Human nature

[Schrödinger's Cat]

“It is human nature which makes the Greeks – a civilised people – enslave the conquered barbarians and all other peoples. It is on account of human nature that there exists inequality among men and the oppression of some by others.”

Chattel slavery was defeated as one measure of human progress.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Pretty much every social order there has ever been has been justified and legitimised by the claim that it is "the natural way of things", even hermits and back-to-nature-freaks claim that nomadic and tribal societies are natural, where little order exists.

The human nature argument has always been lifeless, I think - just by the sheer quantity of vastly differing models of society that have employed it.

-Alex

[Bud Struggle]

“It is human nature which makes the Greeks – a civilised people – enslave the conquered barbarians and all other peoples. It is on account of human nature that there exists inequality among men and the oppression of some by others.”

Chattel slavery was defeated as one measure of human progress.


The real story of the human race has been it's constant revision of the "definition" of what constitutes humanity. Little by little it become more inclusive.

And this I see as real progress (maybe the only REAL WORTHWHILE progress man has ever made): little by little we are starting to see--we are all brothers and sisters.

From womb till death--brothers and sister.

[Herman]

From womb till death--brothers and sister.

Your capitalist propaganda wont wor-

Oh... wait, i'm confused....

[Bud Struggle]

Your capitalist propaganda wont wor-

Oh... wait, i'm confused....

Somehow I knew I wasn't going to be popular. :rolleyes:

But I make a valid point.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Heh...you're a follower of Auguste Blanqui now, eh Tom?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Tom - how do you edit your posts without it saying you've edited it?

-Alex

[Bud Struggle]

Heh...you're a follower of Auguste Blanqui now, eh Tom?

I'm reading (and trying to be funny) at the same time. :lol:

Muchly impressed by three months of the Paris Commune. (Eighty years of the Soviet Union--not so much!) :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Tom - how do you edit your posts without it saying you've edited it?

-Alex

Sorry if I did. Mostly I edit spelling and gross violations of the English language. (And honestly--once in a while just something STUPID that I say.)

Forgive me--no evil intent.

As for How? I'm Catholic--things just seem to work out for me. ;)

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I wasn't criticising you for it, it's just that I swear it normally says when people edit their posts. Meh, I dunno.

-Alex

[Bud Struggle]

I wasn't criticising you for it, it's just that I swear it normally says when people edit their posts. Meh, I dunno.

-Alex

I get a grace peroid--maybe 5 mins--I can change spelling errors and no hit on the base line. After the 5 mins. I get hit with a "TomK Changed this!"

I thought it was in the program.

[Elliot_R]

is it human nature than humans are greedy, because there has never been a period otehrwise? wouldnt we have established communism now, had that not be the case?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

is it human nature than humans are greedy, because there has never been a period otehrwise? wouldnt we have established communism now, had that not be the case?

We're self-interested, like all living creatures. Greedy has different connotations. If we were as greedy as Rand bots would like us to be, human civilization would have never progressed beyond rape and murder. Hell, cooperation is the advantage some species have over others. It's very likely humans wouldn't even exist without cooperation from our primate ancestors.

[Elliot_R]

rationally, we think in our own best interest. if we can better ourselves, even if harming others at least some, wouldn't we do it (in general)? those people dont effect me! if i can get 50k by killing this person, what harm does it have on me (assuming there was no such thing as a legal system)?

[pusher robot]

We're self-interested, like all living creatures. Greedy has different connotations. If we were as greedy as Rand bots would like us to be, human civilization would have never progressed beyond rape and murder. Hell, cooperation is the advantage some species have over others. It's very likely humans wouldn't even exist without cooperation from our primate ancestors.


That doesn't follow. Greed, as understood by Rand, was an incessant desire for a better life. Obviously, if you are sabotaging mutual exchange for mutual benefit by raping and murdering potential traders, you are failing to achieve this desire.

[Elliot_R]

money equates to a better life.

[Mindtoaster]

There is no such thing as human nature, besides the need to eat and reproduce.

Everything else constitutes human behavior, and is subject to change, within a few flexible parameters.

[Elliot_R]

There is no such thing as human nature, besides the need to eat and reproduce.

Everything else constitutes human behavior, and is subject to change, within a few flexible parameters.

then human behavior has been very consistent since the start of life.

[spice756]

That doesn't follow. Greed, as understood by Rand, was an incessant desire for a better life. Obviously, if you are sabotaging mutual exchange for mutual benefit by raping and murdering potential traders, you are failing to achieve this desire.


I think what he was saying if people are greedy and hate other people but your self.:( No one would work to build thinks and we would be like MAD MAX.

How did the natives do things they where like communist.

[Elliot_R]

I think what he was saying if people are greedy and hate other people but your self.:( No one would work to build thinks and we would be like MAD MAX.

How did the natives do things they where like communist.

what do you mean for the latter part?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

We're self-interested, like all living creatures. Greedy has different connotations. If we were as greedy as Rand bots would like us to be, human civilization would have never progressed beyond rape and murder. Hell, cooperation is the advantage some species have over others. It's very likely humans wouldn't even exist without cooperation from our primate ancestors.




Unlike what the Marxist bot way of thinking being greedy doesn't necessary mean you are going to rape, steal and kill to get what you want.

Another thing, as soon as capitalism began we acquired planes, trains, toilet paper, TVs and everything else you use everyday.

CONSENSUAL COOPERATION is the idea behind capitalisms. FORCED COOPERATION is the idea behind communism, Rape, Murder, slavery, monarchy, and tyranny. You're idea, which is basically human cannibalism, is nothing new. Though out human history people have always tried and forced this idea on the population.

"Your life belongs to the government!" "Your Life Belongs to the people!", "Your life belongs to religion!" When have we been told that our life and what we acquire with it belongs to us?

Actually if you're a successful capitlist people are going to want to steal,rape and kill you isn't that right Gene? You want to see all those capitlist robed and raped huh?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

That doesn't follow. Greed, as understood by Rand, was an incessant desire for a better life. Obviously, if you are sabotaging mutual exchange for mutual benefit by raping and murdering potential traders, you are failing to achieve this desire.

Rand's judgment is off base. Most rational people would not pursue a better life at all costs - knowing full well their actions might cause misery. Rand has some deep contradictions in her theories, so I won't dispute your claim, but it doesn't take into account the reality of Objectivism for its adherents. Thus why you see many Objectivists excited at the prospect of the weak and poor dying. If I'm not mistaken, Rand believed in some form of absolute reciprocation, where I as a dying man should give you something equal to your benefit. Of course Rand fails to acknowledge that this dying man may very well be a consequence of the property owner's monopoly.

As Tolstoy poetically put it, money is currently an impersonal form of slavery. It benefits from that fact.

However, I should now stipulate that Elliot's premise can still be debunked by market socialism (mutualism). If the system does not allow for authoritarianism, and it still can exist both with self-interest and mutualist interests, the argument of greed dies on its face. I should add that in my other thread dealing with a cooperative economy in Northern Italy we saw the opposite of what Randroids think should happen - the cooperatives gave up about 3% of their profits for a mutual bank, which would fund new competitors.

[Plagueround]

Unlike what the Marxist bot way of thinking being greedy doesn't necessary mean you are going to rape, steal and kill to get what you want.

Another thing, as soon as capitalism began we acquired planes, trains, toilet paper, TVs and everything else you use everyday.

CONSENSUAL COOPERATION is the idea behind capitalisms. FORCED COOPERATION is the idea behind communism, Rape, Murder, slavery, monarchy, and tyranny. You're idea, which is basically human cannibalism, is nothing new. Though out human history people have always tried and forced this idea on the population.

"Your life belongs to the government!" "Your Life Belongs to the people!", "Your life belongs to religion!" When have we been told that our life and what we acquire with it belongs to us?

Actually if you're a successful capitlist people are going to want to steal,rape and kill you isn't that right Gene? You want to see all those capitlist robed and raped huh?

He's on to us! I was so planning on raping Gene "the business owner" Costa when the revolution happened. Quick everyone, back to the secret underground bunkers!

[CaptainCapitalist68]

I think what he was saying if people are greedy and hate other people but your self.:( No one would work to build thinks and we would be like MAD MAX.

