Enlighten me

[QuestionEverything]

Before I continue let me get some formalities out of the way.
I am not a Nazi nor am I a fascist.
So trying to discredit what I say by labeling me either will only prove to show your own ignorance and naiveté.
Now that we are clear, maybe you can explain something to me.

How can any sane individual strive for the ideals of Marxism?
Marxism (unless I am sadly mistaken) is based off the principle that all are equal not only in the eye of the state but in the eye of society as well.
This is a noble and delightful ideal and I believe that is why so many are drawn to it.
Unfortunately, reality is not so delightful.

Humans, by nature, create social "ladders". Look at the most basic human group, the family. Within the family you have the basis for all human interaction. Even on this, the most basic of levels, there ladders exist. The parent is not on the same level as the child. The grandparent is not on the same level as the grandchild. The older sibling is not on the same level as the younger sibling.
In the family setting, there needs to be order. As such, the parents are not equal with the children, at the benefit of the child.
I could give examples of how there needs to be a hierarchy in the family but I'm going to assume you are intelligent enough to understand where I'm coming from.
If prompted I will give examples.

The family unit would not function under a Marxist system. That is very clear.
So why do you expect it to function on a national level?
In my opinion there always needs to be a ruling class (parents) to ensure the progress and development of the populous (children).

Your thoughts?

[KC]

Marxism (unless I am sadly mistaken) is based off the principle that all are equal not only in the eye of the state but in the eye of society as well.

No it isn't. Communism is founded on the principle that each member of society should have equal access to the products of society's labour. It has nothing to do with people being equal; in fact, it recognizes the inequalities between people and embraces them.


Humans, by nature, create social "ladders".

Please prove this with some neurological or genetic evidence.


The family unit would not function under a Marxist system. That is very clear.
So why do you expect it to function on a national level?
In my opinion there always needs to be a ruling class (parents) to ensure the progress and development of the populous (children).

This is possibly the dumbest argument I've ever heard. I can't even take it seriously.

[QuestionEverything]

No it isn't. Communism is founded on the principle that each member of society should have equal access to the products of society's labour. It has nothing to do with people being equal; in fact, it recognizes the inequalities between people and embraces them.

How does communism embrace differences?




Please prove this with some neurological or genetic evidence.

I gave a real life example. The family unit.
Give me neurological evidence that communism works.
Sounds just as silly doesn't it?



This is possibly the dumbest argument I've ever heard. I can't even take it seriously.

How is it dumb?
Care to elaborate?

[Tungsten]

No it isn't. Communism is founded on the principle that each member of society should have equal access to the products of society's labour. It has nothing to do with people being equal; in fact, it recognizes the inequalities between people and embraces them.

Sooner or later, someone is going to stand back and question who benefits from this system.

Equal access regardless of input? That's only going to benefit those who contribute litte or nothing. Working harder doesn't offer any worthwhile benefit either, unless everyone in society does it at the same time too. Several hour's overtime divided equally amongst millions isn't worth doing. This a non-starter.

[Bright Banana Beard]

How can any sane individual strive for the ideals of Marxism?
Marxism (unless I am sadly mistaken) is based off the principle that all are equal not only in the eye of the state but in the eye of society as well.
This is a noble and delightful ideal and I believe that is why so many are drawn to it.
Unfortunately, reality is not so delightful.
What "reality" is that do you define as? Mind decides itself. Human in group can decides what reality they wants.


Humans, by nature, create social "ladders". Look at the most basic human group, the family. Within the family you have the basis for all human interaction. Even on this, the most basic of levels, there ladders exist. The parent is not on the same level as the child. The grandparent is not on the same level as the grandchild. The older sibling is not on the same level as the younger sibling.
In the family setting, there needs to be order. As such, the parents are not equal with the children, at the benefit of the child.
I could give examples of how there needs to be a hierarchy in the family but I'm going to assume you are intelligent enough to understand where I'm coming from.
If prompted I will give examples.

Society hierarchy and family hierarchy are different. We help some grandparent for doing their job, on some not due to any reason. Hierarchy in family exist not by society, but by the relationship and commitment between human that evolved into society.

[QuestionEverything]

What "reality" is that do you define as? Mind decides itself. Human in group can decides what reality they wants.

I was referring to reality as to what happens in the real world.
Ideals and thoughts are fine and all. However, their application in the real world is what really counts.
If that is the only thing you can refute in my post, that is somewhat disappointing.


