Groupthink

[suffianr]

Groupthink.

Sounds vaguely Orwellian, doesn't it?

It's a concept forwarded by communications (hello Stormin') researcher Irving Janis on the topic of Organizational Communication.

Basically, it refers to "an uncritical way of thinking, often characteristic of groups, in which the desire to avoid conflict and reach agreement is more important than careful consideration of alternatives" (Janis, 1989).

It suggests the following symptoms:

1. The illusion of invulnerability

2. Shared stereotypes

3. Rationalization

4. Illusion of group morality (e.g. the group thinks that
it always acts in the best
interests of society).

5. Self-censorship

6. Illusion of unanimity.

7. Direct pressure.

8. Mind guarding.

Essentially, the study holds that, for certain groups of people, maintaining group harmony is more important than reaching good solutions. And it also suggests that groupthink is more likely to occur in groups with a hidden leader or hidden members.

Comrades, my question is this; given that groupthink exists, are communists more vulnerable to practising this sort of malaise, than perhaps the corporate world?

I haven't been getting much sleep lately.

Thanks.

p/s Stormin', I welcome your opinion on this topic!

[Supermodel]

LMAO!!!
And this is such a harmonious website!!

[Capitalist Imperial]

I disagree with the group on this topic.

[Guest]

Group harmony or people getting along isn't as important as picking the right solutions to problems, which is usually done by individuals. Cooperation on most problems means compromise which means that no answer is chosen i.e. nothing is done. If nothing is ever done you have suceeded in exactly that, nothing, you have stunted the human mind and forced it to create nothing, only to agree with everyone who is creating nothing. I would rather keep my right to my thoughts and individual freedoms.

[Stormin Norman]

I'm pissed. I had a great response to this post, but had to reboot due to a system failure. A hard copy of my writing didn't exist, so I must try to remember what I said and redo the work.

Since you value my opinion, I promise to get around to answering it in the near future. I might not be around for awhile, because summer finals are next week and I have to hit the books. You would have loved what I wrote, Suffianr. Damn it. So long I might drop in on my study breaks or something, but I doubt I will be able to produce anything of great length. Please accept my apology, and realize I am not dodging your question. When you get my response, I hope you will be pleased.

[Guest]

Communism is full of the group being the ultimate moral leader. The majority is always superior to the minority. The weak get more rights than the able, ect. The idea of a socialist or communist doctrine is either sadocism or masocism. It depends if you are at the top of the hidden, unspeakable, chains, or at the bottom in ignorance of what is happening.

[Red Revolution]

I think good solutions are an important outcome of group thinking, surely thire is no point without it, therefore communism should not be venrable to this way of thinking but probobly is due to the way of communst thought.

Edit: Typo

(Edited by Red Revolution at 9:45 pm on July 26, 2002)

[American Kid]

Let's have a contest. Whoever guesses which shamefully-booted-off-the-site-nazi is guest number........whatever gets a free month's pass into the Commie Club!!!!

!
!
!

I think it's Thine Stalin.

-AK

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 9:37 pm on July 26, 2002
I'm pissed. I had a great response to this post, but had to reboot due to a system failure. A hard copy of my writing didn't exist, so I must try to remember what I said and redo the work.

Since you value my opinion, I promise to get around to answering it in the near future. I might not be around for awhile, because summer finals are next week and I have to hit the books. You would have loved what I wrote, Suffianr. Damn it. So long I might drop in on my study breaks or something, but I doubt I will be able to produce anything of great length. Please accept my apology, and realize I am not dodging your question. When you get my response, I hope you will be pleased.


You're leaving for a while, dude? That sucks, but I remember finals, it takes a lot of work.

Good luck, but u better come back ASAP

[Michael De Panama]

What is your fascination with the Commie Club? All it is is a place to gossip about you people.

[Guest]

An individual cannot contribute to a group unless he has the skill to do so independently. I am not an ex member, or a nazi, or any kind of political label. I am an individual, and understand the rights I have as an individual.

[Stormin Norman]

Okay, this will have to be my last post. I didn't want to deny Suffianr my opinions, so I recreated my previous work. The next post will contain the body of my work.

[Stormin Norman]

Groupthink is a term that I have been exposed to because of the nature of my academic major. My field often requires teamwork to accomplish a given task. However the connotation was less Orwellian, for our purposes. We failed to discuss the political and economic implications of groupthink. Groupthink is a danger posed by teamwork. It slows the brainstorming stages of development, as people fear straying from popular opinions and ideas, and will upset the group dynamic. Since we failed to discuss groupthink on the scale of an entire society and how it fits into the communist agenda, I would be happy to address it here.

