Humans as Mammals

[Capitalist Imperial]

I think one thing we have not addressed adequately is that capitalist theory is more in tune with humans as mammals. Though we have had "civilization" (defined as when written history began to be recorded) for more than 10,000 years, it has not even come close to overiding our instincts. Our mammilian instincts are focused on competition, survival, and the acquisition of resources. What many call "greed"is just our animal instincts, acquring the means of survival. Now, I understand that for many, we have surpassed mere survival and are into luxury, but can communism really work when humans will always be inclined to look out for #1 by instinct? Also, if a world where the strongest survive to reproduce would be better for humanity overall, doesn't capitalism lend itself to this theory better?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Basiclly, I submit that the capitalist system more accurately reflects the true behavior of life and nature.

[Michael De Panama]

We are not that primative. Unlike wild animals, we have developed technology, art, and political structure. Do you want to evolve as a species or remain primative beings?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Yes, we have tech, art, philosophy, but really we just employ them in a very primitive way (usually for $$$, sex, or other resources). We are talking millions of years of evolution, and look around us, is, perhaps, life supposed to be competitive? Every other animal competes for survival. Are we really better, or are we the freaks?? Maybe this is why population is becoming such a concern.

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

I think what he is saying is that he wants to degenerate into some sort of anarchy.

[red senator]

When survival stops being a struggle, then maybe we can lose our intincts.

Our instincts are to kill those who threaten us, but people take shit from cops all the time.

Instincts can be overcome.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from red senator on 10:41 pm on June 6, 2002



Instincts can be overcome.

But should they be?

[vox]

Jesus Christ....

The "social Darwinism" argument was refuted, once and for all, a long time ago.

You know, a lot of the fuckers on this board really need to stop believing that they are thinking of things no one else has. It's old news, old hat and old garbage, bub.

Here's a clue: spend a little more time reading about things like this and a little less time feeling smug on a board.

Social Darwinism...hee! I wonder what "new" idea they'll come up with next....

vox

[Capitalist Imperial]

I never claimed it was new, I was merely applying the concept to economic ideologies, vox. Thats OK, its good to have your pretentious, self righteous, holier-than-thou rhetoric here, Vox. But you may want to brush up on tour reading comprehension skills. By the way, in what forum and by whose decree was social darwinism officially refuted? And who agrees? As far as I know it is still a widely proposed and debated theory. Step down from your podium, professor, and show some respect for others. You merely come of as deperate. Oh, yeah, you're the one who claimed that the soviets lagged behind the US in military aircraft technology due to "lack of funding", yet they could afford to build 3 planes for every 1 US plane. hmmm, I don't think a US jet costs 3x that of a soviet counterpart, so could you also explain that while you're at it???

[vox]

"I never claimed it was new, I was merely applying the concept to economic ideologies, vox. Thats OK, its good to have your pretentious, self righteous, holier-than-thou rhetoric here, Vox. But you may want to brush up on tour reading comprehension skills."

What part do you think I didn't understand? I understand it perfectly, however, you may not, for social Darwinism encompasses the economic. It's already been applied. You didn't do that, it was already like that. I don't think you know what the hell you're talking about.

"By the way, in what forum and by whose decree was social darwinism officially refuted? And who agrees? As far as I know it is still a widely proposed and debated theory."

Only in the sense that right-wingers cling to it like a security blanket. It's kind of like global warming in that way: everyone except right-wing filth understands it.

"Step down from your podium, professor, and show some respect for others. You merely come of as deperate."

Respect? For right-wingers? HA! That's a good one, CI. Tell me another.

"Oh, yeah, you're the one who claimed that the soviets lagged behind the US in military aircraft technology due to "lack of funding", yet they could afford to build 3 planes for every 1 US plane. hmmm, I don't think a US jet costs 3x that of a soviet counterpart, so could you also explain that while you're at it???"

I don't know what the hell you're on about. Link the thread, or be forever known as "that lying right-winger."

vox

(Edited by vox at 7:07 pm on June 6, 2002)

[PunkRawker677]

What about mammals such as Apes, where community plays a huge role in their lives and most "groups" of primates will live with none blood related apes without conflict....

[STALINSOLDIERS]

i think im a guerilla.....yes a guerilla fighter

[Michael De Panama]

Pretty witty, SS.

[Capitalist Fighter]

LOL, nice one Michael.

[Guest]

