so because they are able to compete with nature and survive. Whether they do this through cooperation or competition is irrelevent. I would attribute Kropotkin's Mutual Aid as evidence in support of Darwin's theories and not an alternative theory itself. However, there have been many books written on Darwin's theories and how cooperation fits into them. If you go to your local library you should be able to find plenty of these.


I'd disagree with that. Certain members of society attached value to things, not society as a whole.

Actually, I'd disagree. Obviously everybody recognizes the value of a commodity today, which is basically attaching a value to it. Of course, if you're talking about the creation of value during the birth of capitalism I would agree with you.

[ComradeR]

The colonial powers weren't capitalist, so therefore it isn't capitalitilism fault.

Funny considering that capitalism has existed in the west for centuries and that the colonial empires (which were/are the western nations) only fell apart after WW2 (the anti-colonial movement that swept the world following the war) So unless your saying that capitalism has only been around in the west for 50 years, it IS capitalisms fault.


Oh and the problems of Zimbabwe are their problems, not ours.

Like i said not all of Africas problems are capitalisms fault, but many of them are.


Capitalists can't be blamed for Africa since colovialism isn't capitalism and we try to help Africa, which as I recall you don't try to help.

Oh really? last time i checked it was independent charities and people who volunteer who try and help not, the capitalist powers who sit back, do nothing but argue with each other (just to put on a show, again i use Rwanda as an example of this) make deals with dictators and despots for oil ect. and supply those dictators with arms.


Have you read "Freakanomics"? I believe they used an example just like this. The Loving family kid grew up to be the Unabomber and the Hated family kid grew up to help write the book

Uh huh then explain why a person that grows up in a ghetto with a broken family is far more likely to end up in prison for theft, drugs and/or murder?


It's an American thing.

What the hell? well i shouldnt be surprised, what else would you expect from a little dumbass southern capitalist asshole.


And Einstein was in physics, not biology. So waht makes him qualified to say that?

Since you seem to have missed this part ill put it up here again.

"Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society."

He actually did scientific research, something which you obviously have not.


By providing jobs and pumping money into thier economoy?

Wow i can't believe you said that, look into what damage NAFTA and other trade deals have done to the people of those countries before you go spouting shit like that.


Actually the lot of the middle and lower class has gotten worse. Poverty has risen and the money remains in the hand of Chavez and his cronies. His populism will only get him so far.

Really? so you have actually been then and seen this? or are you just regurgitating the bullshit the US media has feed you. And if the middle and lower class has gotten worse then how come he is so popular with them?


P.S. how many here listen to country music?

Why the hell do you keep asking this? Are you obsessed with country music or something?

[Tungsten]

The Anarchist Tension

Are you seriously claiming that Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest"?
Nor did Rick in Casablanca say "Play it again, Sam."

The only reason it requires cost is due to the system of profit making. Remove the system of profit and ensure that all socially necessary work is complete, all these things can be done for free.
Are you saying the workers should work for nothing? That's a system guaranteed to rip off the workers.

It will require people having to do socially necessary work, but that's the point of creating communism.
What's socially necessary? According to who?

[RebelDog]

from wiki concerning the term "survival of the fittest"


It was used by Darwin in the 5th edition of The Origin published on 10 February 1869, in a secondary header of Chapter 4 about natural selection [2] and at several places in the text, mostly using the phrase "Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest


Nor did Rick in Casablanca say "Play it again, Sam."

You are right there however, maybe you should stick to what you know.


What's socially necessary? According to who?

According to the needs of the human populace surely? Not the free-market. The bourgeoise crudely decide what is worthy by how much profit an enterprise will make. Why should the bourgeoise decide what is right for all?

[red team]

Are you seriously claiming that Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest"?

In Victorian times, Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903) and other "social Darwinists" as they were known thought they could find support in Darwin's ideas for their ruthless laissez-faire economic policies.

Darwin never claimed his theories justified social inequality or eugenic policies.