How did the natives do things they where like communist.

Yes the natives were basically communism within their own tribe. If you caught a buffalo the buffalo belonged to everyone. If a person was dieing of an illness or old age they would be taken care of. If you were strong and fast you be made a hunter. If you were a good leader you'd be chieftain. etc etc

And because they were communist they never accomplished anything of any significant importance.

[Plagueround]

Yes the natives were basically communism within their own tribe. If you caught a buffalo the buffalo belonged to everyone. If a person was dieing of an illness or old age they would be taken care of. If you were strong and fast you be made a hunter. If you were a good leader you'd be chieftain. etc etc

And because they were communist they never accomplished anything of any significant importance.

They made many inventions and agricultural contributions that are used to this day you fucking ignorant troll.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Unlike what the Marxist bot way of thinking being greedy doesn't necessary mean you are going to rape, steal and kill to get what you want.

Another thing, as soon as capitalism began we acquired planes, trains, toilet paper, TVs and everything else you use everyday.

CONSENSUAL COOPERATION is the idea behind capitalisms. FORCED COOPERATION is the idea behind communism, Rape, Murder, slavery, monarchy, and tyranny. You're idea, which is basically human cannibalism, is nothing new. Though out human history people have always tried and forced this idea on the population.

"Your life belongs to the government!" "Your Life Belongs to the people!", "Your life belongs to religion!" When have we been told that our life and what we acquire with it belongs to us?

Actually if you're a successful capitlist people are going to want to steal,rape and kill you isn't that right Gene? You want to see all those capitlist robed and raped huh?

I've explained my position before:


As an anarcho-socialist (mutualist, more precisely, although I would gladly join a communist association), I see a contradiction in the belief of absolute property rights. As another user said, possession is 9/10ths of the law. We should be careful about defending non-person property when a reasonable man (or woman) would object. After all, it is the state which claims ultimate authority over property. Unfortunately, when I visit Mises.org and other market forums, I find myself in the minority when I bring up this point: there is no natural rights to property, and indeed individual possession can sometimes be unjustified.


My opinion resembles David Friedman's, except for his limited knowledge of justice. I believe laws will be won on the "market place." Social anarchists and individualist socialists will hotly dispute property that they find unjustifiable, as should an anarcho-capitalist if a reasonably-wealthy man claims ownership over land he's not even seen. So a property owner should think twice before entrapping me in his field of private possessions, or claiming sole ownership over the only water hole in the immediate area, because he will have to deal with the consequences of vandalism and perhaps even an insurrection from his workforce. His defense agency or association will start requesting even more money for its defense. The more despicable his use and ownership implies, the more he would have to rely on defense. Compounded to this reality will be his defense/association's public image. Other defense associations will refuse to cooperate with anyone who is bringing that much attention. If you do contracts with them, you probably won't be reimbursed. Chances are after a certain period of time you will see different levels of insurance: the cheapest will be for small homes, and the most expensive will be for commercial property that you're not using. Few will deal with anything more. Large-scale production will be too costly for private firms; it will likely be handled by cooperatives, communist associations, and collectives.

Some who hold onto the notion of "natural rights" will decry this as wrong, but I think it's a lot more reasonable than "first come, first service." Individuals are asserting themselves as a replacement for the state. They should be challenged.

[Decolonize The Left]

"Human nature" is a pointless, posited, unjustified, absurd idea.

Let's think about it for a minute: human-nature.
That implies that at some point some beings ceased to be primates and became humans and BAM! they had a nature. It was at that instant (which cannot be stated with justification) that we had a nature and it was X, Y, or Z. It doesn't cross people's minds that in the continuum of evolution there is no point at which anything has a "nature" for all things appear to be in constant change.

So why is human nature a stupid, pointless idea which ought to be discarded?
1) There is no justification for what this idea means. It is posited/assumed.
2) There is no point at which creatures acquired a "nature" that can be identified.
3) All "natures" are adaptations from other "natures" to the point that "natures" becomes an absurd statement.
4) Since we are individuals occupying perspectives upon our position, we analyze from said position thereby bringing our subjective values into the equation. Hence 'human nature' cannot be spoken of objectively, as it is always a value-statement.
5) On a practical level, given the above-stated problems with 'human nature,' it is almost continuously used to oppress other human beings.
6) On another practical level, TomK has noted that there is a progressive element to the theoretical descriptions of human nature. This progression is an illusion of positive change as it still assumes that human nature exists in the first place. So sure, more folks will be included, but this is a privaledged position to hold. Coming from someone who is most certainly more well-to-do than the vast majority of the human population, TomK has the luxury to say that others are being included. All the while the concept itself is oppressive.

- August

[CaptainCapitalist68]

They made many inventions and agricultural contributions that are used to this day you fucking ignorant troll.

Maybe some did such as the mayans and aztecs did. But by then they weren't communist anymore. They developed a market where people (get ready for this) TRADED with each other even though they lived under a monarchy. They even had different economical classes and a currency.

It most be very disturbing to the communist that the most successful native American societies practiced a form of capitalism while the most primitive american indian societies ones were basically communist. If communism is indeed successful shouldn't things be the other way around? Actually, the communist probably doesn't have the intellectual honestly to see this.

[spice756]

so natives are not communists that is news for me.



Unlike what the Marxist bot way of thinking being greedy doesn't necessary mean you are going to rape, steal and kill to get what you want.

Before capitalisms that was the case.But capitalisms values private ownership and competition.The capitalists and people even working class are taught in school to think about me than we.Greed and profit.The American Dream



CONSENSUAL COOPERATION is the idea behind capitalisms


No if one does not take part of capitalisms he or she will be on the street and die of hunger.Not much free will.



Rape, Murder, slavery, monarchy, and tyranny


Ya that was like that in the US with the blacks slaves .Read up on it.No communism is not about that.



"Your life belongs to the government!" "Your Life Belongs to the people!", "Your life belongs to religion!" When have we been told that our life and what we acquire with it belongs to us?



There is no government or religion under communism that is socialism.In socialism communist party members rule by the people through state .Under communism it is rule by the people with out communist party members.

There is no state under communism.And there should be no state for things like affars in your work place ,city or town,area you live or laws so on.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

I've explained my position before:



You're basically saying that a person shouldn't own property because that property might be where a much needed water well is that and so this will cause people to break the law or the workers to take over?

A lot of the United States is owned by the few. You'd be lucky to own even a piece of property. Can you point out to me where workers are revolting and taking things by force because of this? Is this happening everywhere?

This really isn't a problem. The capitlist will find a way to make this products affordable to the masses otherwise he would't be able to sell them to make a profit to begin with. Look at walmart, Wal Mart is successful and its also pretty capitlist and very cheap.

[Plagueround]

Maybe some did such as the mayans and aztecs did. But by then they weren't communist anymore. They developed a market where people (get ready for this) TRADED with each other even though they lived under a monarchy. They even had different economical classes and a currency.

It most be very disturbing to the communist that the most successful native American societies practiced a form of capitalism while the most primitive american indian societies ones were basically communist. If communism is indeed successful shouldn't things be the other way around? Actually, the communist probably doesn't have the intellectual honestly to see this.

I will not dignify that with a further response until you go do some research and see how many common, everyday items you likely use were created by Native American tribes of all kinds. It wouldn't even matter to me if you weren't using race to try and prove some kind of disgusting point.

[Elliot_R]

"Human nature" is a pointless, posited, unjustified, absurd idea.

Let's think about it for a minute: human-nature.
That implies that at some point some beings ceased to be primates and became humans and BAM! they had a nature. It was at that instant (which cannot be stated with justification) that we had a nature and it was X, Y, or Z. It doesn't cross people's minds that in the continuum of evolution there is no point at which anything has a "nature" for all things appear to be in constant change.