Panama used the fact that we are a technological species to argue that we have overcome our instincts.
I submit, that it wasn't until the fuedal system was overcome and merchantilism was established that technology began to snowball. This antiquated predecessor to modern capitalism spawned the industrial revolution. This is no coincidence.
The end of the dark ages and the beginning of a free market had to first exist before technology could be established. The church, who controlled ideas and had great influence amongst the kings of Europe, had to be convinced that science descibed the material world and religion reigned supreme in the spiritual realm, before they would allow the advancement of science.
After all it was freedom of thought and a competitive market system that allowed science to take us into an age of enlightenment. That is why, a country which experimented with the notions of freedom, and was the first to implement democracy since the Greeks, have a leg up in the world today. The principles that founded the U.S. worked extremely well with a competitive free market economy. The richness of resources and freedom of ideas in America is best suited for this economic system. An economic system which is closely aligned with the fundamentals of freedom.
Man's natural state is to be free. I don't belive for a second that man in his natural state is a murderous, self-serving bastard, who would kill his neighbor for a better chance of survival. A more logical view is that man would serve his own interest through cooperation. However, men would only cooperate with men who had something to offer. If man's natural state were the former, then civilization would never have been formed.
It is interesting to note that Hobbes used his view of humanity to support the idea that a dictatorship works the best. His rationale states that man will chose a murderous form of government to protect itself from the heinous nature of man's inherent nature. Does this seem logical?
Look at some of the opinions on this post. Does it not seem, that most communists would agree that man is a greedy creature, which left to its devices would betray their own brother to make a profit? This viewpoint falls in line with the natural state that Hobbes proposed. Ask yourself, does the reason this viewpoint exists lie in the nature of the man making the claim. I think that it does. People who believe the worst in man do so because they themselves are tainted with corruption. This is why they support such a hideous belief, such as, communism. They themselves are hideous creatures, and wish to bring everyone down to the only level of humanity that they, themselves, understand. Communists believe that this can be achieved through their demented version of 'equality'.
Beware equality, you will only sacrifice a part of yourself, and humanity will suffer as a whole.

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Whats so hot about inequality?

[Capitalist Fighter]

Communists, if in fact CI is wrong in claiming capitalism is human nature, then why have we not reached the stage of naturally living in a communist society? Why are their merchants, capitalists and businessmen in our world instead of state owned factories? Why is there competition instead of cooperation? Doesn't the nature progression to capitalism show that its features and characteristics and inherit in human beings? The very emergence of capitalism over communism i think re-enforces that the free enterprise political system is the natural evolution of man's society to fit his traits and characteristics.

[Guest]

humans as mamals what the hell iz dat if beening a right winger means beening an then i am not with it ernesto che and fidel castro started a red revalotion in 59 and usa could not bare with it so i say right now usa are a bunch of s cant even stand up 2 cuba when communisum was started usa could not do cappalist inpearal u are a head and a PA MAULTE GET HIM OFF I HAVE BIN COMING HERE 4 BOUT 4 MONTHS ALL I CAN SAY IZ A PICE OF

[Capitalist Imperial]

what?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Guest on 4:59 pm on June 7, 2002
humans as mamals what the hell iz dat if beening a right winger means beening an then i am not with it ernesto che and fidel castro started a red revalotion in 59 and usa could not bare with it so i say right now usa are a bunch of s cant even stand up 2 cuba when communisum was started usa could not do cappalist inpearal u are a head and a PA MAULTE GET HIM OFF I HAVE BIN COMING HERE 4 BOUT 4 MONTHS ALL I CAN SAY IZ A PICE OF


What the heck???

[Guest]

inperal cappilist u are a complete headcappys are 's waiting 2 b smacked. but supearior commies on the othier wing will destory all of ye cuba 1 of the most commiumists countryies have proven the supearrioraty millions of times wot can george bush say nothing cause fidel castro will fight 2 the end ps ray maiden u are colur blind hahahahaha!!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Anyway, good post, Cap Fighter, and if i'm reading correctly (and I'm not sure I am per the guests english skills), guest thinks that the US "can't stand up to cuba". LOL, on the contrary, the US allows Cuba to exist, and we maintain a military base on that wretched commie island anyway, so what are you talking about, guest? I've never known another democratic capitalist power to actually keep a military base on communist soil unchallenged, pretty strong if you ask me

[Michael De Panama]

If the capitalist nature can be clearly defined as "human nature", then you would have to deny the complete existance of feudalism. After all, feudalist nature and capitalist nature are two clearly different things. What makes you think there can't be another change from there?

Animals compete with other species of animals. We are all the same animal. To follow our animal nature would mean to stick with one other, to view one another as equals to us. This would be a true evolution.

[Guest]

The cappie's got a point, capitalism is the most natural thing to do. But doesn't that make it primitive and cynical? I'd say when we are intelligent enough to live equal, why should it be impossible? You know we used to swim around in the water whitout wondering about anything, look at where we are now!

And by the way, howcome the cappie gets to be a member and not me? (I have just about the same ideals as Michel de Panama.)

[Capitalist Imperial]

pANAMA, SPECIES COMPETE AGAINST OTHER SPECIES, BUT ALSO THEY COMPETE WITHIN THEIR OWN SPECIES. uSING THE WORD PRIMITIVE HAS A BAD CONNOTATION TO IT, i AM SAYING MAYBE WE SHOULD BE FOLLOWING THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS. cAPITALISM ALLOWS FOR THIS HEALTHY COMPETITION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ALL OF MANKIND. ...oops, sorry, anyway, you must agree that communism stifles progress,innovation, and invention, therefore stifling the advancement of mankind. Indeed animals evolve through competition and adaption, not in spite of it!!!!

[Michael De Panama]

The most advanced animals work together. Certain animals have this nature, others don't. Those that don't are not as evolved. Communism does not stifle progress. It encourages cooperative progression. Progression as a whole, not just progression of the individual.