Although the concept of groupthink can be applied to large-scale political movements, I don’t believe the illusion of invulnerability manifests in such groups. Take communism as an example. One common feature of communist and socialist governments remains their desire to remove dissenting opinion from their ranks. Banning people from this website is a good case in point. Reasons for such behavior lie in the vulnerability of such systems. When people are exposed to the alternative, they will naturally choose the better option, unless they enjoy human suffering. Leaders of such groups recognize this vulnerability as an inevitable threat to their lifestyle, and seek to remove it at all costs. Aside from the first symptom, communists exhibit all of the other handicaps associated with groupthink.


Shared Stereotypes

Clearly, shared stereotyping occurs and remains the reason communists depict capitalists as filthy rich hogs in top hats that smoke cigars and exploit the work of their ‘slaves’. Marx classified this stereotypical character as the bourgeoisie. The proletariat represented the false stereotype of the whip driven slave, which broke his back working in a mine or factory to feed his family, only to die a lonely, miserable death. It is interesting to note that many who challenged the Bolsheviks were labeled as dirty capitalists and killed. Their bodies mutilated. Stereotyping of this sort was essential for the dehumanizing effect needed to decimate the opposition, and is a feature communists share with the Nazis. Throughout the history of communism outsiders have been stereotyped to generate opposition to outside influences, while political favorites and military leaders were depicted as heroes, and made into icons.


Rationalization

The kinds of atrocities that communism creates can only be justified through group rationalization. When a society conspires to kill millions of people for the purpose of perpetuating a great fraud, they must create excuses to justify their behavior. Specifically, they use an egalitarian line to create support for a system that contradicts that very premise. The type of repression communists engage in can only be viewed as a hypocritical action that counters the egalitarian worldview, they claim to support. That being said, communism is a self-defeating political theory.


Illusions of Morality

Along with the previously noted rationalization comes the sense of morality it creates. Communists view their misdeeds as a way to make the world a better place, free of the dirty capitalists who, they claim usurps the labor of others through underhanded means. Communism and socialism then becomes a utilitarian movement with the purpose of creating the greatest good for the largest number of people. The communist variety of utilitarianism demands that the individual's rights be suppressed and replaced with the tyranny of the collective. The false sense of morality becomes, yet another for of form of rationalization.


Censorship, Unanimity, Direct Pressure, and Mind Guarding

All of these symptoms of groupthink must be looked at together, for they are designed to serve the same purpose in communism, and are inter-related. Self-censorship is done through the control of the media, and by way of laws that prevent political activism. The purpose for such action is to create the dangerous illusion of unanimity. In order to prevent the decay of the public’s support, this type of consensus is necessary. Preventing outside influence on behavior can be viewed as a type of mind guarding that also exists to build a sense of unanimous consent. Citizens are forced to attend political rallies designed to reinforce the enthusiasm felt by the individual components of the society. Another method includes the use of citizens to document and profile one another. The profiles can be based on the behavior of others. In order to assess such things, one can ask seemingly innocent questions, for the purposes of evaluating the person’s level of loyalty to the system. Weak supporters, or those with poor attitudes, can then be isolated from those who do not equivocate in their support for the cause, or the leaders. This protective measure is seen to strengthen the vitality of the population’s ferocious support. By far the most effective method of securing unanimous opinion includes the use of direct pressure. Terrorism is the most notorious manifestation of this symptom of groupthink. It instills fear in the minds of the citizenry. Fear of execution or work camps will effectively motivate the population base to present the illusion of undying public support.

One thing is for certain. Any group that demonstrates the symptoms of groupthink; cult, religious, military, or political should be scrutinized by critical minds. They present a danger to the minority and the capacity of the individual. This kind of group dynamic is an unhealthy one, as it stifles freethinking and creativity. A society that bases its operation on the concept of groupthink will destroy invention, innovation, and the basic willingness to make decisions. Such a society is doomed to fail because it goes against the very nature of man.

In response to the original question posed, I think it is clear that communism is more likely to succumb to groupthink than a free-market system. However, the corporate world is not immune. Many design failures have been attributed to a general failure to stray from popular ideas caused by groupthink. When any group comes together for a common purpose the dangers of teamwork exist.

