The problem with the revolution 2

[antired]

OK... rational arguments here yea?

Point one

a) Human nature is selfish.

Humans are not "naturally selfish/greedy". That's capitalism's fault.Could it

b) Could it not just as well be that we are naturally selfish full stop, and thats the reason were in capitalism

Human nature is something that should be inherent in our behaviors at all times. Is everyone greedy at all times? No.

c) So what? Compassion is within us as well. People are greedy sometimes, and not greedy others, but there will always will be some greed, and some compassion. Like the Yin and Yang thing :)

What points do you quarrel with?

Point two

Jesus taught us to try to be selfless, and we should try to follow him, (personally) however it is impossibleto be wholly slefless, just as no one can be wholly perfect.

Point three

I am against communism - that is why my name is what it is. Just because i oppose your ideas, i dont
deserve any respect from [you] whatsoever

So all in all thats nearly the entire world doesnt deserve any respect form you?

[Jazzratt]

Point one: Arguing that some people will be greedy doesn't serve as much of an argument against revolutionary communism, greed isn't something that will prevent it from working.

Point two: I don't understand the relevance of what your zombie lord said.

Point three: Most people don't have such a strong opposition to communism that they join a website for communists and use a name designed to provoke a negative reaction in order to make half-thought-out criticisms of communism. THey therefore deserve more respect tan you.

[antired]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:14 pm
Point one: Arguing that some people will be greedy doesn't serve as much of an argument against revolutionary communism, greed isn't something that will prevent it from working.

Point two: I don't understand the relevance of what your zombie lord said.

Point three: Most people don't have such a strong opposition to communism that they join a website for communists and use a name designed to provoke a negative reaction in order to make half-thought-out criticisms of communism. THey therefore deserve more respect tan you.
Point one: ALL people will be greedy, and greed will prevent it from working. People will take for themselves, accumulating wealth. at the expence of somebody else.

Point two: This is a continuation from the points in my previous thread. People said that Jesus taught communism. It was a continuation from that.

Zombie Lord - thats not funny :angry: Well kinda...

Point three

I don't have "such a strong opposition to communism"

Nor was my name used to "provoke a negative reaction," merely to show the fact that i was against communism. I also said that i would be willing to change it if theree was a way: I didnt know that it would be so offensive - poorly thought out on my behalf - apologies.

"half-thought-out criticisms of communism." they may well be, the same argument could be applied to your ideas - the argument hasnt really gone far enough to decide that.

I have to go - ill be on again twomorrow

[antired]

I would also have thought Jazzrat, that your picture "FUCK YOUR OPINION" is purposefully trying to provoke a negative reaction from others - no?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:32 pm
Point one: ALL people will be greedy, and greed will prevent it from working. People will take for themselves, accumulating wealth. at the expence of somebody else.
But declaring that all people will be/are greedy is positing an essential human nature, is it not?


Point two: This is a continuation from the points in my previous thread. People said that Jesus taught communism. It was a continuation from that.

Well that side of the argument is for someone else to deal with, because it's not something I'm really enthused about.


I don't have "such a strong opposition to communism"

Bollocks. People that aren't strongly opposed to communism do not spend their free time trying to argue against communists, it takes a certian dedication to do that.


Nor was my name used to "provoke a negative reaction," merely to show the fact that i was against communism. I also said that i would be willing to change it if theree was a way: I didnt know that it would be so offensive - poorly thought out on my behalf - apologies.

Right enough.


"half-thought-out criticisms of communism." they may well be, the same argument could be applied to your ideas - the argument hasnt really gone far enough to decide that.

The point is that you're coming here to post criticisms of communism, which (as I mentioned previously) is not the behaviour of someone who isn't strongly opposed to communism.


I would also have thought Jazzrat, that your picture "FUCK YOUR OPINION" is purposefully trying to provoke a negative reaction from others - no?

I always understood it to be an expression of contempt for those who argue opinions.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:02 pm
OK... rational arguments here yea?

Point one

a) Human nature is selfish.

