In regards to a conversation on Live Chat...

[Ol' Dirty]

Your opinion is that communism is not a worthwhile venture, yet you say that you are "rather fond" of it.

You (Liberal_Kid) state that "communism is good in theory, but simply isn't realistic," yet I fail to see how the communalization of private property, such as factories, transportation and agriculture are unrealistic ventures, unless one considers the significant opposition that is placed before it, is unrealistic.

Communism receives no positive PR, due to the upper class's extensive campaigns to demonize those who would support a theory that would support altruism and condemn greed. As long as that is true, then you are right: there is no way communism can flourish under such harsh conditions.

You claim that communism is unrealistic because it assumes people are good, which simply is not true. Communism does not assume that people are altogether altruistic, but it does assume that humankind as a whole has altruistic qualities within it, and that these qualities should be grown to full strength, instead of the support of greed.

Why do you seem to have such a problem with supporting a system that allows sharing and community, along with individuality and happiness?

[ZX3]

The next question which ought be asked (but unfortunately is rarely answeered) is:

HOW does communsim allow for "sharing and communitty?" Describe how it might work. But alas! Such basic questions seem beneath the dignity of the revlefters.

[ComradeRed]

Can We Ever Say How Communism Will "Work"? (http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theory97e9.html?subaction=showfull&id=1083117353&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:22 am
The next question which ought be asked (but unfortunately is rarely answeered) is:

HOW does communsim allow for "sharing and communitty?" Describe how it might work. But alas! Such basic questions seem beneath the dignity of the revlefters.
To be honest, I don't actually even understand the question because communism is based off of "sharing and the community".

[Publius]

I actually do have a few issues with communism, practically. One, status items. People buy objects for the simple reason they can; this isn't strictly capitalist propaganda, but it appears to be human nature. Is buying a gold necklace at cost really any more ridiculous than making a necklace out of shells? Both are actions of vanity, undertaken to demonstrate status. But status isn't status if everyone has it, or everyone can do it. At some point, communism would have to to be stratified because people would make it stratified. If it comes down to human solidarity vs. petty displays of wealth and status, the latter will win every time. You need only look at houses with gold faucets and diamond door knobs to see that.

It is human nature to start 'in groups' and 'out groups.' It is human nature to flaunt your possessions and talents over others. And to an extent it's human nature to be lazy. Now true, it's also human nature to be civil, to be kind, to be altruistic, and to be sociable. But starting a society on only half of human nature, ignoring large swaths of human behavior, is simply impossible. You could no more craft a totally self-less society than you could craft a society where people do not love their close family members. Both of those behaviors (contradictory as they seem) are ingrained in human behavior, and if you think you can create a society that extirpates hatred OR love, or any other dialectic, you're mistaken.

Now, if, instead, you're asking the question could a society better than the current one exist (which you most certainly should be doing), then the answer is obviously yes. Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Inequality will exist because people want it to exist, simply because people want to be better than other people, even if only in the rarefied example of sexual relations (which all other behaviors are predicated on, to a degree; you really don't think I talk like this for pure amusement, do you?) To put brotherhood and fraternity first means putting solidarity ahead of sex (and, necessarily, everything else.) Somehow I don't feel that people now, or ever, will be willing to make communistic living their chief goal. I mean, I could be wrong, but that would probably mean people would stop having sex; and who wants that?

[Enragé]

I actually do have a few issues with communism, practically. One, status items. People buy objects for the simple reason they can; this isn't strictly capitalist propaganda, but it appears to be human nature. Is buying a gold necklace at cost really any more ridiculous than making a necklace out of shells? Both are actions of vanity, undertaken to demonstrate status. But status isn't status if everyone has it, or everyone can do it. At some point, communism would have to to be stratified because people would make it stratified. If it comes down to human solidarity vs. petty displays of wealth and status, the latter will win every time. You need only look at houses with gold faucets and diamond door knobs to see that.

you're looking at status way too one-dimensionally.

Having gold necklaces is a sign of status in capitalist society because succes in capitalist society equals being rich (which earns you respect), and having a gold necklace is a sign of that (which therefore gives you respect, respect = status).
The more a society is enveloped in capitalist mentality the more "bling bling" comes into it.