The goal is to attain synergy and develop a group dynamic that will ensure success. Creating an open environment with a willingness to accept the original ideas of others is the best way to achieve this state. Somehow I think communism fails to do these things. The corporate world tends to view people who think outside of the box as assets that generate new ideas and increase productivity, where as, communism seeks to destroy them, since they threaten the power structure.

[Stormin Norman]

Do any of you commies want to offer any criticism to this completely original work?

[peaccenicked]

You dont know a thing about communism. What you have is a bourgeois stereotype produced by projecting stalinism on to genuine communism.
Corporate power loves new ideas as long as they make money. The hate ideas about increased public spending.

[Stormin Norman]

Is that all you got, that tired old assumption that Stalinism wasn't true communism? You can do better than that can't you? Most good corporations will entertain new ideas, up until the point where it is obviously a dead end.

[The Guest]

Ther is no such thing as genuine communism. You can never trust all of mankind to contribute equally, it is immpossible. I don't know who you stereotype as "corporate power," but I as an individual will now and always refuse to pay to keep someone else afloat. You can risk yourself, but you shouldn't hold that as a right to expect me to do the same. Public spending sucks. You put your money in the hands of people you don't really know, to help people you don't know, to achieve something none of them could achieve. That is how you accomplish the current state of the world.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 3:32 am on July 29, 2002
Is that all you got, that tired old assumption that Stalinism wasn't true communism? You can do better than that can't you? Most good corporations will entertain new ideas, up until the point where it is obviously a dead end.

did you everythink that perhapes they call it Stalinism because of Stalin.

Things with people's names attached usualy involve what the person did.

which is why Communism has no ones name attached to it because it has many forms.

[peaccenicked]

How about feeding the world ?. And no matter how much you insist communism is stalinism. You wiil never make two + two = 5, as is the habit of american totalitarians.

[Stormin Norman]

Like Lardlad said, it is simply a variety of communism. Like all other varieties of communism this is how it behaves. Never did I state that my criticism of communism was only to be apply to the Stalinist variety. It is a general pattern of behavior exhibited by all communists. Much of what I said could be applied to this board. Look at how you won't let anyone who disagrees with you in to politics or history. Fact is, you only want your own convoluted perception of history and politics. New ideas scare you, because you are not interested in the truth. You are only interested in your fairy tales, as you fail to recognize the destructive nature of what you're preaching. Groupthink is the trademark of the communist. You value the collective mind over the individual mind. You want some sort of hive mind that will infest the rest of humanity.

[peaccenicked]

It was never a variety of communism.
It was a defeat for communism.

edited to be more accurate



(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:58 am on July 29, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

did you consider that perhapes no one wants you there because this site primarily is socialist/communist

really I don't give a damn. However the opinions of history are all that can be disscussed so it can't be new ideas.

[peaccenicked]

Communists do not want the hive mind but merely the wealthy few to stop hiving off the rest of society.

[Stormin Norman]

Any good historian does more than simply read dry facts. They try to recognize cause and effect patterns throughout history. They interpret the things that they read, and discuss the theories behind the ideas. If you think history is not open to interpretation, and must simply be taken at face value, you are wrong. He who wins the war writes the history. That should always be considered when interpretting history. The current history is full of truth, but also has the propensity to lean towards on side or the other. The job of the historian requires so much more than regurgitating what has already been said. One must sift through buildings full of information and piece together a timeline that corresponds to the relevant information that they are looking at. History requires top notch researchers.


(Edited by Stormin Norman at 8:44 pm on July 29, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 4:07 am on July 29, 2002
Any good historian does more than simply read dry facts. They try to recognize cause and effect patterns throughout history. They interpret the things that they read, and discuss the theories behind the ideas. If you think history is not open to interpretation and such simply be taken at face value you are wrong. He who wins the war writes the history. That should always be considered when interpretting history. The current history is full of truth, but also has the propensity to lean towards on side or the other. The job of the historian requires so much more than regurgitating what has already been said. One must sift through buildings full of information and piece together a timeline that corresponds to the relevant information that they are looking at. history requires top notch researchers.

damn I need to start being clear.

I just meant to say it wasn't like you could rewrite history so why should it matter what you guys disscuss.

I know history is open to inturpretation.