Society hierarchy and family hierarchy are different. We help some grandparent for doing their job, on some not due to any reason. Hierarchy in family exist not by society, but by the relationship and commitment between human that evolved into society.

You missed my point.
Hierarchy naturally occurs amongst humans.
I never claimed the family followed societies example. I argued the opposite.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Reality is what we see, it does not belong in sciefitic term. Communism embraces differences as there is many cultures, languages and tribe to respect itself. Education and quality of living is decided by the council of the community. Equality is not about every should be treated equally.




You missed my point.
Hierarchy naturally occurs amongst humans.
I never claimed the family followed societies example. I argued the opposite.

It can also collapses if we decides to do so. Show me what creates "ladders" beside hierarchy from nature. City isn't from our instinct, the same for suburb, but from our ideal.

[QuestionEverything]

Got it, reality is what we see, not in sciefitic term. Communism embraces differenism as there is many cultures, languages and tribe to respect itself. Education and quality of living is decided by the council of the community. communism and socialism is different. Someone else will post you how the moneyless trade work.

Simply because communism allows different races does not make it good for all races. When everyone is on the same level, no one is special. There is no pride in yourself or your race/creed/nation because pride would acknowledge a difference amongst the people.
I don't care how "moneyless" trade works.

You have not been able to effectively refute my observations. So I wouldn't start a new one.



It can also collapses if we decides to do so. Show me what creates "ladders" beside hierarchy from nature. City isn't wildlife, the same for suburb, we can advance.Unfortunately I can only respond to what I understand. Which is the last sentence. Is English your second language? If so I suggest you allow someone else to defend your case because it is very difficult to argue a side when you cannot vocalize (or digitize in this case) your opinion.

Humans are animals. So in a loose sense, city is wildlife.
You again are missing my point though.
Marxism bases its entire ideology on the idea of equality.
Inequality is a natural occurrence. Sure we can evolve past our natural reactions, but to deny them altogether is both impossible and, in my opinion, detrimental to society.

[mikelepore]

If "hierarchy naturally occurs amongst humans" why is the daily intervention of legislatures, police, courts, prisons and armies needed to sustain its existence?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

In my opinion there always needs to be a ruling class (parents) to ensure the progress and development of the populous (children).
That is a very, very flawed analogy, for two main reasons:

1. The general population is not composed of children. In fact, most of them are adults. It is extremely demeaning, not to mention unscientific and unfounded in reality, to say that average people are like children.

2. Parents usually have the best interests of the children in mind (and when they don't, that is called child abuse and can be punished). The ruling class does not have the best interests of the people in mind. Quite the contrary. If you must compare the ruling class with parents, they are like a set of parents who exploit and abuse their children.


The family unit would not function under a Marxist system.
Marxism applies to adult society, not to children.


Give me neurological evidence that communism works.
Don't be silly. There is no neurological evidence that human beings are predisposed towards any kind of society - capitalist, communist or otherwise.

In fact, this is precisely our point: Human beings are not programmed by nature to live in a certain kind of society, as can be seen by the wide diversity of societies throughout human history.

[Dean]

In my opinion there always needs to be a ruling class (parents) to ensure the progress and development of the populous (children).

Then shut up and let us tell you what to think, "question everything." We'll make sure you develop quite well.

[QuestionEverything]

That is a very, very flawed analogy, for two main reasons:

1. The general population is not composed of children. In fact, most of them are adults. It is extremely demeaning, not to mention unscientific and unfounded in reality, to say that average people are like children.

2. Parents usually have the best interests of the children in mind (and when they don't, that is called child abuse and can be punished). The ruling class does not have the best interests of the people in mind. Quite the contrary. If you must compare the ruling class with parents, they are like a set of parents who exploit and abuse their children.

I think the analogy works quite well.
The majority of people do not have the knowledge or access to the knowledge that our ruling class does. Just as the parents have insight into things that the children do not.
However the parent/child point I brought up is more than just an analogy. It is also an example of how a certain inequality is both natural and necessary.

The ruling class abusing its power is another issue altogether. However I would note that this is also prone to happen in a communist society.
I am not claiming that the ruling class is infallible, just as parents are not infallible. Simply that this inequality exists.


Marxism applies to adult society, not to children.See above


Don't be silly. There is no neurological evidence that human beings are predisposed towards any kind of society - capitalist, communist or otherwise.If you would read the post a little more carefully and not take it out of context you'd realize that I wasn't actually asking for neurological evidence.
I was refuting a fallacy of a previous poster.