[Guest]

Ask yourself this. If communism is so progressive and a truly evolved political form, if communism were cooperation that all individuals agreed to go along with, why then did people go against their nature and risk their lives in order to escape from East Berlin? If communism is so advanced and pure, why did East Berlin soldiers fire upon a woman running with a 6-month-old baby to get to the West Berlin side of the wall? Isn't the killing of women and children the most despicable acts that a person could commit? To me, it sounds more like communists would like to revert or devolve back to the Dark Ages, where ideology or doctrine are forced upon other people, through extremely violent means.
When I stated that man's nature is to cooperate with one another I meant that capable people would seek other capable individuals in order to increase their chances of survival. In order to achieve this state, one must form a family, group, company, or government to directly compete with other such groups for the ability to propagate the species. Cooperation is, in fact, the best way to compete. People will only do business with someone or something that has something to offer. Both parties are expected to benefit, otherwise the transaction would be canceled. This principle is called mutual benefit for mutual exchange and is the fundamental core of the human experience.
I take issue with all of you who use animal instinct as a way to explain man’s nature state. When men developed the ability to reason and use logic, he differentiated himself from the rest of the animal kingdom. Sure humans still have some semblance of their primitive mind, but I pity anyone who uses their reptilian brain to do their thinking for them.

[peaccenicked]

If you were more educated you would know that The Berlin Wall was a Stalinist monstrosity. You would know that Stalin was a counter revolutionary who turned his back on the revolution and murdered its leadership and
annexed East Germany in the interests of the Anti communist Stalinist bureaucracy. To fool the public and more so the worrkers in the west, he paid lip sevice to communism. This served the capitalists well as they could point to communism and say it was the same thing as Stalin crimes. You seemed to have swallowed all that crap.

[Nateddi]

Quote: from Guest on 5:45 am on June 9, 2002
Ask yourself this. If communism is so progressive and a truly evolved political form, if communism were cooperation that all individuals agreed to go along with, why then did people go against their nature and risk their lives in order to escape from East Berlin? If communism is so advanced and pure, why did East Berlin soldiers fire upon a woman running with a 6-month-old baby to get to the West Berlin side of the wall? Isn't the killing of women and children the most despicable acts that a person could commit? To me, it sounds more like communists would like to revert or devolve back to the Dark Ages, where ideology or doctrine are forced upon other people, through extremely violent means.

East Germany was something which could be called a puppet soviet state. I would also like to see the numbers of people fled, I doubt they are extremely high, life in the DDR wasn't the worst of soviet style governments.


When I stated that man's nature is to cooperate with one another I meant that capable people would seek other capable individuals in order to increase their chances of survival. In order to achieve this state, one must form a family, group, company, or government to directly compete with other such groups for the ability to propagate the species. Cooperation is, in fact, the best way to compete. People will only do business with someone or something that has something to offer. Both parties are expected to benefit, otherwise the transaction would be canceled. This principle is called mutual benefit for mutual exchange and is the fundamental core of the human experience.
This is a completely ideological argument of Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and like. Marx using dialectics, at the begining of modern capitalism predicted that the petty bourgeois (which is the heart of your capitalist ideology) would join the proletariat, meanwhile the strongest few would dominate the markets; leading to monopoly, as well as stagflation 100 years before it happened.

[Guest]

Peacenicked,

What degrees do you hold? What are your credentials? What industry do you work in? Tell me this, before you get on your high horse.

[peaccenicked]

Why do you want to know these things and why should I broadcast or tell you anything about my private life in a political debate. I suspect that wish to make a personal attack outside of the political debate.
That quite frankly makes you a political coward, but I suspect you are quite used to cheating yourself of political dignity.

[Guest]

No peacenicked, I merely wanted to make the point that unless you identify your own credentials, you should probably refrain from making assumptions about other people’s level of education. I seems that you are the one who resorts to person attacks. Does that make you a political coward? You said it, not me.
I don't expect anyone to give out personal information, especially on a site such as this. Believe me, they already know who everyone is. The U.S. government does not let subversive elements go unsurveilled.

[peaccenicked]

I am not making any assumptions about your level of education. I am informing you that the jargon you use is
devoid of an education on the subject you choose to speak about.
As far as I know you could be an expert at something other than the history of communism. Here you display a propensity for a capitalist reading of the situation.
Those who have read ''Animal Farm" usually know that the revolution did not quite go the way the communist wanted. You apparently do not. I wonder why?
There is more than the State to contend with when comes to privacy, lately, I have fell victim to internet fraud. I am little more careful now.

[Guest]

Anyone who has read the manifesto should know this one. The reason the revolution does not go precisely as planned is because of the major paradox within the philosophy. If you want my logic, it is quite lengthy and posted under "My description of capitalism". Beware I had nothing to do with the main post, it seemed like drivel to me.
Here is the quick and dirty. Marx stated that a violent overthrow of the government must occur in order to defeat the status quo. He tried to put everyone into the upper or lower classes. In his manifesto he guaranteed that after the standing political system had been adequately infiltrated and the remnants of the old economic system had been dismantled, the political nature of the communist party would magically dissipate. He never gave any good reasons as to why the initiators of such a coupe would relinquish their power. It was a matter that had to be taken on faith (something Marx had little of). Many people believed that this would actually occur, and they were damned in doing so. If you make the same mistake as all those people then I say you promote the murder and oppression of millions, not to mention the creation of the very thing that Marx claimed to be fighting against. Interesting, that Marxist communism creates an economic system where only two classes are able to exist.