Humans are not "naturally selfish/greedy". That's capitalism's fault.
Selfishness is a concept of alienation and desire for material, possessive gain. Humans are inherantly self-interested, but not selfish.


b) Could it not just as well be that we are naturally selfish full stop, and thats the reason were in capitalism

Human nature is something that should be inherent in our behaviors at all times. Is everyone greedy at all times? No.
The same logic can be used for anything. "Racism exists so it must be a natural thing." However, the changes in society contradict that line of thinking.



c) So what? Compassion is within us as well. People are greedy sometimes, and not greedy others, but there will always will be some greed, and some compassion. Like the Yin and Yang thing :)
..and again, so what? There is no such thing as purely unselfish behavior or society. We aren't talking about utopia.


Jesus taught us to try to be selfless, and we should try to follow him, (personally) however it is impossibleto be wholly slefless, just as no one can be wholly perfect.
Jesus did teach selflessness. That aspect of his teaching was a submissive, anti-humanist ideology. People shouldn't "selflessly work towards the good of others." They should, out of their self-interest, seek to help others and work within society in a productive manner; in other words, strive to find themselves and others. That is the basic orientation of humans, after all.


Point three

I am against communism - that is why my name is what it is. Just because i oppose your ideas, i dont
deserve any respect from [you] whatsoever

So all in all thats nearly the entire world doesnt deserve any respect form you?
I don't know who said that, but I don't disrespect people for being against my ideas. I disrespect them for being offensive or otherwise disrespectful to me or others. For instance, it is disrespectful for you to judge all of us by one person's words, or your idea of what communists think. Since it wasn't too antagonistic, I decided to be civil with you, but if I had made the statements you had I wouldn't expect civility. Respect is not a major issue of the ideology, anyhow.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:32 pm
Point one: ALL people will be greedy, and greed will prevent it from working. People will take for themselves, accumulating wealth. at the expence of somebody else.
Why, exactly, is that the case? have you done some exhaustive psychological testing that proves that, even in a capitalist societ,y people are prone to decision - making which ignores the wishes of others?

Because my data suggests that it is only the sociopathic that fit in your strange concept of society.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:02 pm
OK... rational arguments here yea?

Point one

a) Human nature is selfish.

Humans are not "naturally selfish/greedy". That's capitalism's fault.Could it

b) Could it not just as well be that we are naturally selfish full stop, and thats the reason were in capitalism

Human nature is something that should be inherent in our behaviors at all times. Is everyone greedy at all times? No.

c) So what? Compassion is within us as well. People are greedy sometimes, and not greedy others, but there will always will be some greed, and some compassion. Like the Yin and Yang thing :)

What points do you quarrel with?

Point two

Jesus taught us to try to be selfless, and we should try to follow him, (personally) however it is impossibleto be wholly slefless, just as no one can be wholly perfect.

Point three

I am against communism - that is why my name is what it is. Just because i oppose your ideas, i dont
deserve any respect from [you] whatsoever

So all in all thats nearly the entire world doesnt deserve any respect form you?
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71964


its there for a purpose you know.

[Bilan]

a) Human nature is selfish.

Prove it.
I'd argue that, naturally, a dog-eat-dog socio-economic system perpetuates that "nature"; or, to put it simply, that humans are a product of their environment, they're not independent of it - though you can be, you are not totally free of your environment, you interact the way you've been taught, and in the necessary way to keep the wheels turning under a said socio-economic system.
Essentially, under a communist socio-economic system, that interactions (and so forth) drastically changes, and that nature becomes some-what useless, and out-dated for humans, because it's counter-productive to the betterment and comfort of ones self, and the direction of humanity.



b) Could it not just as well be that we are naturally selfish full stop, and thats the reason were in capitalism

You could argue that, but you'd be wrong.



c) So what? Compassion is within us as well. People are greedy sometimes, and not greedy others, but there will always will be some greed, and some compassion. Like the Yin and Yang thing :)

But then, what aspect is perpetuated, and rewarded under a capitalist system? Compassion or greed?


Jesus taught us to try to be selfless, and we should try to follow him, (personally) however it is impossibleto be wholly slefless, just as no one can be wholly perfect.

So...?