In certain societies, wealth is/was infact frowned upon, which still is the case amongst many in the country where i live (the netherlands), which is a legacy of extremer forms of social democracy and general leftism. To have a ferrari is by many not considered to be a good thing, but "show-boating" (i hope im using the term correctly). This is slowly dying out because of more neo-liberalist tendencies (a more capitalist zeitgeist), though i suspect (or hope perhaps) a backlash is coming.

I think a good example are those programmes on MTV about how rich all those celebs are, how they have 5 airplanes and rent entire theme parks for their kids and spend thousands on their pets. Apparently, this is seen as a good thing in the country of the programmes' origin (the US), here however such decadence is widely met with disgust (as Britney's pet gets clothes worth thousands african children die of starvation)... though again under the influence of the changing zeitgeist this disgust is on the retreat (especially under certain segments of the youth).

In communism, respect, thus status, is gained not by the possesion of wealth and the material goods reflecting that, it is gained by generally being a "good" guy (i.e being in solidarity with others, hard-working etc)
Also, communism does not mean that everyone has exactly the same, people can still express their individuality, through jewellery even if they so desire. The point is that no one has the inherent right to have more than the other in relation to what they need.


It is human nature to start 'in groups' and 'out groups.' It is human nature to flaunt your possessions and talents over others. And to an extent it's human nature to be lazy. Now true, it's also human nature to be civil, to be kind, to be altruistic, and to be sociable. But starting a society on only half of human nature, ignoring large swaths of human behavior, is simply impossible.

human nature is something which cannot be proven.
I can also just say "Human nature is communist"
now would that be an argument?
No

Mutual aid is a factor of evolution. The egocentricity of any living being (you view the world from your own viewpoint, your own background etc) coupled with its dependency (certainly in modern society) on other people propells him towards co-operation.


You could no more craft a totally self-less society than you could craft a society where people do not love their close family members. Both of those behaviors (contradictory as they seem) are ingrained in human behavior, and if you think you can create a society that extirpates hatred OR love, or any other dialectic, you're mistaken.


comunism is NOT altruism
it is collective egoism
People coming together for their own good because they KNOW they need other people to have a decent life.


To put brotherhood and fraternity first means putting solidarity ahead of sex (and, necessarily, everything else.)

what? :blink:

you go and have sex on your own then!

You need other people to have sex, therefore you co-operate with them.

[Publius]

you're looking at status way too one-dimensionally.

Having gold necklaces is a sign of status in capitalist society because succes in capitalist society equals being rich (which earns you respect), and having a gold necklace is a sign of that (which therefore gives you respect, respect = status).
The more a society is enveloped in capitalist mentality the more "bling bling" comes into it.

No, having anything is status because that's something other people don't have.

It's not 'capitalism', it's basic logic. Even pre-capitalists coveted pebbles and shiny things for the same reason: vanity.

Why do you think this will change?



In certain societies, wealth is/was infact frowned upon, which still is the case amongst many in the country where i live (the netherlands),

Of course wealth is frowned upon when you don't have it. I'm sure that the rich don't lose a wink of sleep over your disapproval. In fact, they're probably at your poverty right now; I hear that's a fun game among the wealthy.

You show me a society where people would rather be poor than rich and you might have a case.



which is a legacy of extremer forms of social democracy and general leftism. To have a ferrari is by many not considered to be a good thing, but "show-boating" (i hope im using the term correctly).

You're using it correctly.

But you're missing a point. It's SUPPOSED TO BE showboating. That's the point of it. They didn't just drop a 125Gs on a new car so they could drive it to work like everyone else, they spent that money to flaunt it to people like you, to instill jealousy. And it worked.

You see what I'm saying? Status items are status items because you can't afford them. If everyone just went "Eh, a Ferrari." it would no longer be a status item.