[peaccenicked]

I think you need to expand a great deal.
Have you read the Manifesto?

[Guest]

If you want the long version I suggest you take a look under the post "My odd little Desciption of Capitalism". It is there that I refute communism on many fronts. Beware my arguments are lengthy, for that is why I don't post them again here. Read my ideas and decide for yourself. If you can produce a rebuttal, go ahead and do so. The one thing which I left out in that section is my synthesis of Marx's of manifesto. I will post that next.

[Guest]

Marx's background:

Karl Marx was born in Rhineland, Germany in 1818. In his youth, Marx became extremely influenced by French revolutionary ideas. His association with the ‘Left Hegelians’ defined his time during college at Berlin University. This group also subscribed to French revolutionary ideas, and wanted to apply them to German philosophy in order to refine German nationalism. Here Marx became influenced by Ludwig Feuerbach’s views of Christianity. The ‘Left Hegelians’ were conservative in nature and remained too inactive for Marx’s taste. Marx broke with the group deciding that humanity’s purpose lied in material processing and manufacturing rather than philosophical contemplation. Soon after, Marx would define his political and economic philosophy in the Communist Manifesto. Failed revolution in 1848, where Marx had been an instigator, forced him to resettle in England. Here he worked on a series called Capital but never finished the last two volumes. Marx remained poor for the remainder of his life, relying on Frederick Engels to support him and his family, in order to continue working. Engels collaborated on the Communist Manifesto and published the complete version of Capital. Marx died in 1883.

[Guest]

Synthesis of Marx's manifesto:

By far Marx’s most influential work remains his Communist Manifesto. Here he laid out the framework of communist economic theory. Marx cited the slave, feudal, and capitalist labor systems as a historical procession brought about by conflicts of differing classes. He believed another such dispute would help to realize what Marx believed would be the final end, communism. Marx’s philosophy can be paraphrased as follows:

‘Earlier times were defined by complex hierarchical class systems, but the modern capitalist system had simplified the classes into two groups. The bourgeoisie and proletariat, or simply put, the have and have nots. This new change was brought about by the industrial revolution, which forever changed production through the use of mechanized labor, improved technological motive power, and a new type of division of labor. Increased productivity established a world market in order to unload all of the goods resulting from these improvements. Modern bourgeoisie were merely a product of this development as they severed the feudal system in order to establish free-trade. Free-trade was a brutal exploitation of all occupations. The interdependence of the free-market has decimated self sufficiency of nations and interrupted indigenous cultures, as capitalists worked diligently to expand their markets around the globe. This process unequally distributed the wealth and set up centralized governments solely for its own gain. The unfortunate result being overproduction, which leads to war, as the powers that be necessarily destroy a percentage of the modes of production. Another unfortunate aspect of capitalism, is that the working class gets caught up in the market and are subjected to the same laws of supply and demand as any other commodity. They become alienated by the machine and are paid only what is required to subsist. These men are no better off than slaves. The light at the end of the tunnel remains, the fact that increasing organization made possible by technological advances in communication would inevitably bring the destruction of the oppressive bourgeoisie. Since, in order to fight foreign nations the bourgeoisie “had to pull the proletariat into the political arena”, it supplied its own means of destruction. Since the proletariat are without property and alienated, their families destroyed by capitalism, they would have nothing to loose, and everything to gain, in the event of armed rebellion.’

Furthermore, Marx defined the role of communists to the underprivileged class of proletarians. Marx was adamant about the fact that communists could peacefully coexist with all other labor unions and working-class parties. He felt that communists could unite all proletarians regardless of nationalities, hence the statement “Workers of the world unite”. Communism he thought was the ‘most advanced’ political party that ‘pushes forward all others’ for the same ultimate goal. The goal being the violent overthrow of the modern state and the replacement of the proletariat in political positions.
Marx reasoned that all prior struggles required the abolition of someone’s property into the hands of another. Bourgeois property, defining the ultimate cause of social injustice, the abolition of all private property was necessary. Capital being the mode of exploitation must be converted into a ‘collective product’. Since, only 10% of the population are actually property owners, of course, for most people this would make little difference. In doing this the only individuality that will diminish is that of the bourgeoisie. Never mind the loss of law and order, it was only put their to maintain the status quo.
Marx also felt that the only people who were able to have meaningful family lives were the bourgeoisie. That being true, then abolition of the family would “stop the exploitation of children by their parents”. Education would then be taken from the oppressor.
Marx was also under the assumption that the upper class commonly used prostitutes and engaged in wife swapping. These accusations were justification for the destruction of the institute of marriage and a legal form of promiscuity.
“The charges of communism made from a religious, a philosophical and generally, from a ideological standpoint are not deserving a serious examination.” Marx held belief that man’s perceptions and ideas were capable of bending with social changes. The ruling class have always rewrote history and communists can make their ideas prominent after the bourgeoisie overthrow. Communism must throw out all truth in order to defy historical patterns, being the general idea.
In order to implement communism Marx recommended a list of ten points be closely followed.