So why is human nature a stupid, pointless idea which ought to be discarded?
1) There is no justification for what this idea means. It is posited/assumed.
2) There is no point at which creatures acquired a "nature" that can be identified.
3) All "natures" are adaptations from other "natures" to the point that "natures" becomes an absurd statement.
4) Since we are individuals occupying perspectives upon our position, we analyze from said position thereby bringing our subjective values into the equation. Hence 'human nature' cannot be spoken of objectively, as it is always a value-statement.
5) On a practical level, given the above-stated problems with 'human nature,' it is almost continuously used to oppress other human beings.
6) On another practical level, TomK has noted that there is a progressive element to the theoretical descriptions of human nature. This progression is an illusion of positive change as it still assumes that human nature exists in the first place. So sure, more folks will be included, but this is a privaledged position to hold. Coming from someone who is most certainly more well-to-do than the vast majority of the human population, TomK has the luxury to say that others are being included. All the while the concept itself is oppressive.

- August

you cannt say that human nature does not exist, when all people are always self-interested. rationally we do what is in the interest of our survival or our well-being. without placing value judgements on anything, to what degree is NOT looking in your best interest ideal? why wouldn't you do that? how is a community rational? isn't maximum freedom the freedom to do whatever you want at the expense of others even? wouldn't that seem universial? since we are all human, a human method must be developed in which we all share similarities towards, because we cannot have large differences, as we are composed on the same cellular material. how is it not rational, assuming no justice system, to commit what we call "crimes" even if it means harming another individual? how does this individual have any significance to your life....?

[spice756]

"Your life belongs to the government!" "Your Life Belongs to the people!", "Your life belongs to religion!" When have we been told that our life and what we acquire with it belongs to us?


Again there is no state under communism it is collectiveness.The democracy is down through worker council.Why should the state be involved with work place affairs ,town or city,area one lives in,street,local laws.

The communist party members will give people skill to govern them self with out communist party members telling them what to do.



Actually if you're a successful capitlist people are going to want to steal,rape and kill you isn't that right Gene? You want to see all those capitlist robed and raped huh?

The capitlist kill people every day and many are starving.

[pusher robot]

I will not dignify that with a further response until you go do some research and see how many common, everyday items you likely use were created by Native American tribes of all kinds. It wouldn't even matter to me if you weren't using race to try and prove some kind of disgusting point.

I can't find any primary sources on the subject. Care to provide a few examples?

EDIT: Wait a minute. He was arguing that it was the communist primitive societies of the Americas that failed to produce siginificant progress. You're now saying that's a racial attack. You're the racist one, for thinking that American tribes were racially bound to communism.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

so natives are not communists that is news for me.

I didn't say that. This is actually the first time I heard about natives being communist and I do agree with you.

The ones who didn't have an advance society, which includes most North American Indians were communist. I later pointed out that the ones with the more advance society practiced a form of capitalism when they developed a market and currency.






Before capitalisms that was the case.But capitalisms values private ownership and competition.The capitalists and people even working class are taught in school to think about me than we.Greed and profit.The American Dream

No not really. We are taught to care for each other and to go to college and to have a good job. Not once in high school did I heard, "the idea is to make the most money". Once I heard "The most important person in the world is you!" but thats about it.

Public education in the US prepares you more just to be another regular worker in general and not a successful capitlist.




No if one does not take part of capitalisms he or she will be on the street and die of hunger.Not much free will.

So you're saying the ones that don't work die of hunger and shit? As it should be! Choosing to not exist is part of a free will.




Ya that was like that in the US with the blacks slaves .Read up on it.No communism is not about that.

Slavery is not a part of capitalism. Its a part of communism. Under communism people are forced to work for each other.




There is no government or religion under communism that is socialism.In socialism communist party members rule by the people through state .Under communism it is rule by the people with out communist party members.

So who controls the distribution of wealth and who controls what jobs people will do? Who controls crime? Theres you government right there. Eventually this government, which is made up of a reckless mod, will get powerful and become tyrannical.




There is no state under communism.And there should be no state for things like affars in your work place ,city or town,area you live or laws so on.

I am totall about not havign a state. But I also believe we are not ready. And I also believe people should have the right to work towards their happiness and try and own whatever they please provided everything is done under consensual agreement.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

I will not dignify that with a further response until you go do some research and see how many common, everyday items you likely use were created by Native American tribes of all kinds. It wouldn't even matter to me if you weren't using race to try and prove some kind of disgusting point.

Its funny, I actually have some Native Meso American Blood in me. I am not trying to bash on any ethic group I am just saying facts.

Hmm well I am sitll trying see how my high power computer, which I consider an everyday common item, was actually made my Native Americans but I am having little luck :(

[Plagueround]

I can't find any primary sources on the subject. Care to provide a few examples?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0914_040913_information_about_indians.html

This names a few rather important ones, although it leaves out a lot. I have a few books about Native history as well, but they are at home and I am not.

http://www.kporterfield.com/aicttw/

I also wish I had this book because it lists over 450 inventions and would strengthen my point considerably if I were able to list them all. :p

[Plagueround]

Its funny, I actually have some Native Meso American Blood in me. I am not trying to bash on any ethic group I am just saying facts.

Hmm well I am sitll trying see how my high power computer, which I consider an everyday common item, was actually made my Native Americans but I am having little luck :(

I suppose if I were a libertarian shut in the only item that would come to mind would be my computer as well.

[Elliot_R]

Its funny, I actually have some Native Meso American Blood in me. I am not trying to bash on any ethic group I am just saying facts.

Hmm well I am sitll trying see how my high power computer, which I consider an everyday common item, was actually made my Native Americans but I am having little luck :(

why would you think your computer was made by native americans....?

[Plagueround]

EDIT: Wait a minute. He was arguing that it was the communist primitive societies of the Americas that failed to produce siginificant progress. You're now saying that's a racial attack. You're the racist one, for thinking that American tribes were racially bound to communism.

Not only does he have no basis for saying that, but his original post made no such distinction. Not once did I ever make the claim that all Native American tribes were communist, and in fact have said many times that their systems of governing were as varied as any other. Nice try.

[pusher robot]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0914_040913_information_about_indians.html

This names a few rather important ones, although it leaves out a lot. I have a few books about Native history as well, but they are at home and I am not.

http://www.kporterfield.com/aicttw/

I also wish I had this book because it lists over 450 inventions and would strengthen my point considerably if I were able to list them all. :p

That's an interesting list as far as it goes, I guess, but a few points.
(a) Few of those things are what I would consider "everyday inventions."
(b) I don't really consider discovering something that exists naturally (like chicle bark) the same as inventing something that never previously existed.
(c) You shouldn't include items from the large imperial tribes. They had strict hierarchies and could not be plausibly described as "communist."

[CaptainCapitalist68]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0914_040913_information_about_indians.html

This names a few rather important ones, although it leaves out a lot. I have a few books about Native history as well, but they are at home and I am not.

http://www.kporterfield.com/aicttw/

I also wish I had this book because it lists over 450 inventions and would strengthen my point considerably if I were able to list them all. :p

I like the chewing gum one. A native American basically graded a piece of tree and started chewing on it. Wow what an invention! Or the umbrella one. ANother Great invention that mostve taken a master mind to figre out! I wonder how many hours of research and development done in labs did it take them to come out with chocolate lol.....

And who would've notice that food spoils less faster on colder climates! Would a cave man ever notice this?

And they also invented Corn! This mostve been a very hard invention since the stuff basically grows out of the grown.....

You see where Iam getting with this....?

[Plagueround]

I like the chewing gum one. A native American basically graded a piece of tree and started chewing on it. Wow what an invention! Or the umbrella one. ANother Great invention that mostve taken a master mind to figre out! I wonder how many hours of research and development done in labs did it take them to come out with chocolate lol.....

And who would've notice that food spoils less faster on colder climates! Would a cave man ever notice this?

And they also invented Corn! This mostve been a very hard invention since the stuff basically grows out of the grown.....

You see where Iam getting with this....?

I do, you're implying everything this article covers actually.

http://www.kporterfield.com/aicttw/articles/lies.html

[Plagueround]

That's an interesting list as far as it goes, I guess, but a few points.
(a) Few of those things are what I would consider "everyday inventions."
(b) I don't really consider discovering something that exists naturally (like chicle bark) the same as inventing something that never previously existed.
(c) You shouldn't include items from the large imperial tribes. They had strict hierarchies and could not be plausibly described as "communist."

I agree it's not the best representation, but it's all I was able to find at the moment being at work. Once again, I never implied that Native Americans were all communist and that they didn't have hierarchical governments.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Good try guys but no dice....