I am against communism - that is why my name is what it is. Just because i oppose your ideas, i dont deserve any respect from [you] whatsoever

So all in all thats nearly the entire world doesnt deserve any respect form you?

That's silly. The working class of the world doesn't need to earn our respect (or some shit like that). That's absurd.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 06:33 pm
I would also have thought Jazzrat, that your picture "FUCK YOUR OPINION" is purposefully trying to provoke a negative reaction from others - no?
I find it incredibly amusing, and as Jazzratt said, it's there to make fun of people who say "It's my opinion that X" and try to weasel out of the fact that they're making incorrect statements by saying "It's just an opinion."

[Qwerty Dvorak]

a) Human nature is selfish.
First of all, no it is not. Both history and recent studies into neuroscience have shown that human nature is constantly in flux; society is much different now to what it was 500 or 1000 years ago, and in another 500 or 1000 years it will be much different again. There are very few things that are actually an inherent part of human nature regardless of environment. Self-interest is one trait that stems from a survival instinct and could be considered inherent to humanity. But there is a large difference between being self-interested (i.e. working to sustain and possibly further oneself) and being selfish/greedy (wanting to gain more than one has earned at the expense of others); the latter is not an inherent trait in humanity.


b) Could it not just as well be that we are naturally selfish full stop, and thats the reason were in capitalism
You say it could be that we are living in capitalism as a result of our human nature as opposed to our nature being defined by capitalism, but then, if we do indeed have a constant nature, why were we not always in capitalism? Why didn't capitalist society emerge within decades of the rise of civilization? Why the centuries of monarchies and tribal systems?



c) So what? Compassion is within us as well. People are greedy sometimes, and not greedy others, but there will always will be some greed, and some compassion. Like the Yin and Yang thing
Exactly; people have the potential to be either greedy, selfish people or compassionate people. Under capitalism, being compassionate will get you nowhere; indeed, anything short of full-blown greed will inevitably prevent you from sustaining a decent living. Communism, on the other hand, promotes and rewards compassion.

[Enragé]

Selfishness is a concept of alienation and desire for material, possessive gain

Could you explain that? just curious.

And what's the key difference between selfishness and being self-interested?


Both history and recent studies into neuroscience have shown that human nature is constantly in flux

Got any links to the results of studies like that on the web?

Also, historically, the argument is often that even in hunter-gatherer societies there was oppression, i.e man oprressing woman, i dont know if this is true, but is there empirical evidence to counter this? If so, kindly point me into the direction of it :)

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:27 pm

Selfishness is a concept of alienation and desire for material, possessive gain

Could you explain that? just curious.

And what's the key difference between selfishness and being self-interested?
Selfishness is characterized by a lack of regard for others.
Self-interest is the placing of one's own interests before those of others.

[bezdomni]

a) Human nature, or rather, what we think of as being "human nature" is a reflection of societal attitudes which are ultimately a manifestation of production relations.

This is more easily demonstrable than your dogmatic assertion that human nature is intrinsically selfish because it's actually true. Concepts of what human nature is change over time and, most importantly, due to changes in production relations. The dominant idea of what human nature was in the era of feudalism is vastly different than what the dominant idea of what human nature is right now.

That doesn't mean "well they were wrong then but we are right now", it means we're always going to be wrong about what human nature is because human nature is not something fixed in categories, but something constantly changing.

Furthermore, most modern western bourgeois philosophers would disagree with your already outmoded (but nevertheless bourgeois) concept of what human nature is.

b) Capitalism has not always existed, so, no. If the ethics of the bourgeoisie were naturally ingrained into all of us, we'd have had capitalism from day one.

c) Just because humans act compassionately at times does not prove or disprove any theory. The marxist assertion is that ideas and values are reflections of class society and not something fixed in a poorly defined and unscientific "human nature".