1.)Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2.)A heavily progressive or graduated income tax.
3.)Abolition of all right to inheritance.
4.)Confiscation of property from all emigrants and rebels.
5.)Centralization of credit in banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6.)Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7.)Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8.)Equal obligation for all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9.)Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of all distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10.)Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, ect...

According to Marx, when all these have been implemented, all production will be publicly owned, and the political nature of the communist party will magically vanish.

[Guest]

How can anyone find Marx's ideas to be good. It is evident that everything which Marx speaks is the antithesis of freedom and democracy. The communist threat is as important now as is was during the 1st and 2nd Red Scares.
The definition of neo-liberal that I here on this post differs from mine. Liberal is a word rooted in the Greek word for liberty 'libertas'. Old school liberals were men like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and many other framers of the political system which founded the U.S.. Neo-liberalism refers to the new conitation that the word holds. Today it has come to mean the exact opposite of liberty. Today the liberal left uses the word liberal to support socialist ideals that I'm sure many of you would agree with. The desecration of democracy towards tyranny is being conducted today on the principles of Marxism. This is the great danger of democracy. The idea that someday people at your end of the political spectrum will be the majority is trully frightening, considering the history of communism. Communist tend to eliminate the opposition to their form of politics, for this is the only way that the can insure their survival. Neo-liberals are those who could have learned from history, but for some reason choose not to.

[Michael De Panama]

This is why Stalinism is damaging the communist movement more than capitalism is: People look at Stalinist Russia as the example for communism. I would have wanted to leave Russia and come to America as well! Communism is COMPLETE democracy. DIRECT democracy. A CLASSLESS SOCIETY! Everyone has equal power in their society. Nobody is born into a higher political power. Nobody has a higher economic power. Of course, no so-called "communist" country ever successfully adapted this, it just mutated into fascism, which I will agree is the complete antithesis of freedom and democracy.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Taht is the exact point of this thread:

Communism looks good on paper, of course it does, it is utopian in theory. However, it does not account for mans basic, competitive nature of instinctually attempting to acquire resources for himself or his unit. This is why communism will not work, nor do we want it. It would stifle all incentive for innovation, invention, and fresh ideas.

I submit to this group: Please provide an example of an invention or innovation born in a communist state that has benefitted the world in the last 50 years.

[marxistdisciple]

Umm the laser was invented in the USSR I believe, one of my friend's grandfathers or great father or something has the patent in his name. I'd just like to thank Michael for protecting the communist ideals once again. the usual argument against communism is that is all ideaology, great on paper etc. Well since we have never had a truly communist state I don't believe that it has actually been tested in practice.

It is a fallacy to suggest that communism has been tested in Russia...as Michael rightly points out, Stalinism is not the same as core communism idealogically. We need idealogy to form a new system I'm afraid. It might seem really wishy/washy/neo-liberal-post-modern whatever you want to call it....you can label us dreamers, and talk about the real "harsh" world etc. the point is, humans are influenced greatly by environment. People who grow up in afghanistan are prone to being more violent than people brought up in nice middle class homes as I suspect you were. Don't judge everyone by your own qualities. Just because you believe the world is highly competitive and everyone wants to be better than each other doesn't make it so.

People are taught from an early age to reject idealism ,"to get our head out of the clouds", "it's a cruel world," "money is important" bla de bla. It's no wonder they believe it. When you you have education and media which is blatently biased...and bribary/corruption in goverments, sanitised american history, written by sanitised american patriots....how do you expect people to make up their own mind? I am not going to take the moral high ground, or proclaim I am allmighty, always right, and righttiously pretentious. What I will say is that you aren't correct either, not even close to. I advocate keeping our political will from our education system, regulating media companies to avoid corruption, and banning goverment donations from big business. Then we'll see what the people think of capitalism.

As long as capitalism can control the masses with marketing (in it's highly evolved psycological state) and controlled media (ruppert murdock owns Fox, Sky Tv, and the two most popular british newspapers, plus shares in many more media companies) then people will never have unbiased information to make up their own minds. It's nice to be nieve, but do you really think huge companies dont have a little bit of an impact on the news we hear and decisions the government makes? I think we already proved wrong that tosh when Enron got their hand stuck in the cookie jar.

[peaccenicked]

"communism looks good on paper.''
I would like to know what you think communism is?

(Edited by peaccenicked at 1:10 am on June 11, 2002)

[marxistdisciple]

Is that to me, or CI peace?

[Supermodel]

I'm a wild animal.

If I remember correctly, both Capitalists and Socialists are human beings. We are also all mammals.

Did you know that Dolphins are the only other mammals that have sex purely for recreational purposes, not procreation? Did you ever go swimming with Dolphins and have them try to mate with you?

[RedCeltic]

I suppose a male dog that jumps on you is trying to impregnate your leg eh? Ever see a female dog try and hump another female dog like a male dog? Its called showing dominance.

Anyway, Vox has already debased the argument of this thread. Social Darwinism or sometimes known as "White Supremist Science" had been refuted a long time ago, most famously by German Anthropologist Franz Boaz.

Society does not follow the same evolutionary principles as evolution does. Societies develop by specific characteristics and conditions experienced by each particular group of people.

The concept of "Survival of the fittest" has been used in support of racism since the very publication of Darwin's "Origin of Species" yet has no place in description of socio-economic problems.