In fact, this is precisely our point: Human beings are not programmed by nature to live in a certain kind of society, as can be seen by the wide diversity of societies throughout human history.The family unit proves this is not true.
On top of that, every early civilization had a chief or some form of hierarchy. I'd venture to say every civilization throughout time had some form of higher class. That is just an assumption though. I would like to be proven wrong on that assumption. That is doubtful though.

[QuestionEverything]

If "hierarchy naturally occurs amongst humans" why is the daily intervention of legislatures, police, courts, prisons and armies needed to sustain its existence?

Those are all facets of the naturally occurring inequality.
It doesn't need these systems to operate.
If you had ten people in the middle of nowhere with no communication with the outside world, over time they too would create their own hierarchy.

[QuestionEverything]

Then shut up and let us tell you what to think, "question everything." We'll make sure you develop quite well.

Was that sarcasm or an insult to myself?
You lost me.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I think the analogy works quite well.
The majority of people do not have the knowledge or access to the knowledge that our ruling class does. Just as the parents have insight into things that the children do not.
However, all adults have the mental capacity to learn the same things that members of the ruling class have learned. Children are different because they do not have the same mental capacity as adults.

There are biological differences between children and adults, but there are no biological differences between people of different classes. Your analogy fails.


However the parent/child point I brought up is more than just an analogy. It is also an example of how a certain inequality is both natural and necessary.
"A certain inequality" is not the same as "all inequalities." Communists accept that adults will inevitably have more power than children. But they do not accept inequalities between adults.


The ruling class abusing its power is another issue altogether. [...] I am not claiming that the ruling class is infallible, just as parents are not infallible. Simply that this inequality exists.
Every ruling class in history has abused its power, whereas most parents (at least in the Western world today) do not abuse their power.


However I would note that this is also prone to happen in a communist society.
Whatever faults a communist society may have, one fault it clearly cannot suffer from is an abusive ruling class - since there are no classes in communism.


On top of that, every early civilization had a chief or some form of hierarchy. I'd venture to say every civilization throughout time had some form of higher class. That is just an assumption though. I would like to be proven wrong on that assumption. That is doubtful though.
Well, first of all, what counts as a "civilization" and what doesn't?

The human species has existed for over 100,000 years. Class society has only existed for the last 5,000-10,000 years.

[QuestionEverything]

However, all adults have the mental capacity to learn the same things that members of the ruling class have learned. Children are different because they do not have the same mental capacity as adults.
There are biological differences between children and adults, but there are no biological differences between people of different classes. Your analogy fails.

Simply because there is a biological difference doesn't change the fact that this inequality does exist in nature.
As such, inequalities among people is a naturally occurring. In turn, Marxism would naturally fly in the face of nature. That is not something that is smart to do.



"A certain inequality" is not the same as "all inequalities." Communists accept that adults will inevitably have more power than children. But they do not accept inequalities between adults.Again you miss the point.



Well, first of all, what counts as a "civilization" and what doesn't?

The human species has existed for over 100,000 years. Class society has only existed for the last 5,000-10,000 years.Well let's not use the term civilization then.
As long as man has worked together in a multi member community, there has been a hierarchy.
It is human nature to do so.

If you want to get technical, class society has been around since the earliest known civilization.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Simply because there is a biological difference doesn't change the fact that this inequality does exist in nature.
As such, inequalities among people is a naturally occurring. In turn, Marxism would naturally fly in the face of nature. That is not something that is smart to do.
One particular inequality is naturally occurring - the inequality between adults and children. Marxism does not oppose this inequality. Marxism opposes inequalities between adults, which are not naturally occurring.

Do you know the difference between the words "ONE" and "ALL"?


Again you miss the point.
No, you are trying to promote the fallacy that just because one inequality is natural, all inequalities must be natural.


As long as man has worked together in a multi member community, there has been a hierarchy.
Wrong. Homo Sapiens has always been a social species; humans have always worked in multi-member communities. But social hierarchies have existed for less than 10% of the time that human societies have existed.


Well let's not use the term civilization then.

If you want to get technical, class society has been around since the earliest known civilization.
I thought you weren't going to use the term "civilization."

[QuestionEverything]

One particular inequality is naturally occurring - the inequality between adults and children. Marxism does not oppose this inequality. Marxism opposes inequalities between adults, which are not naturally occurring.

The difference is, this naturally occurring inequality is the foundation for all other inequalities occurring amongst humans. This includes the inequalities amongst adults.