I think a good example are those programmes on MTV about how rich all those celebs are, how they have 5 airplanes and rent entire theme parks for their kids and spend thousands on their pets. Apparently, this is seen as a good thing in the country of the programmes' origin (the US), here however such decadence is widely met with disgust (as Britney's pet gets clothes worth thousands african children die of starvation)... though again under the influence of the changing zeitgeist this disgust is on the retreat (especially under certain segments of the youth).

It doesn't matter how poor people view it, because they're poor.

Again, you're not looking at this properly. It's supposed wasteful. They're pissing their money just to prove that they can, to make a spectacle of themselves, to say "Fuck you, I'm rich and you're not."



In communism, respect, thus status, is gained not by the possesion of wealth and the material goods reflecting that, it is gained by generally being a "good" guy (i.e being in solidarity with others, hard-working etc)

Why? In communism people won't want nice cars or fancy jewelry? They'll want to live like paupers or the Dutch?

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Bad joke.

I know communism is all about 'changing the way people think' and all that, but you aren't going able to magically make people happy with ground chuck over fillet mignon or a Yugo over a Porsche when people WANT good steaks and cars. The problem isn't that capitalism forces people to want nice things to show off, the problem is people want nice things to show off, and capitalism appeases that.

Every human society has had vanity. It's universal.



Also, communism does not mean that everyone has exactly the same, people can still express their individuality, through jewellery even if they so desire. The point is that no one has the inherent right to have more than the other in relation to what they need.

It's not worth having if everyone else has it. It wouldn't be punk if everyone listened to it, if you catch what I mean.



human nature is something which cannot be proven.

Yes it is. Steven Pinker, and others, have written numerous books on the very subject, including "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature", a book I very much encourage everyone to read. It's not a 'capitalist' book at all, but a scientific one.

And to preempt, I know a lot of you dislike Evolutionary Psychology as a rule, but for some reason I think the world-renowned scientists more impartial and scientific than the jaded Marxists.



I can also just say "Human nature is communist"
now would that be an argument?
No

No, because it would demonstrably false.

My assertion, on the other hand, is demonstrably true: people buy things purely for status. Do you deny this? Why do you wear the clothes you do? Would you wear any old thing?



Mutual aid is a factor of evolution. The egocentricity of any living being (you view the world from your own viewpoint, your own background etc) coupled with its dependency (certainly in modern society) on other people propells him towards co-operation.

In part, yes.



comunism is NOT altruism

Gift economy.



it is collective egoism

Nonsense.



People coming together for their own good because they KNOW they need other people to have a decent life.

Shit, that's the capitalists say about capitalism.



what? :blink:

you go and have sex on your own then!

Way ahead of you.

But two people do not make a society.



You need other people to have sex, therefore you co-operate with them.

And?

[Ol' Dirty]

Way to deviate from the origional post, restricted members.

[Enragé]

No, having anything is status because that's something other people don't have

based on what exactly?

If we tomorrow found a cure for AIDS and wiped it off the face of the planet, except in ONE person
Would that person then have added status because he has something which has now become extremely rare? <_<


It&#39;s not &#39;capitalism&#39;, it&#39;s basic logic. Even pre-capitalists coveted pebbles and shiny things for the same reason: vanity.


No its not and how is liking beatiful things confer any status on the person if you have those things?


Of course wealth is frowned upon when you don&#39;t have it. I&#39;m sure that the rich don&#39;t lose a wink of sleep over your disapproval. In fact, they&#39;re probably at your poverty right now; I hear that&#39;s a fun game among the wealthy.

You show me a society where people would rather be poor than rich and you might have a case.

How is this in any way relevant?
The point is that wealth does not necessarily get you respect, thus status. Therefore your whole argument that stratification necessarily occurs because people want status, is nulled, since status can be gotten in different ways, and indeed often is.


But you&#39;re missing a point. It&#39;s SUPPOSED TO BE showboating. That&#39;s the point of it. They didn&#39;t just drop a 125Gs on a new car so they could drive it to work like everyone else, they spent that money to flaunt it to people like you, to instill jealousy. And it worked.