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:02 pm
Could it not just as well be that we are naturally selfish full stop, and thats the reason were in capitalism

...

c) So what? Compassion is within us as well. People are greedy sometimes, and not greedy others, but there will always will be some greed, and some compassion. Like the Yin and Yang thing :)

Capitalism didn't develop because of human nature, that's a given. Important to note that, contrary to popular belief, capitalism is not defined by free markets. Free markets have existed for centuries, even millenia, whilst capitalism is something far younger; what defines the capitalist epoch is a system of generalised commodity production (a commodity is something produced for the sole purpose of being sold) and of surplus value being extracted from a propertyless mass who are seperated from any means of production and so are forced to sell their labour to survive. Capitalism first developed as a result of a feudal aristocracy enclosing land (possibly because of increasing population) that was previously for common use, forcing peasants to leave the countryside and instead head to towns to sell their labour for a living. They worked for a wage that was enough to survive, while their employer got rich off the money made through the labour of the propertyless peasant; these propertyless peasants became the first working class (the proletariat) while their employers became the first capitalists.

That is the origin of capitalism, and I think you'd agree that "human nature" plays no role in this.

As for human nature being selfish.....we could argue all day about this, but does human nature really play a role in the formation of a society? I don't think it does. It is human nature for someone to emerge as a dominant character in any given social group, but it doesn't apply to a large scale civilisation. Feudal aristocracies emerged not as a development of a social contract, but from the conquest of other tribes where, with the invention of agriculture, captured members of enemy tribes were either enslaved or forced into serfdom with their production being taxed by members of the victorious tribes-the aristocracy. (Conflict between tribes is a consequence of the general poverty of pre-industrial society; today, neighbourhood communities don't tirelessly strive to enslave other neighbourhoods. It's clearly not an inherent part of being human.) Capitalism developed in the way explained above. Neither are extensions of human nature, although they are inevitable historical developments governed by economic and technological developments.

Assume, if you wish, that human nature is both hierarchal and selfish. But what impact does human nature actually have on society? How can a tendency for hierarchy amongst a tribe extend to hierarchy in an entire nation? And how precisely would selfishness be a problem in a socialist society? Remember, socialism is not as simple as people getting paid equal amounts, and skilled workers (doctors, engineers etc) being paid more than unskilled workers is entirely compatible with a socialist society!

The myth is that the USSR failed because of the selfishness of it's citizens; not so! The point where the USSR stopped being socialist was in 1923 when Lenin brought the worker's soviets under state control and introduced the New Economic Policy, which was basically that the state would exploit worker's in the same way as Capitalist's to bring about economic growth to compete with the west-despite popular opinion, by the only useful definition of Capitalism the USSR became Capitalist from this point on. In my view, this was caused by the USSR's economic backwardness and isolation; I can't see how anyone can link this turn of events to some inherent human nature that forms social structures, nor can I think of a single historical development that has been shaped more by a "natural" human nature that forms the base for social structure than by the influence of economic development on how social classes relate to each other! (p.s. other "socialist" states were so under-developed they never had a significant working class to carry out a revolution in the first place, so they followed the 1923 state-capitalist model from the very outset!)

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by ant[email protected] 27, 2007 11:32 pm

Point one: ALL people will be greedy, and greed will prevent it from working. People will take for themselves, accumulating wealth. at the expence of somebody else.
Read my brief introduction to the development of capitalists as a social class, and ask yourself how one random person is going to be capable of forcing people who aren't propertyless peasants into exploitative social relations once capitalism is abolished.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 07:27 pm

Selfishness is a concept of alienation and desire for material, possessive gain

Could you explain that? just curious.

And what's the key difference between selfishness and being self-interested?
The implications when one calls another person "selfish" is that they are not simply interested in themself, but that they exclude the interests of others in that. It is also generally assumed that to be selfish is to want, and to want more, material goods. To be "greedy" as it were.

Self - interest, on the other hand, is the interest in one's own person, your own desires, etc., but not necessarily exlusory of others. That is, I am acting in my self-interest to help the needy in my community: it makes me feel good and helps me connect with others, as well as to make society more fruitful for the general population - if other people feel that they can rely on others when in need, they will be more likely to help me if I am in a similar situation. This all assumes certain character traits, but generally I think self - interest which goes against these traits is indicative of a sociopathic and / or heavily alienated personality.