It is an attempt to use laws of natural science in the setting of social science. Which never works. Problems in social science can never be placed in neat little pidgin holes as in natural science.

For example, many hunter-gatherer groups where egalitarian, however became more male dominated and included a 'leisure' or 'elite' class when they became a more advanced civilization.

However this isn't always the case, there have clearly been hunter-gatherer groups that where not egalitarian by any means. Also there are some groups that had become more egalitarian when moving to more advanced forms of civilization.

[Supermodel]

RedCeltic, I think your dog needs some serious help.

[marxistdisciple]

lol Supermodel
Celtic's got some good points. Is it me, or do capitalists stop posting in a topic once proven wrong? :)

[Capitalist Imperial]

No, mrx, we d't. cause e ar rarely enong. asin oit: ti thread. e cnnt be rove wrng in aur hypothticl b

[RedCeltic]

CI: Was that supposed to be English?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Whoops!!! OK, what i said was (computer is jumblin up) no, marxistdisciple we don't stop posting because we've been proven wrong, we rarely are wrong. Besides, you certainly have not proven anyone wrong on this thread. Neither side can prove the other wrong here, as this subject is hypothetical anyway.

[Supermodel]

LOL!! CI I think your inner puppy took over at the keyboard there!!

No, I'm not wrong, I'm absolutely certain I meet the definition of a mammal.

I also believe that humans act primarily to ensure the domination of their gene pool. Well, to a limit, since I kept my own litter to two. If I was a good mammal, I would have had 11 or so. Would that make me a good socialist?

[RedCeltic]

But you have been proven wrong. Along with Herbert Spencer who compared Darwinist theory to society long before any of us where born.

To believe that the natural laws of 'survival of the fittest' are combatable to society is thus saying that rich people are rich because they are more highly evolved. That Blacks are poor because they are inferior to whites naturally.

There may be some people who are rich because they are more highly intelligent or better skilled, and some people may be poor because they are not. However there are plenty of people who have come to wealth by means other than their own skills, as there are plenty of people who are impoverished because of various other socio-economic factors that have nothing to do with their own skills.

I believe that you, as many of your pompous compatriots, rarely return replies to sound arguments because you are not equipped to refute them.

[EDIT:] that reply was to CI I didn't see Supermodel posted before I did.




(Edited by RedCeltic at 5:37 pm on June 11, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

That true, RC, some rich are lucky, some poor are unfortunate. Thoise individuals are about 1 of 1000. Most wealthy peolpe worked very smart/hard for their $$$, most economically challended people have little to blame but themselves for their position. Do you live in the US? I do, and I see it every day.

And I reply to all agruements, and most are easily refuted. It is just that communists mostly argue theory, as they can't go to real-life arguements for communism, as all attempts at communism fail or are failing miserably.

[RedCeltic]

Look at my profile... I'm from Long Island, New York.

1 in 1000? Where do you get these figures from? Have you taken poles of people living in homeless shelters and asked, " Excuse me, are you homeless because of your own personal shortcomings or did you end up here because of social problems in the fabric of American Society?

CI: I work three times a week at a soup kitchen in Mastic New York. I know for a fact that the greater majority of people I see there in that place, are there to little fault of their own.

:Hint: If you knew just how high rent was on Long Island, you might just have a clue as to why the homeless population is so high.

[Lefty]

this is a strange thread. Well, i agree with the fact that i meet most of the criteria for a mammal...most. but i think that capitalism is more instinctual, but what is instinctual is not always the best.

[Guest]

"It is a fallacy to suggest that communism has been tested in Russia"

Is it? Which one of the ten points of Marx's manifesto failed to surface in the Soviet Union?

Most of you people just won't admit that the failures of communism, when it is put into practice, resides right their in your precious theory. I posted them for you, yet you still want to pretend that you are right. You are in fact wrong, and the ideas that you subcribe to are immoral. You want to blaim capitalism for the starvation of populations. A common tactic used by your communist leaders is to hold people through starvation. Ask yourself about the nature of government that those poor starving choose to live under. Who says that communism looks good on paper. I suggest you take another look. There has never been a idea that was more hideous.

All of you who hate money as a means of exchange, take a look at the alternative, pure slavery. Ask yourself which is better, the purchasing power of money, or that of political clout and bullets.

One of you said something to the effect that we should not judge other coutries or culture based upon their belief systems. I submit to you, that their is no better way of judging ones character than by the beliefs that they hold. Do you believe that murder is wrong? What about theft? Is their even a difference between right and wrong, or can it be defined as what is most convienient or what the individual happens to belief. The person who holds this belief chooses to ignore reality. The universe is a dimension bound by laws. It is the laws of physics that holds the universe together and allows for the advances in technology that we have seen. Morality is subject to similar restrictions. There are universal truths that most be acknowledged. When a society chooses to ignore these truths there are consequences, similar to a man who tries to defy gravity and plummets to his death. When cultural and moral relativity becomes the standard that men use, anyone's evil perversions can be justified. No one can judge that man's actions because the standard by which to judge a person's character has been destroyed.

Why do you people fail to understand? When will you wake up to reality? Will it be when your ideals wind up getting you led away to the slaughter, like the pathetic sheep you are? Why don't you define your own philosophy rather than regurgitate a farce that has been exposed for years?