Why is it that the people who invent offend causes other people to try and justify their contributions and shit....? Can't we just see things for the way they are instead of seeing everything as equal?

[spice756]

So you're saying the ones that don't work die of hunger and shit? As it should be! Choosing to not exist is part of a free will.


You are forcing them to be part of capitalisms or die of hunger .What if they do not what to be part of capitalisms ? You are forcing them .




Slavery is not a part of capitalism. Its a part of communism. Under communism people are forced to work for each other.



Well capitalism is about Slavery .Even under communism people who do not work will still have food ,water,house,clothing and education and healthcare.But they will not live a privilege life.And there will be people to help them out like social workers.



The ones who didn't have an advance society, which includes most North American Indians were communist. I later pointed out that the ones with the more advance society practiced a form of capitalism when they developed a market and currency.


The problem with them is they moved around and did not build a city.And just keep moving around.

In Europe they built a city and did not move around.They had lots of wars to spend the time on inproving weapons do to the wars they had.



no not really. We are taught to care for each other and to go to college


Than why do I see poor people in US ,homeless ,poverty,crime and people who do have access to education and healthcare?

Why do people in US have to work so hard and get very little back.

Go on to college to try to get rich.



Not once in high school did I heard, "the idea is to make the most money". Once I heard "The most important person in the world is you!" but thats about it.


The American dream is everyone can get rich does not work it is propaganda.

[Elliot_R]

I agree it's not the best representation, but it's all I was able to find at the moment being at work. Once again, I never implied that Native Americans were all communist and that they didn't have hierarchical governments.

then why defend them?

[Elliot_R]

why cant i quote individual passages without quoting the whole thing...? how will communism eliminate natural hierarchy....?

[Plagueround]

then why defend them?

Because when it comes to this subject, I could care less what government structures an indigenous people had when their wide contributions to the world come under attack. I'm not doing it because it somehow makes me "proud to be native", but when you undermine the vast importance of their discoveries (that article fails to mention their agricultural and medicinal progress, as well as many, many others...hence why I disclaimed it with "it leaves A LOT out") and place this ethnocentric "Europeans were the great inventors and American Indians were backward primmies" attitude, I will defend against that.


why cant i quote individual passages without quoting the whole thing...? how will communism eliminate natural hierarchy....?

What natural hierarchy?

[spice756]

I am totall about not havign a state. But I also believe we are not ready. And I also believe people should have the right to work towards their happiness and try and own whatever they please provided everything is done under consensual agreement.


People will be educated on what is communism and how to live that life.



So who controls the distribution of wealth and who controls what jobs people will do? Who controls crime? Theres you government right there. Eventually this government, which is made up of a reckless mod, will get powerful and become tyrannical.


There is no wealth or money under communism .People can get any job they want.Under communism a job is right not a privilege like capitalism.

[RebelDog]

If we have economic institutions that are based on oppression and exploitation, reward greed and power, and generally promote anti-social behavior, we should not be surprised by the negative effect this economic structure has on human behavior. This does not mean the present economic system is some kind of true reflection of fundamental human nature, and it is thus futile to seek substantial change. What this means is the institutions themselves must be destroyed and replaced by ones that promote solidarity, equality, self-management and democracy. When the material conditions of society have changed so will its people. If we have a economic system where accumulation of wealth or the rewarding of greed is no longer possible, then it makes no sense to say its human nature to be greedy anymore than it is to sit in the board room of a corporation and say it is human nature to be altruistic and argue for that. Both 'qualities' stand out as being wrong in different contexts and the corporation is a good example of an anti-social institution that promotes greed over people and what is good for society as a whole. The answer lies in replacing the corporation and the other undesirable anti-social institutions that encourage and promote selfishness and greed, with institutions that encourage and promote the opposite.

[GPDP]

If we have economic institutions that are based on oppression and exploitation, reward greed and power, and generally promote anti-social behavior, we should not be surprised by the negative effect this economic structure has on human behavior. This does not mean the present economic system is some kind of true reflection of fundamental human nature, and it is thus futile to seek substantial change. What this means is the institutions themselves must be destroyed and replaced by ones that promote solidarity, equality, self-management and democracy. When the material conditions of society have changed so will its people. If we have a economic system where accumulation of wealth or the rewarding of greed is no longer possible, then it makes no sense to say its human nature to be greedy anymore than it is to sit in the board room of a corporation and say it is human nature to be altruistic and argue for that. Both 'qualities' stand out as being wrong in different contexts and the corporation is a good example of an anti-social institution that promotes greed over people and what is good for society as a whole. The answer lies in replacing the corporation and the other undesirable anti-social institutions that encourage and promote selfishness and greed, with institutions that encourage and promote the opposite.

This. A thousand times this.

I've yet to see any substantial proof that with the advent of liberal capitalism, we have at last settled on the truest, most progressive manifestation of human nature, or that any system that seeks to supersede it would fail on a fundamental level for striving to achieve principles that human beings would ultimately reject at their very core.

I've seen people on this board talk about how if a socialist revolution were ever to take place, it could only be sustained through a powerful centralized government dedicated to making sure people stayed in line with communist dogma, because ultimately the "natural" selfish/entrepreneural spirit in people would lead them to reject the system in favor of something like what we have today, thus leading to mass repression in order to maintain what is presumed to be a system unfit for human beings as they actually are. But of course, I've yet to see proof that any of this is actually the case, that this capitalist "human nature" is the root cause behind the degeneration and ultimate unraveling of socialist movements worldwide.

So, I ask OIers the following question: can you prove this? Can you show us how human nature truly fits into the failure of socialism? Or are these claims merely part of a world-view or philosophy, much like Freud's unfounded claims that our creative energy comes from deflected sexual energy?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

You are forcing them to be part of capitalisms or die of hunger .What if they do not what to be part of capitalisms ? You are forcing them .

In a capitlist society there is nothing to stop people from sacrificing their ability to those who are supposely in need. Yes people are free to give to those that need because they are to dumb or too lazy to get a good enough paying job.

If people are indeed not selfish then this needy people have nothing to worry about.

And what is stopping you from creating your own community where doctors, lawyers, store clerks, and ganitors all get paid the same(or don't get paid at all) and being self sustainable instead of resorting to canniablism by eating the rich alive? Can't communism create its own wealth?




Well capitalism is about Slavery .Even under communism people who do not work will still have food ,water,house,clothing and education and healthcare.But they will not live a privilege life.And there will be people to help them out like social workers..

Yes but if you are able to work you will have to work. And what determines a person gettign a doctors education verses getting an education to be a janitor? CHoice?





The problem with them is they moved around and did not build a city.And just keep moving around.

In Europe they built a city and did not move around.They had lots of wars to spend the time on inproving weapons do to the wars they had.

They had thousands of years to find a good place. And if communism was better then why did the indians who stopped moving and did build a city adopt a form of capitalism by making a free market and a currency instead of staying communist?






Than why do I see poor people in US ,homeless ,poverty,crime and people who do have access to education and healthcare?

Why do people in US have to work so hard and get very little back.

Go on to college to try to get rich.



The American dream is everyone can get rich does not work it is propaganda.


You're assuming that if we were taught about communism, or about caring for each other or sacrificing for each othr in school then everyone would be find and dandy. Thats not true, people are greedy and if everyone would care for each other people woudl take advanatge of each other by faking needs or making up needs.

Look at this people who are homeless and poor. Are they on drugs? Do they have a liquor bottle on their hand? Are they criminals? Whats stopping them from looking int he newspaper and getting a fucking job?

A person who doesn't speak any English, is broke, has no high school education and knows nothing about this country except what direction its at can find a job and make enough to support himself and his whole family and still buy plenty of beer!!!! My neighbors are like that and we live in one of the poorest most dumbest cities in the US! Why can't this homeless people do the same? Why are they sitting on their ass all day doing nothing? Look at a freakign newspaper and get a job! its not that hard... I am not that smart and I can make enough money for myself and for my own education. Why can't they?

[Dr Mindbender]

In a capitlist society there is nothing to stop people from sacrificing their ability to those who are supposely in need. Yes people are free to give to those that need because they are to dumb or too lazy to get a good enough paying job.

If people are indeed not selfish then this needy people have nothing to worry about.