Basically, selfishness is an interest in yourself as if you were extracted from society, and atomizd individual, whereas self - interest is an interest in the self as if it was a part of society, recognizing the internal struggles as well as the external relationships that make up the individual.

Clearly, the terms can mean totally different things for different people, but from what I've found this description is pretty accurate. The falsity that comes into western civilization is that all people are "selfish." To be sure, all but the sickest people are self-interested, but that does not mean they desire excessive material gain. Selfishness implies a disregard for others, as Lynx pointed out, which is at best mildly characteristic of a lot of people, but really completely at odds with what most people really are. Most people care about others, and most people value humans above property in most circumstances.

[RGacky3]

Point one: ALL people will be greedy, and greed will prevent it from working. People will take for themselves, accumulating wealth. at the expence of somebody else.

In a Society where there are no property laws, how exactly would that happen? You can't accumulate wealth unless you have something to back it up, like property laws backed up by the threat of violence, in an Anarchist Society how would it be possible for you to do that.

Now this is all assuming that all people are naturally greedy, which puts aside the fact that even though we are in a society that pushes greed, and forces people to be greedy to get ahead and if they don't they will fall back, that even under those circumstances, there are many many examples of selfless solidarity.

[pusher robot]

In a Society where there are no property laws, how exactly would that happen? You can't accumulate wealth unless you have something to back it up, like property laws backed up by the threat of violence, in an Anarchist Society how would it be possible for you to do that.

How about just good old-fashioned straight-up possession, backed up by violence?

E.g., you want it? Come and GET IT! Or suppose that nobody cares to challenge the accumulation.

I submit that the accumulation of wealth far preceded the laws that codified the practice.

Saying that it will be impossible to accumulate property if it is not permitted by law is as utopian as supposing that people will stop drinking if alcohol is forbidden. In fact, it doesn't even logically follow unless you assume that anything which is not explicitly permitted by law is forbidden.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 30, 2007 12:33 am

In a Society where there are no property laws, how exactly would that happen? You can't accumulate wealth unless you have something to back it up, like property laws backed up by the threat of violence, in an Anarchist Society how would it be possible for you to do that.

How about just good old-fashioned straight-up possession, backed up by violence?

E.g., you want it? Come and GET IT! Or suppose that nobody cares to challenge the accumulation.

I submit that the accumulation of wealth far preceded the laws that codified the practice.

Saying that it will be impossible to accumulate property if it is not permitted by law is as utopian as supposing that people will stop drinking if alcohol is forbidden. In fact, it doesn't even logically follow unless you assume that anything which is not explicitly permitted by law is forbidden.
it depends what you mean by property. Personal property isnt a problem under communism because it doesnt profit from other people's labour. A factory or office does.

[RGacky3]

How about just good old-fashioned straight-up possession, backed up by violence?

E.g., you want it? Come and GET IT! Or suppose that nobody cares to challenge the accumulation.

Ok so Joe takes a farm and says, sqrew all you guys this is mine, and I'll punch out any one the challenges me, fine, the rest of the community, who this guy stole from will probably do something about this.

Its pretty hard to just take means of production, in the face of an entire community.


Saying that it will be impossible to accumulate property if it is not permitted by law is as utopian as supposing that people will stop drinking if alcohol is forbidden. In fact, it doesn't even logically follow unless you assume that anything which is not explicitly permitted by law is forbidden.

A law against drinking is way way way different from accumulating property. You can hide alcahol, you can't really hide Private property (Meaning Capital and Land), and drinking acahol really does'nt affect everyone else directly, whereas taking property from the community and just saying "this is mine sqrew all you gusy," that kind of affects everyone.

[antired]

Bollocks. People that aren't strongly opposed to communism do not spend their free time trying to argue against communists, it takes a certian dedication to do that.

Haha - i just like arguing - and its an interesting thing to argue about.


The same logic can be used for anything. "Racism exists so it must be a natural thing." However, the changes in society contradict that line of thinking.

Good point.


..and again, so what? There is no such thing as purely unselfish behavior or society. We aren't talking about utopia.

oh. my mistake... shows my ignorance - but i believed that Communism seeks to eradicate all selfishness?