I was just saying that why would anyone care whos in the History forum seeing as how what has happened has happened

[Stormin Norman]

Why would anyone care? The answer lies in the fact that history can be interpreted. Leftists do not want anything that with contradict their interpretation of history, because they are trying to rewrite it to fit their agenda.

[peaccenicked]

Bourgeois history is the history of patriotic deeds and great individuals. It is the rationalisation for the existence of their society. It basically is underpinned by a pile of lies. It is the socialist historians job to expose these lies and tell the truth about what really happened.
We have read the lies already we dont need reminded by disingenuous slaves of the empire who only want to sustain ignorance and spread it.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 4:18 am on July 29, 2002
Why would anyone care? The answer lies in the fact that history can be interpreted. Leftists do not want anything that with contradict their interpretation of history, because they are trying to rewrite it to fit their agenda.

first of all I feel myself to be very openminded.

Second if a person is right I'm gonna tell them they are right

[The Guest]

Liberal socialist history is the stuff taught in American public schools. All the curriculum is created by the liberal-self proclaimed "intellecuals" of America. History is hard to understand unless you understand the ideologies and philosophies being used to justify either side.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from The Guest on 8:07 am on July 29, 2002
Liberal socialist history is the stuff taught in American public schools. All the curriculum is created by the liberal-self proclaimed "intellecuals" of America. History is hard to understand unless you understand the ideologies and philosophies being used to justify either side.

first of all Either way istory will be taught leaning one way left or right it can't be totally unbiased.

Second of all I'm questioning if you even know what socialist means.

my schools have taught me nothing socialist and I've been to school in 3 and soon four states and 7 schools about to be 8

they teach how great america is. they never say anything about socialism or communism.

they don't even teach the word capitalism because they assume thats what everyone is.

I have never been taught anything farther left than racism is wrong at school

[The Guest]

History doesn't have to be biased that is a lie. It is objective or it is only opinion. I know what socialism means and the pack mentality that drives it. School teaches you how great government is. Look at what you have said, a socialist (government owned business, the put money into the economy paying its workers) business using the money stolen from society, teaches the youth of that society to adore its government, dispite the obvious that it is unjust. My point is find what you are rebeling against, not just some surface issue. Don't blindly jab at what your are rebeling against. Leftism represents government deciding what is right (and as you have pionted also government teaching children what to believe is right, along with media) where as idividualism (I don't claim to be right, the people on the right follow the same leftist group philosophy) and what America stood for originally, was a mans right to chose for himself. The use of group force to determine what is right and wrong is commonplace in america, and acually dealing with underlying issues is ignored.
My school taught me capitalism and socialism last year (senior year high school in Fortuna, CA took a class on political science). The reason most schools don't teach socialism is a lack of understanding, mixed with political correctness and respect for the opinions of others, caused by the lack of understanding. They (the teachers) assume everyone is capitalist because they don't know what it is, and even they were taught to think america was capitalist (even after the clear switch to mixed economywith the knew deal.) People like to claim philosophies they don't understand. Any government spending to generate jobs for people to work for social programs is socialism. What you said earlier about making no money just proves the futility of investing in social programs. You either get no return or lose, I would take that risk on an investment, though I don't invest, I don't have free money to spend on other peoples things. Plus mixed is with gov. involvement, which happens constantly in America, and surprise, surprise it never works.
Racism being wrong isn't leftist, it is logic. If a person didn't chose it then you shouldn't judge them by it.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from The Guest on 11:37 pm on July 29, 2002
History doesn't have to be biased that is a lie. It is objective or it is only opinion. I know what socialism means and the pack mentality that drives it. School teaches you how great government is. Look at what you have said, a socialist (government owned business, the put money into the economy paying its workers) business using the money stolen from society, teaches the youth of that society to adore its government, dispite the obvious that it is unjust. My point is find what you are rebeling against, not just some surface issue. Don't blindly jab at what your are rebeling against. Leftism represents government deciding what is right (and as you have pionted also government teaching children what to believe is right, along with media) where as idividualism (I don't claim to be right, the people on the right follow the same leftist group philosophy) and what America stood for originally, was a mans right to chose for himself. The use of group force to determine what is right and wrong is commonplace in america, and acually dealing with underlying issues is ignored.
My school taught me capitalism and socialism last year (senior year high school in Fortuna, CA took a class on political science). The reason most schools don't teach socialism is a lack of understanding, mixed with political correctness and respect for the opinions of others, caused by the lack of understanding. They (the teachers) assume everyone is capitalist because they don't know what it is, and even they were taught to think america was capitalist (even after the clear switch to mixed economywith the knew deal.) People like to claim philosophies they don't understand. Any government spending to generate jobs for people to work for social programs is socialism. What you said earlier about making no money just proves the futility of investing in social programs. You either get no return or lose, I would take that risk on an investment, though I don't invest, I don't have free money to spend on other peoples things. Plus mixed is with gov. involvement, which happens constantly in America, and surprise, surprise it never works.
Racism being wrong isn't leftist, it is logic. If a person didn't chose it then you shouldn't judge them by it.