And what is stopping you from creating your own community where doctors, lawyers, store clerks, and ganitors all get paid the same(or don't get paid at all) and being self sustainable instead of resorting to canniablism by eating the rich alive? Can't communism create its own wealth?
i have given up any hope of you understanding communism.





Yes but if you are able to work you will have to work. And what determines a person gettign a doctors education verses getting an education to be a janitor? CHoice?
depends if you happen to be talking to a traditional marxist or a technocrat.

As a technocrat i would argue that no one will be lumbered into picking the janitorial 'short straw' since there is no rhyme or reason why this job cannot be automated.

[spice756]

In a capitlist society there is nothing to stop people from sacrificing their ability to those who are supposely in need.

Yes and that is where charity come in.But the problem is most people in capitlist society say that charity or the government deal with it.So just do not care that charity or the government deal with it.


Yes people are free to give to those that need because they are to dumb or too lazy to get a good enough paying job.

Some give .But keep in mind under capitlist we are taught in school me not we.


If people are indeed not selfish then this needy people have nothing to worry about.

People are program to be selfish under capitlist society.



And what is stopping you from creating your own community where doctors, lawyers, store clerks, and ganitors all get paid the same(or don't get paid at all) and being self sustainable instead of resorting to canniablism by eating the rich alive? Can't communism create its own wealth?

communism needs lots of money and resources not to say communism and capitalism cannot coexist .



Yes but if you are able to work you will have to work. And what determines a person gettign a doctors education verses getting an education to be a janitor? CHoice?


You will get education if you pass the test than you a doctor.If you need extra time to study so be it.

[spice756]

Look at this people who are homeless and poor. Are they on drugs? Do they have a liquor bottle on their hand? Are they criminals? Whats stopping them from looking int he newspaper and getting a fucking job?


You don't think britney spears ,travis barker ,Amy Winehouse ,50 cent so on ------do that.

There lots of pop stars and middle class that do that.




A person who doesn't speak any English, is broke, has no high school education and knows nothing about this country except what direction its at can find a job and make enough to support himself and his whole family and still buy plenty of beer!!!!

Some people are lucky others are not.




My neighbors are like that and we live in one of the poorest most dumbest cities in the US! Why can't this homeless people do the same? Why are they sitting on their ass all day doing nothing? Look at a freakign newspaper and get a job! its not that hard... I am not that smart and I can make enough money for myself and for my own education. Why can't they?


May be there is lots of jobs in your area.Try that in Detroit or New Orleans and it is hard.

[spice756]

You're assuming that if we were taught about communism, or about caring for each other or sacrificing for each othr in school then everyone would be find and dandy. Thats not true, people are greedy and if everyone would care for each other people woudl take advanatge of each other by faking needs or making up needs.




Tell me where people where taught about communism in school ?Not to say the kids go home and mom or dad brainwash them or the TV,movies or radio brainwash them.




They had thousands of years to find a good place. And if communism was better then why did the indians who stopped moving and did build a city adopt a form of capitalism by making a free market and a currency instead of staying communist?

That was part of their culture to move around and where isolated.

[Trystan]

Look at this people who are homeless and poor. Are they on drugs? Do they have a liquor bottle on their hand? Are they criminals? Whats stopping them from looking int he newspaper and getting a fucking job?



Mental illness is a big one. So is disability. And no, there is not an infinite amount of work out there. Contrary to popular belief, not all unemployment is due to laziness. But I doubt you would understand.

[pusher robot]

You are forcing them to be part of capitalisms or die of hunger .What if they do not what to be part of capitalisms ? You are forcing them .

Whenever I read your posts I hear this guy speaking your words:

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee272/pusher-robot/Toki.jpg

You should really make that your avatar, it would be perfect.

The point is that what you describe as being forced to be part of capitalism only means that a person must provide something useful to society if they want something useful from society. That's not so unreasonable.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

You don't think britney spears ,travis barker ,Amy Winehouse ,50 cent so on ------do that.

There lots of pop stars and middle class that do that.

Yes but here's the thing. Some people are able to party hard and still be responsible adults and work hard. Some people can't party hard without losing their job, flunking college, or destroying their own families etc etc.

There are plenty of successful people who are drug uses, alcoholics, and what not. But some people simply can't function when they drink or do drugs.

You're still under the delusion that all man are equal. this is not true.



Some people are lucky others are not.

I've noticed many Hispanics now a days pray to the "Santa Muerte" (Holy Death in english) She represents luck. It makes me think that people this days now depend on luck for good things to happen to them.

What ever happen to going out and making shit happen? Did the guy who made Google, IBM, Ford or Amazon depend on luck too? Bullshit, this people made shit happen.

When illegals come here they get jobs because of their persistence and determination. They want to work. They want it bad enough that they some how get it. The homeless person just sits on his ass all day. Why doesn't he go from house to house offering hsi service to pull weeds? Do something comeon...Get a newspaper and find a job...




May be there is lots of jobs in your area.Try that in Detroit or New Orleans and it is hard.

This citites also have very high African American population.

Actually a lot of illegals went to new Orlands to rebuild the city there.

[Trystan]

Whenever I read your posts I hear this guy speaking your words:

The point is that what you describe as being forced to be part of capitalism only means that a person must provide something useful to society if they want something useful from society. That's not so unreasonable.

You must provide for the people at the top of society (in return for a wage), not for society itself. And what if you can't work? For whatever reason?

Anyway, I thought there was "no such thing as society"? ;)

[pusher robot]

You must provide for the people at the top of society (in return for a wage), not for society itself.

That's clearly untrue for two reasons:
(a) The proportion of goods and services consumed by the few at the top to those of the non-top is not nearly large enough to command even a bare majority. It doesn't even come close.
(b) The bulk of business in the U.S. is small business, whose owner-operators, while not at the top of society, are not obviously producing for the top.



And what if you can't work? For whatever reason?


Then you have a right to ask people to labor for your benefit out of their generosity. Other may have a corresponding moral or ethical obligation to labor for you. But you don't have the right to force others to labor for your benefit if they don't want to. That's commonly known as "slavery."

[Self-Owner]

“It is human nature which makes the Greeks – a civilised people – enslave the conquered barbarians and all other peoples. It is on account of human nature that there exists inequality among men and the oppression of some by others.”

Chattel slavery was defeated as one measure of human progress.


Some people once made false claims about human nature;

Therefore, all claims ever made about human nature are false.

Is this the argument you were trying to get at? Because I don't see how proving that the Greeks were wrong also proves that modern evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, population genetics etc etc is also wrong.

[Elliot_R]

natural hierachy is inevitable. it's the organization of any advanced society. what logical reason would not support this, seeing as it has happened since the start of life? absolute equality cannot work, because there's always going to be disorder from against the system. to what degree would you consider the establishment of a community as rational? is it not that rationality runs contrary to community without a government? but without a government, is it not that people will work happily together for the benfit of each other? how is crime eliminated under communism? is it simply that crime is a product of capitalism? that people are all good? under communism, we will magically be good-natured human beings thinking in the interest of community above individual....is that so?

[Trystan]

natural hierachy is inevitable. it's the organization of any advanced society. what logical reason would not support this, seeing as it has happened since the start of life? absolute equality cannot work, because there's always going to be disorder from against the system. to what degree would you consider the establishment of a community as rational? is it not that rationality runs contrary to community without a government? but without a government, is it not that people will work happily together for the benfit of each other? how is crime eliminated under communism? is it simply that crime is a product of capitalism? that people are all good? under communism, we will magically be good-natured human beings thinking in the interest of community above individual....is that so?

Well communism would (theoretically) take away the incentive for most crime (which is committed against property). And what kind of hierarchy is "natural"? If you mean social hierarchy, you are mistaken. It has not existed since the start of life.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Mental illness is a big one. So is disability. And no, there is not an infinite amount of work out there. Contrary to popular belief, not all unemployment is due to laziness. But I doubt you would understand.

Laziness, stupidity and self intoxication are the main big ones.

Furthermor i've seen retards working at places like walmart. So if a retard can get a job why can't this people?

I doubt you'll ever understand self responsiblity.

[RebelDog]

natural hierachy is inevitable. it's the organization of any advanced society.