[Capitalist Fighter]

Malte i suggest you let this person register immediately!!!!

[marxistdisciple]

"Is it? Which one of the ten points of Marx's manifesto failed to surface in the Soviet Union?"

Umm how about democracy... Sorry - I forgot that people don't understand the concept of equal rights anymore...

"You are in fact wrong, and the ideas that you subcribe to are immoral."

Well that's really just an opinion, and a badly argued one at that. What exactly about communism is immoral. Is it the fact that people share the same social class that bugs you? Or maybe the suggestion that everyone gets a right to decide issues of stae? Or maybe that everyone has a right to basic human needs?
Do you not understand the concepts behind the theory?

"All of you who hate money as a means of exchange, take a look at the alternative, pure slavery. Ask yourself which is better, the purchasing power of money, or that of political clout and bullets."

Are these two mutually exclusive? Cause america never uses the military to force it's ideals on others does it? Want a definition of slavery? Doing a job you hate for forty years because you were born into a system you didn't adovacte, vote for, had no say in....and had no means to get out of.

"The person who holds this belief chooses to ignore reality. The universe is a dimension bound by laws. It is the laws of physics that holds the universe together and allows for the advances in technology that we have seen. Morality is subject to similar restrictions. There are universal truths that most be acknowledged."

Even the "laws" of physics changed. Centuries ago people all though galileo was great. then some of his ideas were proven wrong....the people that had new theories were accused of being godless creatures of evil. Nowadays, people try to disprove einstein's theories of relativity. As many scientists will suggest, you can never "prove" a scientific theory, you can only disprove it. As for morality, people having different religions and beliefs is proof enough that there are no absolutes. Laws based on morality should be decided by democratic consensus...nothing else.

I will take pleasure in quoting a great writer from my hometown;
"We should ask for no absolutes, or absolute. Once and for all and forever, let us have done with the ugly imperialism of any absolute. There is no absolute good, there is nothing absolutely right. All things flow and change, and even change is not absolute."

D.H Laurence


As like most people with strong moral, or religious beliefs, you argue that your beliefs are the "right" or "accurate" or "godly." ones. there is no proof to provide, as morals and ethics defy logic. they are based on human feelings, and concience. there are many philosophical ways to decide these things, many theories. but they are opinioned and subjective, and ambigious, just like most everything else in this universe. If you go around believing in good/evil right/wrong and black/white, how do you ever strike some kind of logical balance?

[Moskitto]

Malte i suggest you let this person register immediately!!!!

Currently I am satisfied in knowing that I am currently 1 step each ahead of 3 different people in 2 different situations.

[pce]

i'd like to address the first post by cap imp:

(this may or may not be an original idea) i say that capitalism is nothing like mammilian insticts. if you look at the serengheti (sp?) for example, you don't see lions stockpiling on antelope meat. you don't see lions taking over more and more land. you don't see lions killing as many cheetah or hyena as possible. this would all through the balance off. in nature, everything is at an equilibrium and every population gets exactly what it needs to continue living. (at least until capitalist humans step in and kill and entire species to sell it's fur)

true, animals die out and new ones take their place but that's evolution-wise which has nothing to do with the here-and-now insticts of animals. humans are going through evolution as well (which also doesn't have to do with here-and-now insticts of humans) but human evolution is in the mind not physical. just like if a lion is born with blunt teeth (an example of backwards physical evolution) it will die, a human also dies who doesn't believe in medicine but instead dances to scare away 'evil spirits' (an example of backwards mental evolution).

i don't know if i'm making any sense. i sort of got off topic.

[Capitalist Imperial]

actually, lions do stockpile kills (leapords save them in trees) as much as they can, they kill as many hyennas as they can without risk to their safety, they kill cheetahs and their cubs all the time, and they definately take as much territory as they can. It is just that catching cheetahs and antelopes and holding ground is not easy. If they had the ability to have every antelope dead to easily feast on, they would take that opportunity. If they could eliminate hyenna competition, they would.

[pce]

what i mean is that lions and other predators take just what they need. they take the amount of land they need, they take the food they need. the reason lions/leopards/etc store food is because it's hard to find. a leopard will kill an antelope and take it up in a tree. it's obviously not gonna eat its meal and just leave the rest of the animal in the open. humans don't store food/land because its hard to find, we do it because we are greedy.

also predators only kill other predators when they feel threatened or when their land is invaded. it's like if someone walked right into your face, you'd push them away because you'd feel threatened.

"If they had the ability to have every antelope dead to easily feast on, they would take that opportunity. If they could eliminate hyenna competition, they would. "

i know they would. i'm talking about the way nature works as a whole. they can't do it because nature worked it out so they can't do it. if they could the whole ecosystem would be thrown off. i'm not talking about how lions or hyenas or any one animal acts, i'm talking about how the natural world as a whole is designed carried out.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I agree, that is my point. We are still driven basically by instinct, but our current evolved state is making us too successful, throwing of the balance of the ecosystem, just like you said

[Guest]

Marx's disciple,

Democracy is not an idea which Marx subscribed to. Tell me where in the manifesto that Marx advocates democracy. If you think democracy and Marxism can exist in harmony, then I suggest you take another look at your creed. Democratic ideals are anti to the communist plot. Like many self proclaimed disciples, you have handicapped yourself through blind devotion.