your perception and anyone elses perception of History cannot be totaly the same there fore it is always biased.

>>>School teaches you how great government is. Look at what you have said, a socialist (government owned business, the put money into the economy paying its workers) business using the money stolen from society, teaches the youth of that society to adore its government, dispite the obvious that it is unjust. <<<

man what the hell? How many US schools do you know that are unbiased? Hell no, they make you pledge alllegiance then they try to make you feel like an outcast cuz you disagree.

Also taxes aren't stealing money.


>>>Leftism represents government deciding what is right (and as you have pionted also government teaching children what to believe is right, along with media) where as idividualism (I don't claim to be right, the people on the right follow the same leftist group philosophy) and what America stood for originally, was a mans right to chose for himself<<<


Chose for himself? Did the US every really stand for that? What about all the electoral College bullshit.

It was started cuz the government felt people weren't smart enough to make their own decision ie popular vote.

leftism is the government deciding whats right? Where are you pulling this shit from? That would be true if I believed the government should own everything, but I don't so it doesn't.

the US isn't a mixed economy. If it was the US would own buisnesses. It doesn't.

There is a difference between Social programs and socialism.

True socialist don't want people to be lazy, something the US has created through welfare.

The US government does not run buisnesses. People run buisnesses no mixed economy.

If a government owned industries in a country (Steel coal, etc.) then it wouldn't need as much money from taxes to spend back on the country.

>>>Racism being wrong isn't leftist, it is logic. If a person didn't chose it then you shouldn't judge them by it.<<<

think the most extreme right wingers you can think of are are Nazi's.

Nazi's are racist.

Anything not racist is left of the right wingers that are racist.

technicaly it is leftist from a nazi point of veiw.

ps. Guest can you space out your paragraphs its getting hard to find where I left off in your post

[peaccenicked]

This debate is the stuff of decades old academic debate.This article goes into its complexities.
http://www.ihrinfo.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Whatish...tory/carr1.html (http://www.ihrinfo.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Whatishistory/carr1.html)

(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:36 am on July 30, 2002)

[The Guest]

"your perception and anyone elses perception of History cannot be totaly the same there fore it is always biased."
Everybodies perception of the event is just a distortion

of the reality that happened. The reality was constant

and unchanging when it happened. There is one reality

and that is what happened. What you might lack is the

true motives, which can only be brought desicion made

based on knowledge, which goes against the definition

of biased and opinion.

"man what the hell? How many US schools do you know that are unbiased? Hell no, they make you pledge alllegiance then they try to make you feel like an outcast cuz you disagree."

You are exactly right in one respect, they force you to

throw out your own reasonable judgement for that

which has been commonly exepted by society. That isn't

the freedom to chose for yourself, that is government

telling you what to think. You feel like an outcast to a

society that accepts these things, so why not rebel

against that society, instead of helping those that are

caught up in playing the society. The government of

America was founded to protect individuals from

majority rule such as this, but as the people demanded

that it take a bigger role in their lives it did. Know you

can't live your life without the control of the

government. A government that only has that much

power because some people can't live independently

and ordered that government provide. You've said the

same thing as me but I have someone to blame, not

just some label "America."

"Also taxes aren't stealing money."

If a man is forced to pay against his will it is stealing.

Mixed economy is government involvement, which

America (the government now) owns plenty of industry

(or controls it). You are eluding to comand, or complete

government control.

The fact was that America stood to protect the

intellectual who uses his mind from the mass rule of the

majority. Popular vote is a terrible thing. I hate losing

my freedoms to the majority of people who are willing

to ive them away. Like after the WTC got hit. The

majority of ignorant Americans, with know idea of the

complexity of the issue, ran to surrender their freedom

to government. These are the people you want calling

the shots, making moral judgements, electing

representatives and running our society (which includes

me.) I would rather take care of myself.