If the justification for anything was that is was advanced then it could surely be undermined by other advancement?

[RebelDog]

it's the organization of any advanced society. what logical reason would not support this,It would surely be illogical to propose this since it has never been properly tested.


seeing as it has happened since the start of life?Assuming you are correct, then by your statement I must deduce that you believe 'human nature' to be a static, unchanging reality. How is that possible by anyone's definition?


absolute equality cannot workSocial anarchists talk of 'economic equality' and there exists no other basis for any possible worthwhile social structure that does not include this as a fundamental. What does "absolute equality" mean? What do you think we should strive for?


under communism, we will magically be good-natured human beings thinking in the interest of community above individual....is that so?Do you regard this philosophical breakthrough as important because I find it outdated and immature? Also, the idea that what is good for society and the community should override the individual is not an alien concept, it is an essential for human existence.

[spice756]

Yes but here's the thing. Some people are able to party hard and still be responsible adults and work hard. Some people can't party hard without losing their job, flunking college, or destroying their own families etc etc.
There are plenty of successful people who are drug uses, alcoholics, and what not. But some people simply can't function when they drink or do drugs.
You're still under the delusion that all man are equal. this is not true.



The capitalism society is about me not we.It is hell for of competition and class struggle.I'm surprise most work and do not just stay home all day all stress out.




I've noticed many Hispanics now a days pray to the "Santa Muerte" (Holy Death in english) She represents luck. It makes me think that people this days now depend on luck for good things to happen to them.



Most Hispanics are exploited with low pay and long work hours very little to live on.

They need luck or faith in god.Under communism they do not need luck or faith in god.Everyone will have job and a job will be right not a privilege like in capitalism society .




This citites also have very high African American population.
Actually a lot of illegals went to new Orlands to rebuild the city there
.

Like I say may be there is lots of jobs in your area.But many have hard time in the US finding a job.And most jobs pay shit in the US.

[Elliot_R]

for some reason i cant quote....so please dont mind how disorganized this may be.... trystan: why do you say most crimes are property-related....? why is the benefit of crime different under communism than under capitalism? if anything, more crime will be caused from the shitty conditions of communism, is that right? how has social hierachy not existed from the start of life? then why has it evolved to this way? give me examples. doesnt this mean this is the way things are supposed to be? what reason is there for people not to be greedy since people will live with less? how come communism has always failed but a market economy has driven itself right back up? isn't communism difficult....? rebeldog: but how has human nature lasted this long and not changed! does this not mean there is a definate meaning of "human nature"...? give me examples in change of human behavior and examples on a large scale of communal support without greed apperant at all. i asume communism strives for equality in all aspects of life, ie people have to think the same, people have to walk the same, dress the same. so thats unity, right? how does that work...? in what respect is the community above individual "essential for human existence"? isnt that bad...?

[RebelDog]

but how has human nature lasted this long and not changed! does this not mean there is a definate meaning of "human nature"...?What entity in the whole universe has endured by remaining static? Nothing endures like change. If you have a defining meaning of human nature then how is it you believe in capitalism and me in libertarian communism?


give me examples in change of human behavior and examples on a large scale of communal support without greed apperant at all.Nothing can ever be achieved by trying to convince people to be 'good'. What can be achieved is a wholesale destruction of the institutions that promote and encourage the things we find repellent (like tyranny, hierarchy, oppression, exploitation and greed) with institutions that promote socially desirable outcomes like equality, solidarity, equality, self-management, participation and democracy. There exists no moral reason to argue against this nor is there any biological reason why humans cannot aspire to such things. The detail of such a society is to a great extent prefiguration, but it is surely clear the working class are historically opposed to capitalism and seek its destruction. Class society cannot endure anymore than the hills can.


i asume communism strives for equality in all aspects of life, ie people have to think the same, people have to walk the same, dress the same. so thats unity, right? how does that work...?One could only assume that by being ignorant. I don't know how a society like that works and nor do I want to.


in what respect is the community above individual "essential for human existence"? isnt that bad...? One devastating contemporary example is global warming. The right of corporations to exploit and pollute and society to pay the cost. The Iraq war, the recent bank bailout etc. If you think it is not wrong for minority elites to act selfishly without consent at the detriment of society then I do not have any idea of what we might agree what could be deemed right.

[Plagueround]

i asume communism strives for equality in all aspects of life, ie people have to think the same, people have to walk the same, dress the same. so thats unity, right? how does that work...? in what respect is the community above individual "essential for human existence"? isnt that bad...?

I suppose this is the price we pay for allowing people who know absolutely nothing about communism their own forum for badmouthing and "debunking" it. :laugh:

[Nusocialist]

That's clearly untrue for two reasons:
(a) The proportion of goods and services consumed by the few at the top to those of the non-top is not nearly large enough to command even a bare majority. It doesn't even come close.What about investments? As Keynes basically pointed out, basically parroting the socialist critique, it is the imabalance between the incomes of he many and the few which causes a lot of the problems in capitalism like business cycles.




(b) The bulk of business in the U.S. is small business, whose owner-operators, while not at the top of society, are not obviously producing for the top.


Not the bulk of sales, income, employees etc

[Nusocialist]

The problem with so many rightwing capitalists again is they obviously don't even comprehend society. Social relationships, instutions etc are non-existent to them.

[Trystan]

Laziness, stupidity and self intoxication are the main big ones.

Furthermor i've seen retards working at places like walmart. So if a retard can get a job why can't this people?

I doubt you'll ever understand self responsiblity.

Ah, well . . . that settles is then.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think everything that has not been subsidized by the government should be withheld from Captain Capitalist, since he believes the market is the end all of civilization. That way he can't use computers, passenger planes, modern-day cancer research (thanks Hitler), memory foam, night-vision, snorkels, scratch-resistant glasses, rockets, pethidine, shoe insoles, radar, large-scale farming, long-distance telephone technology, water filters, the internet, railroads, highways, fire alarms, and if we went to go further back to Chile's socialist system you can't use a store like Wal-Mart where the computer judges transportation needs.

And let's not forget that the Chinese monarchs were notorious for their pursuit of new inventions, giving us fireworks and paper.

And you can't use Soviet technology: bionic arm, satellites, Tetris, and break dancing. :laugh:

And this prototype:

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/5134/39603793de7.png

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Some people once made false claims about human nature;

Therefore, all claims ever made about human nature are false.

Is this the argument you were trying to get at? Because I don't see how proving that the Greeks were wrong also proves that modern evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, population genetics etc etc is also wrong.

Thanks for interjecting more of your false assumptions, Self-Owner. Robert Trivers and John Naisbitt may be very amused to find out that you have cracked more about human nature in three minutes than they in forty years.

It's not verifiable, but a lot of historians believe that the fastest period of growth between the Paleolithic and Neolithic Eras came as the economy doubled every 250,000 years. From there it doubled every 900 years, until the Industrial Revolution, where it now doubles every 15 years. If the technological singularity occurs, we may see our output double every year. The economic implications of such a level would favor socialists greatly - unless you're batshit crazy and think humans should compete against superior machines.

[Self-Owner]

Thanks for interjecting more of your false assumptions, Self-Owner. Robert Trivers and John Naisbitt may be very amused to find out that you have cracked more about human nature in three minutes than they in forty years.

Where's a single false assumption I made? I'd love to know. Was my representation of your argument correct? It was a genuine question.

And I didn't really make any specific claims about human nature, rather that according to the best current scientific theories the concept is by no means an empty one. I still don't see how name dropping guys who spent much of his career working on the specifics of human nature shows me to be wrong in any way.


It's not verifiable, but a lot of historians believe that the fastest period of growth between the Paleolithic and Neolithic Eras came as the economy doubled every 250,000 years. From there it doubled every 900 years, until the Industrial Revolution, where it now doubles every 15 years. If the technological singularity occurs, we may see our output double every year. The economic implications of such a level would favor socialists greatly - unless you're batshit crazy and think humans should compete against superior machines.

I've seen these figures before, and I've read a little on the singularity. It's obviously a mug's game to predict the specifics of massive future technological revolutions but I don't see any reason why socialism is the clear favourite. If the economy really becomes post-scarcity I don't see it looking anything like anything people have ever imagined - not socialism or capitalism. But I doubt that we'll ever see a real post-scarcity economy, at least not in everything.