Wrong. Homo Sapiens has always been a social species; humans have always worked in multi-member communities. But social hierarchies have existed for less than 10% of the time that human societies have existed.And you can prove this how?


I thought you weren't going to use the term "civilization."Regardless, my statement is still true.

[spartan]

The difference is, this naturally occurring inequality is the foundation for all other inequalities occurring amongst humans. This includes the inequalities amongst adults.

Inequalities between adults can be easily overcome via education for instance.

Thus this type of inequality cant be natural because it can be easily overcome.

[QuestionEverything]

Inequalities between adults can be easily overcome via education for instance.

Thus this type of inequality cant be natural because it can be easily overcome.

It is natural.
Simply because it can be overcome does not mean it is any less natural.
Fighting against something that is natural to the human mind is not a smart undertaking.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The difference is, this naturally occurring inequality is the foundation for all other inequalities occurring amongst humans. This includes the inequalities amongst adults.
Really? How so? How is the inequality in wealth between me and Bill Gates, for example, caused by the biological inequality between adults and children?

I mean, this may sound shocking, but children grow up. They become adults. All of them do. It happens naturally, regardless of what the children do or want. Does that mean I will somehow naturally turn into a billionaire? Cool.


And you can prove this how?
It's called archaeology and anthropology. We know quite a lot about prehistoric human societies. You should look into it some day.


Regardless, my statement is still true.
No it's not, because you haven't explained what you mean by "civilization."

[QuestionEverything]

Really? How so? How is the inequality in wealth between me and Bill Gates, for example, caused by the biological inequality between adults and children?

I mean, this may sound shocking, but children grow up. They become adults. All of them do. It happens naturally, regardless of what the children do or want. Does that mean I will somehow naturally turn into a billionaire? Cool.

I never claimed inequality of wealth was caused by this starting inequality.
I was pointing out where this inequality starts and occurs in nature.

Are you denying that this inequality does indeed occur naturally?
Do you deny that humans naturally create class structure in some form or another?
What about the first social class that was created?
Would that not have been a natural, social change?
Or did aliens give them the idea?


It's called archaeology and anthropology. We know quite a lot about prehistoric human societies. You should look into it some day.You are the one making claims.
The responsibility is on you to provide evidence to your claims.
Enlighten me.


No it's not, because you haven't explained what you mean by "civilization."A civilization is an advanced state of development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of writing, and complex political and social institutions. Now my statement is true.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I never claimed inequality of wealth was caused by this starting inequality.
I was pointing out where this inequality starts and occurs in nature.
You claimed that "this naturally occurring inequality is the foundation for all other inequalities occurring amongst humans." Make up your mind.


Are you denying that this inequality does indeed occur naturally?
No, but I am denying that it has any connection to inequalities of wealth and power among adults.


Do you deny that humans naturally create class structure in some form or another?
What about the first social class that was created?
Would that not have been a natural, social change?
Or did aliens give them the idea?
Define "naturally." You seem to be implying that anything done by humans to their society is a natural development. By this standard, communism is a natural development too, since it was certainly not invented by aliens. In fact, by your logic, any social change is always natural as long as aliens don't interfere (which, so far, they never have).

So I guess class society was a natural development, and I was naturally persuaded to become a communist and will naturally fight for the natural creation of a communist society.


You are the one making claims.
The responsibility is on you to provide evidence to your claims.
Enlighten me.
Umm, you want evidence that people lived in groups before the invention of agriculture? This seems like a rather obvious fact - all hunter-gatherers still existing today are in fact organized in groups, for example. How is it even theoretically possible for a human being to live alone by hunting and gathering? He'd be killed by predators in no time.


A civilization is an advanced state of development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of writing, and complex political and social institutions. Now my statement is true.
Indeed it is. It is also perfectly in line with Marxism. Marxism holds that human progress and complex social structures were made possible by the invention of agriculture. At the same time, however, agriculture raised the question of control over land - since people were no longer nomadic - and this question was resolved by the creation of private property, which resulted in the first class societies.

[QuestionEverything]

You claimed that "this naturally occurring inequality is the foundation for all other inequalities occurring amongst humans." Make up your mind.

Just because something is the foundation of a social constrict does not mean it directly affects the outcome.


So I guess class society was a natural development, and I was naturally persuaded to become a communist and will naturally fight for the natural creation of a communist society.I find it hard to believe that given no outside influence, you would have become a communist.
If a group of people are left alone with no outside influence, over time those people will create a class structure. That is a natural occurrence.
Marxism was a reactionary ideal.