Both history and recent studies into neuroscience have shown that human nature is constantly in flux

That is extremely interesting - the studies in neuroscience - can i ask where you got that information from?

Wow ive been neglecting this thread.

[Owen-]

Heres one for you - there was a town in the Spanish Civil War - Aragon, which was liberated by one of the anarchist militias. In it, the anarchists set up their own society.

Many of the large houses were converted into feeding centres for the ex-pesants - those running the centres actually willingly took less than those they were feeding so that they could not be accused of taking more than their fair share.

Not one of the liberated peasants asked for more than their fair share- even though there would be no punishment if they did.

Those running the feeding centers were elected in, and could be removed form their posts. This was the case for every position of responsibility.

Money was completely abolished.

It was truely a state in which there was no selfishness and little self interest.

Where were those peoples "selfish nature?"

Mot of this comes from Antony Beevor's book The Spanish Civil War - A very good read

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 30, 2007 12:32 am

In a Society where there are no property laws, how exactly would that happen? You can't accumulate wealth unless you have something to back it up, like property laws backed up by the threat of violence, in an Anarchist Society how would it be possible for you to do that.

How about just good old-fashioned straight-up possession, backed up by violence?

E.g., you want it? Come and GET IT! Or suppose that nobody cares to challenge the accumulation.

I submit that the accumulation of wealth far preceded the laws that codified the practice.

Saying that it will be impossible to accumulate property if it is not permitted by law is as utopian as supposing that people will stop drinking if alcohol is forbidden. In fact, it doesn't even logically follow unless you assume that anything which is not explicitly permitted by law is forbidden.
What if a cult kidnapped children and used them as slaves in their compound?

Same outcome.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

a) Human nature is selfish.

To declare such a statement about our species is to undermine our very complexity. Capitalists like Friedman, whose application of Game Theory to economics should disgust anyone, explain away voluntary charity, taxes, military service, and kind acts as someone trying to comfort their own ego. This, like your statement about human nature being selfish, is an exaggerated claim. There is a yearning in every human to interact with the outside world and be accepted. They may express this desire through different mediums, but inter-connectedness is what's kept us alive these thousands of years. "Mister" Friedman fails at recognizing the element that connects mother to child, friend to friend, community to community -- feelings. Power and wealth have been the means of acceptance since our ancestors started declaring land "THEIRS." We're working to kill it in favor of means that don't end up hurting everyone else.

Humans will sometimes act in a selfish fashion, and this varies greatly by person, but only those who know they're rich and powerful and who have been told they are better than everyone else for it truly devote their lives to greed. That is why people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Conrad Hilton, and Sam Walton act[ed] better than their predecessors. They were members of communities where such ideas weren't foreseeable. They were still there [a la capitalism], but it's quite one thing to be born rich as opposed to gain wealth. Of course a lot of times people in the latter category get sucked in.

The thing that connects all cultures is not wealth. It's society. Families. Friends. Communities. These themes are universal. So if you want to talk about human nature, it is the capitalists who are wrong in their judging of homosapiens.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:13 pm
Point three: Most people don't have such a strong opposition to communism that they join a website for communists and use a name designed to provoke a negative reaction in order to make half-thought-out criticisms of communism. THey therefore deserve more respect tan you.
:lol:

[RevSkeptic]

Human nature is selfish.

What's your point? So what if it is, so what if it isn't?

I'm pretty selfish at times, but it doesn't really affect anybody else unless you count hurt feelings.

We should be more worried about insanity than selfishness, but given that most people in the world are insane rather than selfish or insanely selfish then I guess we're pretty much fucked.

Owning a personal house that is bigger than a hotel is pretty insane for a family of only a few members. How about twenty car garages filled with twenty cars. How many are you going to drive per day? So, as it is with all systems before it Capitalism has more to do with social pathology than empiricalism and rationality.

[Zurdito]

Also, if you're so selfsih anti-red, why don't you want ownership over the spoils of your own labour? Most of the world's citizens would get *richer* under communism, that's the point.

Or do you mean that human beings are too short-sighted to co-operate in social production for communal benefit?