You see what I&#39;m saying? Status items are status items because you can&#39;t afford them

But YOU are missing the point
THAT FERRARI DOESNT [necessarily] GIVE YOU STATUS

show-boating in the negative sense, if there indeed is a possibility of a positive one


If everyone just went "Eh, a Ferrari." it would no longer be a status item.


so? you&#39;re point being?
That in communism everyone would have a ferrari and therefore it will no longer be cool?

get this; in communism material possesions such as those will not be what decides your status.
Yes people like shiny things, people also like different shiny things, who the fuck cares, its not the point, the point is that those shiny things do not necessarily highten status
I have never thought higher of somebody because he had a shiny necklace, have you?
:rolleyes:


Again, you&#39;re not looking at this properly. It&#39;s supposed wasteful. They&#39;re pissing their money just to prove that they can, to make a spectacle of themselves, to say "Fuck you, I&#39;m rich and you&#39;re not."

You are completely missing the point.
The point is that people dont respect them for it, therefore their status isnt any higher


Why? In communism people won&#39;t want nice cars or fancy jewelry?

err i havent got a fuckin clue
maybe they will
maybe they wont
its irrelevant

the point is that in communism nice cars or fancy jewelry will NOT highten your status, which is also a reason why those things will probably be less of a "must-have".


I know communism is all about &#39;changing the way people think&#39;

what on earth have you been reading?
Communism is about the abolition of class society through the revolution of the working class. This new material reality will produce a new mentality, just as capitalism produced a mentality different from feudalism.

To bring about these changes, people have to be convinced of certain things (the necessity of revolution), but nothing so grandiose as "changing the way people think".


but you aren&#39;t going able to magically make people happy with ground chuck over fillet mignon or a Yugo over a Porsche when people WANT good steaks and cars

If people want that stuff, they make it, if not, they dont.
Simple.


The problem isn&#39;t that capitalism forces people to want nice things to show off, the problem is people want nice things to show off, and capitalism appeases that.


you keep making empty statements
prove to me people want that?

No, capitalism doesnt force that on people. People want status, and in capitalism status is related to the amount of your wealth, those nice things are a reflection of that, so therefore people want those nice things to at the very least create the illusion that they have status.


It&#39;s not worth having if everyone else has it. It wouldn&#39;t be punk if everyone listened to it, if you catch what I mean.

Err
punk would infact still be punk if everyone listened to it.
"Punk" isnt defined by its marginalisation, its relative unpopularity amongst the mainstream.


Yes it is. Steven Pinker, and others, have written numerous books on the very subject, including "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature", a book I very much encourage everyone to read. It&#39;s not a &#39;capitalist&#39; book at all, but a scientific one.

Not a whole book of philosophical arguments again starting with a flawed "axioma"?
Hobbes tried it, he was full of shit.


know a lot of you dislike Evolutionary Psychology as a rule

err
im using evolutionary arguments later on <_<


In part, yes.

wonderful arguments to disprove my point :rolleyes:

what part isnt? <_<


Gift economy.

Which only works under the concept that everyone also equally recieves from society.

One works to one&#39;s ability, gives to others/society by doing that, and one recieves according to need from those/that very same others/society.


Nonsense.

wonderful argument once again

no its not


Shit, that&#39;s the capitalists say about capitalism.


capitalism is not people coming together because they know they have to to survive, capitalism is one part of society enslaving the other part of society and robbing it blind.
Big difference.


Way ahead of you.

But two people do not make a society.

No, but Mr. Evolution, you also need more than two people to have a sustainable society (inbreeding doesnt work too well), i.e decent sex for your offspring.


And?

you said

"To put brotherhood and fraternity first means putting solidarity ahead of sex "

This is nonsense because brotherhood, fraternity, and solidarity do in no way negate sex, do not put in on the back row in any way.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 01:48 am






based on what exactly?

Jealousy.



If we tomorrow found a cure for AIDS and wiped it off the face of the planet, except in ONE person
Would that person then have added status because he has something which has now become extremely rare? <_<


No, because none wants AIDS, so it isn&#39;t a status symbol. Really, think this through.


No its not and how is liking beatiful things confer any status on the person if you have those things?

You have an item that people want, due in part to its rarity.