Umm, you want evidence that people lived in groups before the invention of agriculture? This seems like a rather obvious fact - all hunter-gatherers still existing today are in fact organized in groups, for example. How is it even theoretically possible for a human being to live alone by hunting and gathering? He'd be killed by predators in no time.No I want evidence to the claim that for the other 90% of human existence, classes and social constructs did not exist.
You should not make such assumptions without basis.

[Dean]

Was that sarcasm or an insult to myself?
You lost me.

Just commenting on the irony of having the name "QuestionEverything" and promoting submission to authority.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I find it hard to believe that given no outside influence, you would have become a communist.
What do you mean by "outside influence?" Other people? Well, in that case, I wouldn't have been able to learn how to speak, let alone become a communist, without "outside influence."

First you claim that anything people do is natural, then you claim that communism is due to some "outside influence." Are you suggesting that communism was not created by people?

Where did the first communist come from?


If a group of people are left alone with no outside influence, over time those people will create a class structure. That is a natural occurrence.
Evidence, please?


No I want evidence to the claim that for the other 90% of human existence, classes and social constructs did not exist.
You should not make such assumptions without basis.
*sigh* Hunter-gatherer societies are classless due to the very nature of their mode of production. Their means of production is land, and they don't have private property over it, because they are nomadic.

[cb9's_unity]

I find it hard to believe that given no outside influence, you would have become a communist.
If a group of people are left alone with no outside influence, over time those people will create a class structure. That is a natural occurrence.
Marxism was a reactionary ideal.Please be more specific in this little experiment you would like to run. What are the age of the people? Where will they be put? How old will they be and how much education or 'outside influence' will be given to them.

Hopefully it would not be children because it is very well documented that children who don't receive substantial amounts of outside influence from adults will become severely retarded. In fact my dad worked with children who were kept in cages through their child hood and they will remain mentally retarded through out the rest of their life.

It is simply impossible to study what a pure 'human nature' would be because the body actually would reject it.

Now i think this argument is running in circles a little bit because in all honesty Question Everything has never read Marx in his life and doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. I don't mean that to be insulting, I had QE's opinions before and it was because i had never actually stopped and listened to a true leftist. I had simply took what my parents, school, and media told me without ever actually questioning it.

Lets clear up something right now, Marxism is not about equality. Marxism is primarily about the analysis of class relations.

Second, QE seems to be confusing hierarchy with class. Their can be a hierarchy of class relations but simply being higher up on the 'ladder' doesn't mean you are in a different class.

Lets take example of the hunter-gatherer tribe. There was clearly a hierarchy that usually consisted of men capable of hunting dominating pretty much anyone who couldn't hunt. But those men were clearly in the same 'class' as the women and children. This is because class is basically defined by how one makes their living. Everyone in the hunter-gather tribe lived off the land and animals that were around them. In contrast today the working class lives by selling their labor to the capitalist class.

To QE I simply request that you learn a little more about Marxism and in fact all forms of socialism before you try to keep your argument up. I'm not asking you to read the manifesto or anything but just browse the site and learn what the actual arguments of communists are before you attack us.

[mikelepore]

If you had ten people in the middle of nowhere with no communication with the outside world, over time they too would create their own hierarchy.

And if one of the ten were to say, "The food belongs to me -- only those of you who obey me may have some", the other nine would beat him to death.

[QuestionEverything]

What do you mean by "outside influence?" Other people? Well, in that case, I wouldn't have been able to learn how to speak, let alone become a communist, without "outside influence."

First you claim that anything people do is natural, then you claim that communism is due to some "outside influence." Are you suggesting that communism was not created by people?

I already explained what I mean by a natural occurring event.
That does not mean anything humans create.
I have already illustrated that humans naturally create social and class structures. The family is evidence of that.
On top of that, competition is a naturally occurring event.
In nature, the most ambitious and hard working individual gains more than those who do not work as hard.


Where did the first communist come from?Communism is an unnatural creation because it is reactionary to the natural actions of humans.


Evidence, please?The family unit.


*sigh* Hunter-gatherer societies are classless due to the very nature of their mode of production. Their means of production is land, and they don't have private property over it, because they are nomadic.And yet no proof yet?
You don't need to have land to have classes.
It could be as simple as who has more rocks or livestock.

[QuestionEverything]

To QE I simply request that you learn a little more about Marxism and in fact all forms of socialism before you try to keep your argument up. I'm not asking you to read the manifesto or anything but just browse the site and learn what the actual arguments of communists are before you attack us.