Wrong again: they co-operate in social production for the benefit of a minority, at their own expense, and they largely go along with it because they believe that they need to make personal sacrifices in order for the system as a whole to function, thereby benefetting them more than sheer short-term self interest would (ie striking for unlimited pay-rises).

Therefore, human beings already "co-operate" to make the market work, and put short-term beenfit aside to do so.

So now we've convinced you anti-red, come over to the red side, and get expropriating. I promise you a share of the spoils. If you add up the percentage of the world's wealth owned by 500 or o billionaires, you'll see those spoils are pretty large. :P

[pusher robot]

Perhaps "selfish" is too strong a word. Would it be sufficient to say that humans are inherently "self-regarding?" This is, I think, not arguable. It is premised on the simple fact that the only valuations that we can have any real knowledge over are our own. In other words, we are not psychic, we cannot read other peoples' minds. Therefore, the only individual we have complete information about is ourselves. Knowing that, it is only natural that we give weighted priority to information we know to be accurate over information that is known to be unreliable.

[Robert]

Perhaps "selfish" is too strong a word.

Very hard to know the answer to this. On the one hand it ignores all the self sacrifice exhibited by people great and small over the milennia. Some have sacrificed themselves for their children, their friends, their country, the poor, the illiterate, the sick, their party, and on and on.

But do they do so out of altruism? Or because they crave recognition, political reward, love, or a ticket to heaven?

Each man can only speak for himself.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 27, 2007 01:14 am

Perhaps "selfish" is too strong a word.

Very hard to know the answer to this. On the one hand it ignores all the self sacrifice exhibited by people great and small over the milennia. Some have sacrificed themselves for their children, their friends, their country, the poor, the illiterate, the sick, their party, and on and on.

But do they do so out of altruism? Or because they crave recognition, political reward, love, or a ticket to heaven?

Each man can only speak for himself.
I do believe that humans are programmed to want to help others who are in danger. I do think that there is an impulse to keep someone you can see from dying. I just don't think that impulse extends far beyond life-saving.

[Robert]

Yes.

This impulse may be as much mammalian as human. Archaeologists (paleontologists?) have found evidence in tarpits of injured wolves with bones of prey animals nearby. They speculate that other animals in a pack would bring meat to the injured wolf to keep him alive, knowing he couldn't hunt for himself. That would be your "impulse." Elephants and I think dolphins help orphaned babies in the herd, etc.

As far as programming goes, many cultures value charity and the golden rule. And if charity came to us naturally, the Church wouldn't need to extol charity as a virtue. It would just come naturally.

Once we're sure they're not starving to death right before our eyes, most I think recoil at the image of a vagrant begging in the street, assuming he's apparently able-bodied. That may be an impulse too. An impulse to encourage work among our brethren, if they can. Not sure where that one comes from.

[RevSkeptic]

Maybe it's simply neurological


Asperger (http://youtube.com/watch?v=h8E3fh5xIdc) Vs. Neurotypical (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Bxx5EmCRxYY)

[pusher robot]

That may be an impulse too. An impulse to encourage work among our brethren, if they can. Not sure where that one comes from.

Mmmm...could be, but I suspect that's actually just a combination of disgust and plain old fear of what we don't understand. Most rational people cannot imagine simply living on the street and pan-handling when they could be working a normal job instead. It is quite literally inconceivable to them. Thus, this behavior appears to expose some sort of insanity, which people fear because they do not understand it. (And in fact in the U.S. a large fraction of street dwellers are actually suffering from some kind of mental illness). Throw in some sort of instinctual disgust at sickness and disease and it's not hard to understand the typical reaction.

I don't think there's an impulse to encourage work, because nobody really seems to care if you are idle so long as you are not apparently insane or leeching off them.

[Lynx]

"I am because you are."

It is easier to notice and appreciate the effort we make for ourselves than the benefits we enjoy from collaborative effort.

[Robert]

and plain old fear of what we don't understand.

Yess, there is that. But the more I understand homelessness, the more afraid of it I am. You know, "There but for the grace of God go I." Many of the homeless are mentally ill. Some of them used to be assistant managers or soldiers. Why not me? I'm not proud of that, but there it is.