I agree with you that the world is at a horrible state,

but you can't blame the individual for it. It was a long

process of individual freedoms going to a "democratic"

majority rule. Everyman has certain right, which in your

arguements you have alluded to (such as inability to

openly express dislike of government policies, which if

they were not given power wouldn't exist) and the

majority of Americans over the years(whether they

knew it or not) have sacrificed their rights. I am not

going to help anybody in this current state, who could

be the man who sacrifices my rights.

[Lardlad95]

with out majority rule their is no democracy. With out democracy there is no fair government. With out a government there is anarchy.

Majority rule should only prevail when decisions regarding the government are concerened.

Then ask your self why anygovernment has taxes?

sorry I really would like to have asnwered more thouroughly but I gotta take a shower
we'll disscuss more in depth later.

[Lardlad95]

now that I think about it your advocation of man's own choice and absolutley no government involvement seem almost anarchist.

Despite the fact that you believe we should have a military.

[The Guest]

There is such a thing as individual rights ror single

individuals to exist in an organized society. Call it

organized anarchy were ther people are allowed to do

anything but violate the rights of others. The

government simply protects these rights. There is no

majority to force you to live their way.

with out majority rule their is no democracy. With out democracy there is no fair government. With out a government there is anarchy.

"Majority rule should only prevail when decisions regarding the government are concerened."

That is why government should stay out of social issues. So the majority can't decide what the individual can do.

Are governments only constitutional expenditure of

taxes was to have an army to protect the individuals

rights from a majority that attempted to or does violate

them. Government can't be fair, because their only role

is to secure the individuals rights. They either do it or

they don't. America failed at that, I lost my rights, and I

am determined to go through anybody, anything, to

get them back. Democracy isn't good. If everybody is

invoved in making decisions then everyone has to

compromise, sacrifice, their right to choice on that issue

to everyone else. Majority makes true, as it know is,

and I am stuck here realizing the world is drowning

in its hypocracy.

[Hattori Hanzo]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 7:43 pm on July 26, 2002
I disagree with the group on this topic.


LOL, that's why you're on this site CI!

[peaccenicked]

relevant quote.
''What Marx and Marxists would say is that ideas are not neutral. They are determined by the existing relations of production, by the economic structure of society. Ideas change according to the interests of the dominant class in society. Antonio Gramsci coined the phrase "ideological hegemony" to describe the influence the ruling class has over what counts as knowledge. For Marxists, this hegemony is exercised through institutions such as education, or the media, which the Marxist philosopher and sociologist, Louis Althusser referred to as being part of what he called the Ideological State Apparatus. The important thing to note about this is that it is not to be regarded as part of a conspiracy by the ruling class. It is a natural effect of the way in which what we count as knowledge is socially constructed. The ideology of democracy and liberty, beliefs about freedom of the individual and competition are generated historically by the mode of production through the agency of the dominant class. They are not neutral ideas serving the common good but ruling class ideas accepted by everyone as if they were for the common good.''

[The Guest]

There you have it. Marx taught the theory of how to

destroy reason and logic, but claimed it to be only

natural. The Idealogical State Apparatus, or

Establishment, was created by so-called philosophers

as Marx, to destroy the individual mind. What you said

was that there is no truth, only what is commonly

exepted. What I am trying to say is I don't go with what

is commonly exepted, and because one of the teachers

of this philosophy (Marx) said it was natural, not a

conspiracy to degragate the individual mind, for people

be lead by biased mass rule, instead of individual

freedom, doesn't make it true. Think for yourself. Do you

want to continue to be lead by the masses that got us

here. Which involves every "class" not just the one on

top. You have to give in to sacrifice your knowledge to

the knowledge that they exept. Then if you go beyond

their understanding you are punished, seizing of

advancement will happen shortly after such a

philosophy as Marx's becomes openly exepted. But

now we can blame the injustices of his philosophy,

which is currently in place, on giving the majority the

ruler of all. An idea can be neutral if you make it that

way, and if you don't make it neutral you are only lying

to yourself. If others exept it they do the same, but in

a worse way.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from The Guest on 1:00 am on July 30, 2002
There is such a thing as individual rights ror single

individuals to exist in an organized society. Call it

organized anarchy were ther people are allowed to do

anything but violate the rights of others. The

government simply protects these rights. There is no

majority to force you to live their way.

with out majority rule their is no democracy. With out democracy there is no fair government. With out a government there is anarchy.