I have read the manifesto.
I actually enjoyed the read, believe it or not.
However, it is a work of fiction to me. It is fabulous ideals that don't translate to the real world.

I am not attacking anyone. I am voicing what I see as flaws in the Marxist ideals.

[QuestionEverything]

Just commenting on the irony of having the name "QuestionEverything" and promoting submission to authority.

When have I promoted submission to authority?

[pusher robot]

Why is is so inconceivable to communists that humans would create hierarchies voluntarily, for entirely rational reasons?

[spartan]

Why is is so inconceivable to communists that humans would create hierarchies voluntarily, for entirely rational reasons?

Yeah but QuestionEverything's whole point is that human hierarchies arent voluntary, but natural (Thus making the voluntary or involuntary aspects of a hierarchy pointless).

[QuestionEverything]

Yeah but QuestionEverything's whole point is that human hierarchies arent voluntary, but natural (Thus making the voluntary or involuntary aspects of a hierarchy pointless).

They are both voluntary and natural.

[pusher robot]

Yeah but QuestionEverything's whole point is that human hierarchies arent voluntary, but natural (Thus making the voluntary or involuntary aspects of a hierarchy pointless).

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Surely you would agree that humans have a natural impulse to have sex. Do you conclude from this that your ability to choose who to have sex with is "pointless?" You would be fine if sexual pairing was not voluntary but mandatory?

[Don't Change Your Name]

QuestionEverything (sic) , I find it funny that you use the term "Marxism" as if it was some "economic utopia" when it is a term used for such things as this:


Indeed it is. It is also perfectly in line with Marxism. Marxism holds that human progress and complex social structures were made possible by the invention of agriculture. At the same time, however, agriculture raised the question of control over land - since people were no longer nomadic - and this question was resolved by the creation of private property, which resulted in the first class societies.

Marxism is not some "economic plan", it is a "set" of ideas that are associated with Karl Marx (such as his "materialist conception of history"). I suggest you do a little bit of research before making a fool out of yourself. You might also want to think about the implications this could have one what people believe, on what you believe, and in how relevant the fact that in the past slavery was apparently seen by some as "natural" is in this issue (also, notice that some forms of slavery still exist, would you justify them as "natural"? and why in some societies where slavery was common once now it is rejected?).

Concerning the "family" issue, it's "apples and oranges". And don't forget that there have been cases of mothers putting babies in bags and leaving them for trashmen to pick up. In those cases the babies are, as far as I know, sent to a hospital, and then they are sent to orphanages (I guess). Assuming that something like this happens, how does this fit with your notion of "natural"? If such a thing happens, is the mother going "against nature"? Is this also a form of "inequality"? Could it be "accepted"? Would that child, if he gets to become an adult, be "justified" if he decides to become a communist? After all, "family" is a concept which I'm not sure if can be applied in the same way as in the one you're using it in this case, even if the baby gets adopted, for example.

Also, even assuming that the kind of "inequality" that concerns society as a whole (not just on the level of the families) was "natural", why should it be accepted? After all, death could also be considered "natural", yet most people try to avoid dying and even class society, which you seem to be considering "natural", tries to fund research that could help postponing it.


When have I promoted submission to authority?

Perhaps you haven't done so directly, but you seem to be implying that here (in your first post, which obviously shows that this is pretty much the purpose of your post):


In my opinion there always needs to be a ruling class (parents) to ensure the progress and development of the populous (children).

and here:


The majority of people do not have the knowledge or access to the knowledge that our ruling class does. Just as the parents have insight into things that the children do not.

It's what you've been trying to justify claiming it's "natural" (and perhaps as "voluntary" and "necessary"), by trying to draw an analogy with families. Since the ruling class indeed has authority, because it has power to make decisions over the working class (which, sure enough, is "the majority of people", as you just said") in workplaces and in the government, then it "makes sense", using your logic, that "submitting" to them is for our "own good", just as in the case of children.

Are you part of the bourgeoisie?

[QuestionEverything]

Marxism is not some "economic plan", it is a "set" of ideas that are associated with Karl Marx (such as his "materialist conception of history"). I suggest you do a little bit of research before making a fool out of yourself.

As I've already said, I have educated myself. I have read the manifesto. In truth, I was at first drawn to the ideals of communism. As I said before, these ideals are very appealing. However, their track record in real life application is not a good one. In fact, I would argue it is one of the worst in history. That is because these ideals are so appealing to the mass public, but as you outlined, they are not an appropriate economic plan. As such, totalitarian rulers have room to impose their own laws or economic plan.
That is what we call a failed system.