[Trystan]

for some reason i cant quote....so please dont mind how disorganized this may be.... trystan: why do you say most crimes are property-related....? why is the benefit of crime different under communism than under capitalism? if anything, more crime will be caused from the shitty conditions of communism, is that right?

Most crime is rooted in material shortage. Private property stops these needs being met. As for crime under communism, well . . . theoretically, communism is a state of material abundance, so there will be no need for most crime ( theoretically . . . but note how people who are materially well off typically don't burgle houses and so on to make ends meet).


how has social hierachy not existed from the start of life? then why has it evolved to this way? Well, primitive societies had little hierarchy. So do/did those examples of more recent communal living (note that I'm talking about social and political hierarchy here).


doesnt this mean this is the way things are supposed to be? What do you mean by "supposed to be"?

As for the rest, you seem to be referring to the "communism" of the 20th century ("shitty conditions" etc.) They were not communist, but only had communism as their proclaimed goal (or so they said).

[Dean]

The point is that what you describe as being forced to be part of capitalism only means that a person must provide something useful to society if they want something useful from society. That's not so unreasonable.

Unfortunately, capitalism has the ridiculous assertion that whatever maximizes profit is useful, and further that a group of powerful elites can and should have strict control of these distinctions.

[Self-Owner]

Unfortunately, capitalism has the ridiculous assertion that whatever maximizes profit is useful, and further that a group of powerful elites can and should have strict control of these distinctions.

Wow. This is about as good an example of a strawman argument as I have ever seen in my life, and that's saying something.

[Dean]

Wow. This is about as good an example of a strawman argument as I have ever seen in my life, and that's saying something.

Really? Capitalism is, by definition, an economic orientation which values profit as the primary drive for industry. Capitalism as it exists today has utilized multi-layered, centrally directed management - a distinct affirmation of my second clause. So, what's the problem? Do arguments against capitalism equate to arguments against your own ideal society in your mind? :rolleyes:

[Self-Owner]

Unfortunately, capitalism has the ridiculous assertion that whatever maximizes profit is useful, and further that a group of powerful elites can and should have strict control of these distinctions.

1) 'capitalism' isn't the sort of entity that asserts things - it's an economic system. Capitalists, on the other hand, are - they're people. Now you seem to be trying to claim that all supporters of capitalism assert this without actually saying it explicitly; which brings me to:

2) I don't know of a single capitalist supporter who would claim unqualifiedly that 'whatever maximises profit is useful.' Maybe you do - I'd be very interested to see any quotes along these lines. But I'm doubtful.

3) I don't know what you're talking about when you say 'these distinctions,' because you haven't made any distinctions in your post.

4) If you were trying to say that capitalists think that a group of powerful elites should have control of the economy, you're very much mistaken (at least when it comes to the largest group of people who claim to support capitalism, libertarians.) I can't speak for anyone else, but the entire reason libertarians are against large government is because they don't believe anybody, let alone elites, should have control of the economy in the way which senior politicians do.

[Ol' Dirty]

Howard Zinn does a great job of 'human nature' in his book Declarations of Independence.

[Elliot_R]

rebeldog; why would a man, trying to survive, give his food to another man, when he is starving? how is that rational? what benefit does thinking in the interest of others have on YOU? what makes you think people want equality? people want power, thus why the soviet union failed. would those at the top of capitalism think that equality and such is good....? why is equality good to his perspective? to those who think in their self itnerest (namely everyone), what benefit does this have to them? trystan; while you defend the rapists and the child murderer and blame it on his material conditions, i'll look at this and seek to idenity with the victim as opposed to the criminal. how is this a result of capitalism....? how is this a result of "material shortage"? why did communism throughout the 20th century fail....? perhaps it has something to do with human nature, ie the desire for power, for domiannce.

[Trystan]

trystan; while you defend the rapists and the child murderer and blame it on his material conditions, i'll look at this and seek to idenity with the victim as opposed to the criminal. how is this a result of capitalism....? how is this a result of "material shortage"? why did communism throughout the 20th century fail....? perhaps it has something to do with human nature, ie the desire for power, for domiannce.

I thought you might hit me with that strawman. I was speaking of most crime; most crime being committed against property. Asshole.

[pusher robot]

Really? Capitalism is, by definition, an economic orientation which values profit as the primary drive for industry. Capitalism as it exists today has utilized multi-layered, centrally directed management - a distinct affirmation of my second clause. So, what's the problem? Do arguments against capitalism equate to arguments against your own ideal society in your mind? :rolleyes:

I understand you to be saying two things:
1. Usefulness is determined by profit.
2. Capitalist elites control what is profitable.

But that doesn't make any sense. It is generally true that what is profitable is useful, precisely because capitalists can't control what is profitable. If a widget-making capitalist could simply decree that people must purchase his widgets at price X so that he can make a profit, he would. But he can't. The price he can charge is limited both by his competitors' desire to woo his customers and his customers' subjective valuations of the utility of widgets. Thus, if widgets cost Y to manufacture, and Y is greater that what customers subjectively perceive the value of widgets to be, widgets are objectively not useful, and this is known because they are not profitable, and being not profitable few resources will be wasted producing them.

[trivas7]

There is no such thing as human nature, besides the need to eat and reproduce.

Everything else constitutes human behavior, and is subject to change, within a few flexible parameters.
I disagree. There is such a thing as human nature. Steve Pinker's "the Blank Slate" convinces me that it is a matter of biology. It has to do IMO w/ processing conceptually, which no other animal does, but I could be wrong re this.

Collectivists sees the human species as basically material units that are interchangeable and amenable to social control. But anyone who has worked in a business setting knows this isn't the case. People bring unique skill sets to the job they do. There is a reason that economies flourish where individuals are the social unit, that economic failure results from implementing collectivism via political dictate. That reason lies in human nature.

[Dimentio]

Work and motivation, why do people work? (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=145&Itemid=103)

This is an interesting article which could serve as a framework for a serious discussion, unlike speculation.

[RGacky3]

Collectivists sees the human species as basically material units that are interchangeable and amenable to social control. But anyone who has worked in a business setting knows this isn't the case. People bring unique skill sets to the job they do. There is a reason that economies flourish where individuals are the social unit, that economic failure results from implementing collectivism via political dictate. That reason lies in human nature.

Socialists are not collectivists in the way you are thinking, we believe in the individual more so than Capitalists, (Who believe in the individuality for less 1/10th of the population). We believe in the individuality of everyone.


But that doesn't make any sense. It is generally true that what is profitable is useful, precisely because capitalists can't control what is profitable. If a widget-making capitalist could simply decree that people must purchase his widgets at price X so that he can make a profit, he would. But he can't. The price he can charge is limited both by his competitors' desire to woo his customers and his customers' subjective valuations of the utility of widgets. Thus, if widgets cost Y to manufacture, and Y is greater that what customers subjectively perceive the value of widgets to be, widgets are objectively not useful, and this is known because they are not profitable, and being not profitable few resources will be wasted producing them.

Your forgetting the Capitalists and the very rich generally overlap, a lot, meaning they are the same people, (same class), meaning they are also the number 1 consumers as a class, meaning as a class they have the most money to spend thus they get to pick the value.


4) If you were trying to say that capitalists think that a group of powerful elites should have control of the economy, you're very much mistaken (at least when it comes to the largest group of people who claim to support capitalism, libertarians.) I can't speak for anyone else, but the entire reason libertarians are against large government is because they don't believe anybody, let alone elites, should have control of the economy in the way which senior politicians do.

Very few real Capitalits (i.e. not ideological ones, the ones with big money), are libertarians. I don't think Libertarians believe in elite rule, but they fail to realize thats the outcome.

[trivas7]

Socialists are not collectivists in the way you are thinking[...]
OTC, of course they are.

[RGacky3]

OTC, of course they are.

No we arn't, see...


we believe in the individual more so than Capitalists, (Who believe in the individuality for less 1/10th of the population). We believe in the individuality of everyone.

[trivas7]

This is an interesting article which could serve as a framework for a serious discussion, unlike speculation.
And this escapes being speculative how exactly? Pinker grounds his conclusions in evolutionary biology.