How is this in any way relevant?
The point is that wealth does not necessarily get you respect, thus status. Therefore your whole argument that stratification necessarily occurs because people want status, is nulled, since status can be gotten in different ways, and indeed often is.

Just because status can be gotten through ways other than wealth doesn&#39;t mean status isn&#39;t often aqcuired through wealth.



But YOU are missing the point
THAT FERRARI DOESNT [necessarily] GIVE YOU STATUS

Yes it does. It&#39;s a status-symbol. Do you think most people buy cars like this just because of the fine engineering?



show-boating in the negative sense, if there indeed is a possibility of a positive one

Would you rather have a nice or a piece of shit car? The question answers itself and hopefull the point makes itself.




so? you&#39;re point being?
That in communism everyone would have a ferrari and therefore it will no longer be cool?

Indirectly, yes.



get this; in communism material possesions such as those will not be what decides your status.

Yes, in part, they will be.



Yes people like shiny things, people also like different shiny things, who the fuck cares, its not the point, the point is that those shiny things do not necessarily highten status
I have never thought higher of somebody because he had a shiny necklace, have you?
:rolleyes:

Turn on the television; who do you see? What are they wearning? Look at a fashion magazine sometime, they fly off the shelves here in the states.




You are completely missing the point.
The point is that people dont respect them for it, therefore their status isnt any higher


So the average bum off the street has as much status as a movie star or famous musician. Your argument just isn&#39;t coherent. Actually, it isn&#39;t an argument, you&#39;re just disagreeing with me, seemingly for the sake of disagreeing.

Status exists. Fact. Status will always exist, again, fact. Status is based partly upon your possessions. Fact.

That&#39;s my argument in so many points. What are you disagreeing with?



err i havent got a fuckin clue
maybe they will
maybe they wont
its irrelevant

the point is that in communism nice cars or fancy jewelry will NOT highten your status, which is also a reason why those things will probably be less of a "must-have".

Yes they will because they do by nature. Fine watches are fine for a reason. Same for paintings, same for cars. It&#39;s socialization, some things are &#39;high class&#39; some are low. Your status in society is determined by what you own and what you are a connesiour of, in large part. Humans are a social species, and they form social groups with social HIERARCHIES.


what on earth have you been reading?

Posts like yours apparently:
This new material reality will produce a new mentality


If people want that stuff, they make it, if not, they dont.
Simple.

No, it&#39;s not that simple. People consume certain items simply because they can, as a show of influence or power or wealth or intelligence. If everyone had access to these items, they would lose their effect and so new methods of social stratificaiton would be created, necessarily.



you keep making empty statements
prove to me people want that?

People live in in societies; social animals. In human societies, there are hierarchies. People want to climb these hierarchies, so they behave in certain ways. FOllow?



No, capitalism doesnt force that on people. People want status, and in capitalism status is related to the amount of your wealth, those nice things are a reflection of that, so therefore people want those nice things to at the very least create the illusion that they have status.

People always want &#39;nice things&#39;. Who would want &#39;shitty things&#39;?



Err
punk would infact still be punk if everyone listened to it.
"Punk" isnt defined by its marginalisation, its relative unpopularity amongst the mainstream.


Yes, yes it is. That was what punk was about, rebellion, anarchy, nihilism. If you&#39;re the ruling social order, you can&#39;t rightfully rebel against yourself.

Punk has to marginalized because it&#39;s inimical to mainstream society.



Not a whole book of philosophical arguments again starting with a flawed "axioma"?
Hobbes tried it, he was full of shit.


No, it&#39;s a book of science. Novel idea.


capitalism is not people coming together because they know they have to to survive, capitalism is one part of society enslaving the other part of society and robbing it blind.
Big difference.


I didn&#39;t say that&#39;s what it actually was, I said that&#39;s what capitalists said it was.

Big difference.




No, but Mr. Evolution, you also need more than two people to have a sustainable society (inbreeding doesnt work too well), i.e decent sex for your offspring.

I&#39;m simplifying, obviously.



you said

"To put brotherhood and fraternity first means putting solidarity ahead of sex "

This is nonsense because brotherhood, fraternity, and solidarity do in no way negate sex, do not put in on the back row in any way.