You might also want to think about the implications this could have one what people believe, on what you believe, and in how relevant the fact that in the past slavery was apparently seen by some as "natural" is in this issue (also, notice that some forms of slavery still exist, would you justify them as "natural"? and why in some societies where slavery was common once now it is rejected?).Well it all depends on what you classify as slavery.
You have used it in a few different facets.
At least we now agree that this inequality does indeed occur naturally.
Of course we need to keep these naturally occurring inequalities in check to preserve the freedoms of all humans.


Concerning the "family" issue, it's "apples and oranges". And don't forget that there have been cases of mothers putting babies in bags and leaving them for trashmen to pick up. In those cases the babies are, as far as I know, sent to a hospital, and then they are sent to orphanages (I guess). Assuming that something like this happens, how does this fit with your notion of "natural"? If such a thing happens, is the mother going "against nature"? Is this also a form of "inequality"? Could it be "accepted"? Would that child, if he gets to become an adult, be "justified" if he decides to become a communist? After all, "family" is a concept which I'm not sure if can be applied in the same way as in the one you're using it in this case, even if the baby gets adopted, for example.You completely missed my point with the family unit.
I was not using that as a multi purpose explanation for all human action.
I was using it as evidence for the naturally occurring, necessary inequalities.


Perhaps you haven't done so directly, but you seem to be implying that here (in your first post, which obviously shows that this is pretty much the purpose of your post):

It's what you've been trying to justify claiming it's "natural" (and perhaps as "voluntary" and "necessary"), by trying to draw an analogy with families. Since the ruling class indeed has authority, because it has power to make decisions over the working class (which, sure enough, is "the majority of people", as you just said") in workplaces and in the government, then it "makes sense", using your logic, that "submitting" to them is for our "own good", just as in the case of children.

There is a difference between accepting and working with the ruling class and submitting to it. Some level of submitting is of course needed. However, not to the point of loosing fundamental freedoms. You submit to the ruling class every day of your life. Everyone does. That isn't a bad thing. That is just life.


Are you part of the bourgeoisie?No.
I am a young working class man.

Oh and as a side note.
You should cut down on your use of the quotation mark.
You used a total of 45 quotation marks.
Yikes.

[Cryotank Screams]

And yet no proof yet?

Where's yours? Are just going to sit here and pontificate or are you going to substantiate your argument with some facts?


If you had ten people in the middle of nowhere with no communication with the outside world, over time they too would create their own hierarchy.

Why would said group see the need in erecting a hierarchical structure? How would the group and its individuals benefit from said structure? What would be the basis for the group seeing this structure as being beneficial to the group overall and to themselves?

[QuestionEverything]

Where's yours? Are just going to sit here and pontificate or are you going to substantiate your argument with some facts?

Evidence to prove what?
That people, by nature are competitive and capitalistic?
Or that there has been class society since the first known civilization?


Why would said group see the need in erecting a hierarchical structure? How would the group and its individuals benefit from said structure? What would be the basis for the group seeing this structure as being beneficial to the group overall and to themselves?

All of this is irrelevant to my point.
I am not arguing the functionality of such a system at this point.
I am arguing that it does occur naturally.

[Cryotank Screams]

Evidence to prove what?

Well, let me ask you which one have you been debating about for two pages now? That by nature people are competitive and capitalistic or that there has been class society since the first known civilization? Obviously the latter however if you also assert the former then provide sources, facts, etc. that support/substantiate both assertions.


All of this is irrelevant to my point.

No its entirely relevant in that if it wouldn't benefit the group overall and the individual's themselves, there is no need, basis and so forth for said structure and its highly inefficient then it's highly unlikely that such a structure would be erected as opposed to a more communal structure based on the conditions that the group face/are in.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

QuestionEverything, your argument is one of the worst I have seen in my time here. You are basically arguing that inequality is inevitable in all circumstances because it appears naturally in some circumstances. How the hell does that logically hold up? Adults are conferred different privileges, responsibilities and duties than children, that is true. But that is because of the very different capacities of adults and children, both mentally and physically. You don't give a four-year-old a hunting rifle, because the four-year-old would not know how to use it safely. Similarly if an adult advises a child on how to behave safely (for example, don't shove your hand in the fire), the child had better listen because the adult knows more about safety than the child. But inequality of wealth under capitalism is not based on such logical foundations. People are not granted wealth under capitalism because they know how best to use that wealth. Indeed, most impoverished workers would probably have a better idea of what to do with an abundance of wealth than a spoilt rich kid.