"Majority rule should only prevail when decisions regarding the government are concerened."

That is why government should stay out of social issues. So the majority can't decide what the individual can do.

Are governments only constitutional expenditure of

taxes was to have an army to protect the individuals

rights from a majority that attempted to or does violate

them. Government can't be fair, because their only role

is to secure the individuals rights. They either do it or

they don't. America failed at that, I lost my rights, and I

am determined to go through anybody, anything, to

get them back. Democracy isn't good. If everybody is

invoved in making decisions then everyone has to

compromise, sacrifice, their right to choice on that issue

to everyone else. Majority makes true, as it know is,

and I am stuck here realizing the world is drowning

in its hypocracy.



if the majority can't decide what the individual is allowed to do how do you know if you are violating someone else's rights?

[The Guest]

If you are not forcefully detering them from doing as

they please. Have you ever heard of the self-evident

truths. I man is free when others cannot force him to

betray his own reasoning. You have the right to exist as

as individual, for yourself, without any obligation to

others. It is an explanation of survival of the fittest so

that the weak (no label for social groups they are in all)

can't gang up on the strong and force them into

submission by the majority rule.

[Lardlad95]

OK as an individual I want to walk around naked and not bathe. And carry dogshit around in a bag

now that isn't stopping anyone else from being an individual.

Besides that fact society wouldn't progress if people were only interested in themselves.

[The Guest]

Society progresses based on individual achievement.

Not everybody understands, and not everybody truely

advances (hence primitive faction-tribal oriented

society). If you want to do those things it is just fine,

but you wouldn't be able to do it on the property of

others. They have the right to not want to see you on

their property, but can't tell you what to do on your

own. That is why we have individual property rights, so

you can do what you want but others don't have to. If it

was found by the majority a must to walk around naked

and not bathe and carry dogshit around in a bag would

it be fair that I be forced to do it. Do what you want, but

don't interfere with me. This is the same logic christians

use to justify the under god in their flag salute. You

always had the choice, but they wanted everyone to do

it, and the majority exepted it. Now what happens

when someone fights it legally, protests declaring the

man who responsible took it to court is trying to

undermine American values (as if there were any

anymore.) The Christians have no argument, much like

the mass who wants the chain on another individual (in

an attempt to stip him of his free choice).

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from The Guest on 2:11 am on July 30, 2002
Society progresses based on individual achievement.

Not everybody understands, and not everybody truely

advances (hence primitive faction-tribal oriented

society). If you want to do those things it is just fine,

but you wouldn't be able to do it on the property of

others. They have the right to not want to see you on

their property, but can't tell you what to do on your

own. That is why we have individual property rights, so

you can do what you want but others don't have to. If it

was found by the majority a must to walk around naked

and not bathe and carry dogshit around in a bag would

it be fair that I be forced to do it. Do what you want, but

don't interfere with me. This is the same logic christians

use to justify the under god in their flag salute. You

always had the choice, but they wanted everyone to do

it, and the majority exepted it. Now what happens

when someone fights it legally, protests declaring the

man who responsible took it to court is trying to

undermine American values (as if there were any

anymore.) The Christians have no argument, much like

the mass who wants the chain on another individual (in

an attempt to stip him of his free choice).

on my own property? What about public property?

If there is no public property than society can't progress because ideas can't be disscussed because information would spread to slowly.

If you invent millions of technological advances but no one else knows about them, society hasn't progressed, you have.

[peaccenicked]

You define liberty as an individual against society. Socialists starting point is finding liberty within society.
There are problems with democracy but we say it is better than minority dictatorship. Our answer is to work for the voluntary inclusion of all in the democratic process.

[The Guest]

You don't have to have masses of people who can't

make up their own minds.

[peaccenicked]

I reckon that confusion is universal. Humanity is steeped up to the neck in centuries of barbarism. There are signs that since the Renaissance and the Enlightenment that we have moved forward.

[The Guest]

The universal quest is to explain that which confuses.

You don't need shared property to have shared ideas,

technology permits it, I don't need to share property

with you. Life isn't about making sure everyone else

understands everything you do, it is to understand as

much as you can. If you wanted to talk of conduct on

private property, nakedness isn't a problem, it isn't

neccessary to bath, as far as the shit, I think it would

be okay as long as you didn't use it to mess with other

people. As long as they aren't forced to interact with

your crap (you throw it at them or something) it

wouldn't hurt anyone, so if that is what you wanted to

do, carry shit, I would want you to be left alone, and

would be mad if they arrested you simply for possession

of dog manure.