There&#39;s nothing wrong with my original statement. Read it again, it&#39;s true. If you put solidarity with the working class first, you&#39;re putting sex second (at least), by definition.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Fawkes+March 02, 2007 01:51 pm--> (Fawkes &#064; March 02, 2007 01:51 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 09:22 am
The next question which ought be asked (but unfortunately is rarely answeered) is:

HOW does communsim allow for "sharing and communitty?" Describe how it might work. But alas&#33; Such basic questions seem beneath the dignity of the revlefters.
To be honest, I don&#39;t actually even understand the question because communism is based off of "sharing and the community". [/b]
Fine. Describe how "sharing and the community" might appear in concrete reality.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:14 pm
Can We Ever Say How Communism Will "Work"? (http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theory97e9.html?subaction=showfull&id=1083117353&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)
So what are those principles? The author makes few suggestions: It should be democratic (but then inexplicably suggests that if such a community remains "patriarcial" it would not qualify). The author suggests that production won&#39;t include certain things (fine. So let&#39;s speculate on production WITHOUT those certain things). essentially, the author suggests people will just figure things out as they go along, which the author also concedes will be messy for a while until thing straighten out (straighten out under what ideas? Why go through all that turmoil if we know how a socialist community should look?).

To make a democratic decision requires certain knowlege. What is that knowledge? how can anyone argue that one course of action is stronger than another course of action if there is no knowledge behind the decision? How can people democratically make an intelligent decision in such an environment? What kind of democracy will really exist?

The author suggests his (or her) ignorance of how socialism will "work" is a virtue. It isn&#39;t. It is a major problem.

[Enragé]

Jealousy.


:huh:
so me thinking "hey, i want that too", confers status on the guy who actually does have it?
Think again.

I may even hate the guy for it.


No, because none wants AIDS, so it isn&#39;t a status symbol. Really, think this through.


And in the same way the motivations for having to have a ferrari will disappear in communist society, since it will no longer be a status symbol. Status is then defined not by posessions, as it is in capitalist society (since it is a reflection of material wealth which is what your success in capitalist society is based upon).
Success in communism is something different than having alot of shit, success is what gets you status/respect, therefore having alot of shit will reflect nothing else that the mere fact...that you have alot of shit.


Just because status can be gotten through ways other than wealth doesn&#39;t mean status isn&#39;t often aqcuired through wealth.


No but it does mean that wanting to have status does not necessarily lead to the stratification of society.


Yes it does. It&#39;s a status-symbol. Do you think most people buy cars like this just because of the fine engineering?


No they dont
But, people buy fancy cars in capitalism because fancy cars are a reflection of your capitalist succes (that is to say, succes in capitalist society is measured by the amount of material wealth you have acquired, and fancy cars reflect that, therefore give you status).

Since in communism material wealth isnt the measure of success, people will not see a fancy car as a status symbol.


Would you rather have a nice or a piece of shit car? The question answers itself and hopefull the point makes itself.

Honestly i dont give a fuck, as long as the thing gets me from A to B decently enough. I actually prefer public transport to some degree (as long as shit&#39;s on time), but thats just a personal opinion


Indirectly, yes.


well then you&#39;re wrong
some people will have a ferrari, others a lamborgini :P


Turn on the television; who do you see? What are they wearning? Look at a fashion magazine sometime, they fly off the shelves here in the states.

your point being?
Yes in capitalism those things are status symbols since they reflect a large amount of material wealth, which means your succesful, and succes gives you status

The point is that in and of itself shiny things do not give you status. Cheap, fake diamonds shine well enough, are beatiful, yet they are not status symbols, because they do not reflect large amounts of material wealth, therefore do not reflect succes, therefore not status.


So the average bum off the street has as much status as a movie star or famous musician. Your argument just isn&#39;t coherent

No, you&#39;re just missing the point.
The point is that the having of shiny things in and of itself do not give those people status, only when coupled with the fact that large amounts of material wealth/the possibility of acquiring those shiny things are signs of succes in capitalist society, and it is that what gives them status.
Not the shiny things in and of itself.