[QuestionEverything]

You are basically arguing that inequality is inevitable in all circumstances because it appears naturally in some circumstances.

No I am arguing that inequality is a naturally occurring ideal.
It is this inequality that is the foundation for all human interaction.


Adults are conferred different privileges, responsibilities and duties than children, that is true. But that is because of the very different capacities of adults and children, both mentally and physically. You don't give a four-year-old a hunting rifle, because the four-year-old would not know how to use it safely. Similarly if an adult advises a child on how to behave safely (for example, don't shove your hand in the fire), the child had better listen because the adult knows more about safety than the child. But inequality of wealth under capitalism is not based on such logical foundations. People are not granted wealth under capitalism because they know how best to use that wealth. Indeed, most impoverished workers would probably have a better idea of what to do with an abundance of wealth than a spoilt rich kid.You have just made my argument for me.
Allow me to substitute the subjects of your post to fit with my analogy and theory.

The ruling class are conferred different privileges, responsibilities and duties than the working class, that is true. But that is because of the very different capacities of educated elite and the mass populous, both mentally and physically. You don't give a a metal worker the chance to create laws and legislation, because the metal worker would not know how to use it safely. Similarly if the ruling class advises the working class on how to behave safely (for example, not poisoning oneself with narcotics), the workers had better listen because the elite know more about the safety and social wellbeing than the child.

[Cryotank Screams]

But that is because of the very different capacities of educated elite and the mass populous, both mentally and physically. You don't give a a metal worker the chance to create laws and legislation, because the metal worker would not know how to use it safely. Similarly if the ruling class advises the working class on how to behave safely (for example, not poisoning oneself with narcotics), the workers had better listen because the elite know more about the safety and social wellbeing than the child.

Your argument here is flawed because it's based on idealistic and quite frankly bullshit assumptions.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

No I am arguing that inequality is a naturally occurring ideal.
Since when was inequality an ideal?


It is this inequality that is the foundation for all human interaction.
Right, so when I chat or go out with my friends or girlfriend it's because I'm better than them? When two workers have their break together it's because one is better than the other? Same with students, siblings, etc.? If inequality is the foundation of all human interaction then why does more human interaction tend to occur between equals than between superior and inferior? For example, students are more likely to become close friends with their fellow students than with their teachers or lecturers. Similarly, workers tend to bond more with each other than with their bosses.


You have just made my argument for me.
Allow me to substitute the subjects of your post to fit with my analogy and theory.

The ruling class are conferred different privileges, responsibilities and duties than the working class, that is true. But that is because of the very different capacities of educated elite and the mass populous, both mentally and physically. You don't give a a metal worker the chance to create laws and legislation, because the metal worker would not know how to use it safely. Similarly if the ruling class advises the working class on how to behave safely (for example, not poisoning oneself with narcotics), the workers had better listen because the elite know more about the safety and social wellbeing than the child.
First of all, the ruling class in general are not of a greater mental or physical capacity than the working class in general. They are more educated, but that does not mean that they have a greater mental capacity than the workers; it has to do with life choices, opportunities and aptitudes. Secondly, differentiation between two different people of different functions does not mean placing one above the other. It would be ridiculous to expect a metal worker to craft laws, just as it would be ridiculous to expect a lawyer to build metal constructs. That does not mean that the lawyer is superior to the metal worker or vice versa.

[QuestionEverything]

First of all, the ruling class in general are not of a greater mental or physical capacity than the working class in general. They are more educated, but that does not mean that they have a greater mental capacity than the workers; it has to do with life choices, opportunities and aptitudes. Secondly, differentiation between two different people of different functions does not mean placing one above the other. It would be ridiculous to expect a metal worker to craft laws, just as it would be ridiculous to expect a lawyer to build metal constructs. That does not mean that the lawyer is superior to the metal worker or vice versa.

I never claimed they were superior.
Simply that everyone has their purpose and place, as you outlined as well.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

That's not inequality. People can be different without being equal.

Generally I don't like to bring up 1984 or any other Orwell work in favour of an argument, but you are falling into the exact same trap the drones in that book fall into by misunderstanding the word "equality".

[Dean]

When have I promoted submission to authority?

You're promoting hierarchal social structures. That is authority. Authority does not exist without someone or something to submit to it; if it had nothing, it would not be authority. Hence, in promoting authority, you are also promoting the yin to the yang of authority - submission. You cannot reap what you do not sow.