[peaccenicked]

Still you define your self against society as though you are a unit detached from it. The fact is you are in society
and there are only a few structures that humans can possibly organise themselves around. Minority dictatorship, majority dictatorship, or universal consensus. You are forced to interact with one of these structures, or become a cave dweller.
Socialists argue that you need shared property to initiate a universal consensus.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:47 am on July 30, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from The Guest on 3:38 am on July 30, 2002
The universal quest is to explain that which confuses.

You don't need shared property to have shared ideas,

technology permits it, I don't need to share property

with you. Life isn't about making sure everyone else

understands everything you do, it is to understand as

much as you can. If you wanted to talk of conduct on

private property, nakedness isn't a problem, it isn't

neccessary to bath, as far as the shit, I think it would

be okay as long as you didn't use it to mess with other

people. As long as they aren't forced to interact with

your crap (you throw it at them or something) it

wouldn't hurt anyone, so if that is what you wanted to

do, carry shit, I would want you to be left alone, and

would be mad if they arrested you simply for possession

of dog manure.


if everyone is seperated how can ideas spread.

Also how can you understand that much if you can't interact with people.

Also seeing as how this whole contry would be divided between us all imagrants couldn't come here and some of them could have concepts you have never heard of.

[The Guest]

Ideas can spread as freely as the people who have

them with hem to. Nobody is prevented from

interaction, it just isn't forced. I would be free to share

my ideas with whom I chose, and they wouldn't have to

be given to people who can't concieve them, which

usually just causes problems anyway. It is unlikely that

I would know people from over the globe and share

ideas with them, because I like traveling and sharing

ideas. You shouldn't expect new ideas and

advancements to be given to you. If you want them you

must, in essence, rediscover them. The ideas I have

don't come from society , or public forums, (as I know

the media is filled with lies.) I seek out knew ideas

through physics, philosophy, mathematics, and a little

psychology. You can't expect to advance by having

someone give you a computer, you can only advance by

understanding that computer, which is a self-motivated

desire to understand.

[Lardlad95]

rediscover them? Then who gets credit?

[peaccenicked]

No-one is foced to interact per se, but if you dont want to be permanently alone, what choice is there?

[The Guest]

Depends on how you look at it. I am very proud of

myself for knowing what I know, and will take credit (in

a sense) for my ability to coprehend. I can't claim to be

the first, but it is enough for me to know.


What I ment is to understand another persons idea,

you technecally have to discover it for yourself, they

can't just upload it to your hard drive.

I get your thing about people needing help sometimes,

but I think the help will turn out bad (or there is too

great of a risk of that) if you don't know the person. If I

met an able person who needed help, it would profit

me to help him (he could help me, friendship, another

person to share ideas with), but of the people I know

only a very small percent would recieve my help. I do

not like the ignorance of the average man (not the

laboror, I am not being class defined), and would rather

be killed then to help it go farther.

[Lardlad95]

oh I meant new ideas.

anyway, the thing is people work with the person to figure out what type of job they are compatible with. They get to know how the person would operate, not on a completeley personal level though.

[peaccenicked]

You seem to be saying you feel oppressed by the ignorance by the common man but dont want to do anything about it because you can learn by yourself.
If you want to gaze at your navel for rest of your life I cant stop you.
If you help your friends they may like you but the way to get good friends is to help people you dont know .
Then you might be liked by people who have much stronger characters.

[The Guest]

I am liked by by people with strong chaacter, are you

not listening. Just because I want to know who I'm

helping, doesn't damage my character or that of my

friends. I didn't say I didn't want to do anything, I said I

wanted a government who would protect individuals

from mobs. One on one is good any time.

Lardlad: I agree with helping people to understand

things and giving them the information they need to

understand, I just wouldn't like our government to do it.

I also think that people having jobs they are compatible

with is important (though I do think people know what

they really want to do, and most the tome they do it). I

am not against helping, only when it is forced.

[peaccenicked]

You want a government that protects individuals from mobs.
Who exactly are this mob that you are worried about?
Are you worried about gang warfare or something?
You are really not posing anything relevant.
How about that mob called the US Air force killing innocent Afghani individuals?

[The Guest]

Ha, ha.