Status exists. Fact. Status will always exist, again, fact. Status is based partly upon your possessions in capitalist society (since its a reflection of your capitalist succes). Fact

fixed it for you.
The facts are actually facts now.


Fine watches are fine for a reason. Same for paintings, same for cars. It&#39;s socialization, some things are &#39;high class&#39; some are low. Your status in society is determined by what you own and what you are a connesiour of, in large part.

Fine watches are fine because they are beatiful, work well etc. Fine paintings are beautiful with wonderous techniques..or whatever. But the owning of those things does not inherently give you status (only when its a reflection of something else, i.e in capitalism it reflects your succes).
Now if you actually made those things yourself, now that would give you status.
Anything not of yourself inherently, that is to say not your innate qualities, your character, your abilities etc, does not inherently give you status (only when coupled to something else). Seneca would call those things "indifferentia", those things who do not matter.


Posts like yours apparently:
QUOTE
This new material reality will produce a new mentality


Err yea
but that has nothing to do with changing how people think.
The change in mentality is a consequence of the change in material conditions, it doesnt come about simply by persuading everyone.

And you cant deny that new material reality makes for new a mentality.


People always want &#39;nice things&#39;. Who would want &#39;shitty things&#39;?

Nobody
but nice things giving you status in and of itself is nonsense.


Yes, yes it is. That was what punk was about, rebellion, anarchy, nihilism. If you&#39;re the ruling social order, you can&#39;t rightfully rebel against yourself.

Punk has to marginalized because it&#39;s inimical to mainstream society.

alright point taken.
still doesnt prove anything.


I&#39;m simplifying, obviously.

to the extent that it makes no sense anymore, obviously


There&#39;s nothing wrong with my original statement. Read it again, it&#39;s true. If you put solidarity with the working class first, you&#39;re putting sex second (at least), by definition.

in what way?

Sex can only come about if more than one person wants it, and thats just on the short term, on the long term (sustainable sex :P) it can only exist when there is a society with a suffiently varied genepool, i.e enough people in it.
Sex, if anything, is the result of solidarity with your fellow man, it is in no way antithetical to it.


Lastly, you still havent responded to my evolutionary arguments.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by ZX3+March 03, 2007 05:39 am--> (ZX3 @ March 03, 2007 05:39 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:51 pm

[email protected] 02, 2007 09:22 am
The next question which ought be asked (but unfortunately is rarely answeered) is:

HOW does communsim allow for "sharing and communitty?" Describe how it might work. But alas&#33; Such basic questions seem beneath the dignity of the revlefters.
To be honest, I don&#39;t actually even understand the question because communism is based off of "sharing and the community".
Fine. Describe how "sharing and the community" might appear in concrete reality. [/b]
Reading something may do you good. (http://marxists.org/)

Read me too, I&#39;m even better. (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/index.html)

Sorry for derailing it further Muig :( .

[freakazoid]

Yes it does. It&#39;s a status-symbol. Do you think most people buy cars like this just because of the fine engineering?

Most, no but that is because of greed. But many do. I would if I had that kind of money. Very finely made car. I prefer the Lamborghini over the Ferrari though. Although a GT40 or a McLaren F1 would also be very nice, mmmm... drooool. :D

[jstyles01]

it kills me to say this but communism is only good in theory.......But wut sounds good on paper doesnt always work in practice................i&#39;m depressed now :(

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Fawkes+March 03, 2007 12:27 pm--> (Fawkes @ March 03, 2007 12:27 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:39 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:51 pm

[email protected] 02, 2007 09:22 am
The next question which ought be asked (but unfortunately is rarely answeered) is:

HOW does communsim allow for "sharing and communitty?" Describe how it might work. But alas&#33; Such basic questions seem beneath the dignity of the revlefters.
To be honest, I don&#39;t actually even understand the question because communism is based off of "sharing and the community".
Fine. Describe how "sharing and the community" might appear in concrete reality.
Reading something may do you good. (http://marxists.org/)

Read me too, I&#39;m even better. (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/index.html)

Sorry for derailing it further Muig :( . [/b]
It&#39;s fine, dude.