[Guest]

In response to:

'What exactly about communism is immoral. Is it the fact that people share the same social class that bugs you?'

Besides the muderous nature of communism, yes, being limited to a certain class bugs me. Forcing all people to be equally mediocre bothers me. No one has the right to impede on my success, least of all, a corrupt regime of thieving, murderers. I believe that all men are entitle to equal rights, not that all men are create equally. Fact is some men have better character than others. This is why communists suggests pillaging the riches of others. Generally, communists lack the character to achieve success on their own merit.

[marxistdisciple]

I will try to answer your questions, and beliefs. I think the first thing to say is that all communists have different beliefs and interpretations of communism, the same was as capitalists do with capitalism. I think democracy under communism differs depending on the approach, and seems to have been defined in a misleading way. Marx calls it "dictatorship of the proletariat." I find this term misleading, as if the the proletariat were the ruling class, they would not in fact be a dictorship, as they are the masses, the majority. I hasten to add, I am not a fan of marx's writing style, he leaves huge gaping holes in interpretation....but that doesn't mean his ideas should be misconstrued either. That is the reason communists need to find common ground and definition.

“In capitalist society, providing it develops under the most favourable conditions, we have a more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy is always hemmed in by the narrow limits set by capitalist exploitation, and consequently always remains, in effect, a democracy for the minority, only for the propertied classes, only for the rich. Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners. Owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation, the modern wage slaves are so crushed by want and poverty that “they cannot be bothered with democracy”, “cannot be bothered with politics”; in the ordinary, peaceful course of events, the majority of the population is debarred from participation in public and political life.” [State and Revolution, Chapter 5]

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.” [Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2]

I think it looks on the face of it, undemocratic to remove the bourgeoisie from power. However, this is exactly what it is, when the majority of people agree with it. When the bourgeoisie no longer exist, there is of course a democratic state, because the proletariat is everyone...there are no land owners, or factory owners...therefore everyone has equal power.

"Besides the muderous nature of communism, yes, being limited to a certain class bugs me. "

You are thinking of it under capitalist pretences. You are not "limited" to a class at all - if your country is prosperous, everyone will be equally prosperous.

"Forcing all people to be equally mediocre bothers me. No one has the right to impede on my success, least of all, a corrupt regime of thieving, murderers."

What has murder got to do with marxism? You are thinking of Stalinism. No one said anything about mediocre. There is no reason communism can't be equal grandeur and luxuary. (except for trade restrictions put in place by capitalist countries) there are enough resources in the world for it. Thievery is impossible under communism, as there is no such thing as "ownership." If the regime is corrupt under true communism, it is because most of the populous is.

"I believe that all men are entitle to equal rights, not that all men are create equally. Fact is some men have better character than others. This is why communists suggests pillaging the riches of others. Generally, communists lack the character to achieve success on their own merit."

They are not pillaging riches, as they no longer belong to anyone under communism. the same as you don't own a tree because it's on "your land." They are taking from people who have everything, and redistriuting to people who have very little. This is necessary to restore ballance, and fairness to society. Otherwise we carry on with people who can't eat, while the queen rides around in a carriage made of gold. The whole point in communism is that people achieve success on their own merit. That's why people start from a level playing field. You are suggesting that britney spears has more musical talent than all the bands who are unsigned working in clubs? Or that George Bush is prez because he is the American most intelligent and worthy of leadership?
I don't believe people are necessarily nasty people at birth, I think they are shaped by the society they live in. Why do you think poorer people commit more crime? Or that abusers have generally been abused themselves? There is psychological basis for this.

"Democratic ideals are anti to the communist plot"

Here's lenin on that kinda thing;
"But this means replacing "universal", "pure" democracy by the "dictatorship of one class", scream the Scheidemanns and Kautskys, the Austerlitzes and Renners (together with their followers in other countries -- the Gomperses, Hendersons, Renaudels, Vandervelde and Co.).

Wrong, we reply. This means replacing what in fact is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (a dictatorship hypocritically cloaked in the forms of the democratic bourgeois republic) by the dictatorship of the proletariat. This means replacing democracy for the rich by democracy for the poor. This means replacing freedom of assembly and the press for the minority, for the exploiters, by freedom of assembly and the press for the majority of the population, for the working people. This means a gigantic, world-historic extension of democracy, its transformation from falsehood into truth, the liberation of humanity from the shackles of capital, which distorts and truncates any, even the most "democratic" and republican, bourgeois democracy. This means replacing the bourgeois state by the proletarian state, a replacement that is the sole way the state can eventually wither away altogether."

The point is, democracy for the majority, is just that, democracy. That's what it is when every person votes one way or another, and every voice is heard, and registered. I think you misunderstand the concept. See, in democracy no ones opinion is worth more than anyone elses. People shape their own society, so rules under that level are subject to whoever lives in the society. Or is that what you don't like about the idea?
Lets take for example the trivial issue of cannabis decriminalistation in the UK. Opinion polls have shown the majority of the public to be for it, but the Government hasn't actioned it. Or the fact that most people are against the Euro, but the goverment still wants to go ahead with it. That's not democracy.

de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community

Which of those definitions doesn't fit in with communism?