[People Power]

no, tirbes lived communily for thosands of years. :cool:

[trivas7]

No we arn't, see...
Those who believe that socialism or communism is the most rational form of social organization are aghast at the suggestion that they run against our selfish natures. Marx assumes that in socialist society of the future the butcher, baker or brewer will provide us w/ dinner out of benevolence or self-actualization -- for why else would they cheerfully exert themselves according to their abilities and not according to there needs?

But if people, like other animals, are driven by selfish genes, selfishness might be a virtue. Although it is fallacious to assume that selfish genes necessarily grow selfish organisms, evolutionary biology points to the conclusion that people might have a tendency to value their own interests and those of their family and friends above the interests of the tribe, society, or species.

[Plagueround]

Those who believe that socialism or communism is the most rational form of social organization are aghast at the suggestion that they run against our selfish natures. Marx assumes that in socialist society of the future the butcher, baker or brewer will provide us w/ dinner out of benevolence or self-actualization -- for why else would they cheerfully exert themselves according to their abilities and not according to there needs?

But if people, like other animals, are driven by selfish genes, selfishness might be a virtue. Although it is fallacious to assume that selfish genes necessarily grow selfish organisms, evolutionary biology points to the conclusion that people might have a tendency to value their own interests and those of their family and friends above the interests of the tribe, society, or species.

You're not referring to Dawkins are you? If the implication is that being selfish is an inherent part of our genetics, you are grossly misinterpreting the man's work.

[danyboy27]

Those who believe that socialism or communism is the most rational form of social organization are aghast at the suggestion that they run against our selfish natures. Marx assumes that in socialist society of the future the butcher, baker or brewer will provide us w/ dinner out of benevolence or self-actualization -- for why else would they cheerfully exert themselves according to their abilities and not according to there needs?

But if people, like other animals, are driven by selfish genes, selfishness might be a virtue. Although it is fallacious to assume that selfish genes necessarily grow selfish organisms, evolutionary biology points to the conclusion that people might have a tendency to value their own interests and those of their family and friends above the interests of the tribe, society, or species.

i got serious doubt about the selfishness of the human being, but i think the problem with socialism is that its really too much rational for us, human being with feeling and emotions. if we would be emotionless creature, it would work well, the ants would certainyl agree with that.

i dont think its a matter of human nature, but more a matter of conflict between the human ability to reason and its emotion and feeling.

if both the feeling and our logic would go in the same dirrection, it would be great, but this kind of wisdom is not there yet, and i think will be achieved when we will be able to create cold fusion, use teleportation and not killing togethwer while developing those.

[RGacky3]

Those who believe that socialism or communism is the most rational form of social organization are aghast at the suggestion that they run against our selfish natures. Marx assumes that in socialist society of the future the butcher, baker or brewer will provide us w/ dinner out of benevolence or self-actualization -- for why else would they cheerfully exert themselves according to their abilities and not according to there needs?

But if people, like other animals, are driven by selfish genes, selfishness might be a virtue. Although it is fallacious to assume that selfish genes necessarily grow selfish organisms, evolutionary biology points to the conclusion that people might have a tendency to value their own interests and those of their family and friends above the interests of the tribe, society, or species.

Your killing me, the question that the post you quoted was about was the nature of Socialism, that Socialism IS about the individual and NOT primarily about the collective, and it takes compleatly into account the fact that people will work in their best interests and cannot be relied apon to be philanthropic.

You are arguing against a ghost, AGAIN, READ THE POSTS, also, I'm not a Marxist. Stop arguing against a ghost.

Socialism takes selfishness into acount, which is why it does'nt have hiarchy institutionalized, where people can use that selfishness to exploit others. It realizes that people will do things mainly for themselves, but also that peopl need things from other people, and are forced to cooperate out of self interest, which is tied into community interests.

Please don't let this post be a waste of time, if our going to respond, respond to actual points I'm making.


i got serious doubt about the selfishness of the human being, but i think the problem with socialism is that its really too much rational for us, human being with feeling and emotions. if we would be emotionless creature, it would work well, the ants would certainyl agree with that.

How so, why does Socialism require any more rationality than Capitalism?

[trivas7]

You're not referring to Dawkins are you? If the implication is that being selfish is an inherent part of our genetics, you are grossly misinterpreting the man's work.
No, I'm referring to Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" specifically.

[danyboy27]

How so, why does Socialism require any more rationality than Capitalism?
beccause i think in order to make it completly work without failure, the suppression of all our irrational emotion and feeling would be beeded.on the other side, the capitalist steamboat crave on our feeling and emotion 24/24 7/7, now i dont know its actually great, but that how the monster move, eventually the monster gonna mutate or explode.

what i am saying is, create a purely rational system, call it communism, put a lot of normal human inside, and all that great and perfect system you installed gonna decay or fail, eventually, human feeling gonna destroy it, in a way or another.

its not exclusive to socialism, it does that to capitalism too,

its like dropping sand into 2 watches, one is old and deregled, dont give the exact time, stop sometimes, now sand gonna make it even worst, but well, this watch always been shitty.

now you take another watches, swiss one, with a lot of precise gear and other, you drop some sand in it, and its just wasted and will not work at all after 2 min, while the first crappy watche will barely work again, but will still work.

NO I AM NOT SAYING WE SHOULD STAY WITH CAPITALISM! i am all for other idea and stuff, even for a form of communism of some sort, but the pure, hardcore version of it a lot of you guy preach isnt achievable without a proper clusterfuck.

please guy, dont go on me for what i just said, its just what i am thinking, i might be horribly wrong, so if you want to say me something about it go on we will talk, but i wont accept being called a moron or having a bunch of folks patronizing me, i dont need a father tanks you.

then again, sorry for all the last paragraph, i am just anticipating that people will eventually be offended by what i just wrote, take it personnal, and point at me a hundred of marx quote saying that i am not well educated, so i prefers take my precaution, i will respect you, respect me, even for my potential ignorance, that all!

ps: sorry work, i am pissed of crappy sacarsm, just want to have some fun here and talk nicely about subject.
:)

[RGacky3]

the suppression of all our irrational emotion and feeling would be beeded.on the other side, the capitalist steamboat crave on our feeling and emotion 24/24 7/7, now i dont know its actually great, but that how the monster move, eventually the monster gonna mutate or explode.


Why? If no one is in control whats the problem? Under Capitalism and Statism, the people in control, the bosses, the politicians, have to be rational, and suppress irrational emotion, because what they do effects a lot of people. Under communism everyone is their own boss, and works with each other, people will have to take responsibility yes, but not more so than under Capitalism.


i am all for other idea and stuff, even for a form of communism of some sort, but the pure, hardcore version of it a lot of you guy preach isnt achievable without a proper clusterfuck.

Whats hardcore communism?

If you have less hiarchy, you have less chance of a "clusterfuck" because there is less authority over other people.


No, I'm referring to Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" specifically.

You gonna answer my points? Actually contribute something?

[trivas7]

Your killing me, the question that the post you quoted was about was the nature of Socialism, that Socialism IS about the individual and NOT primarily about the collective, and it takes compleatly into account the fact that people will work in their best interests and cannot be relied apon to be philanthropic.

That socialism exists only in the brain of idealist utopians.

[RGacky3]

That socialism exists only in the brain of idealist utopians.

First of all, not it does'nt, examples have been given countless times, second of all, how is it idealist, every explination has taken into account the worst end of the spectrum of human nature, and it has been explained how Anarchism is less idealistic than any class/hiarchy.

Under Anarchism your not expecting any one to use their power for good, because no one has power over the other person, no one has to be philanthropic. How may I ask is that idealistic? Whats unrealistic about it.

Also see Anarchist Spain.

Please answer the points with real arguments and actual points, examples and/or reasonings. Not just your unimformed, undefended, unsubstancial opinions.

[trivas7]

Unfortunately, capitalism has the ridiculous assertion that whatever maximizes profit is useful, and further that a group of powerful elites can and should have strict control of these distinctions.

1) 'capitalism' isn't the sort of entity that asserts things - it's an economic system. .
This is an excellent point made by Self-Owner that bears stressing. Everywhere on these boards posters impute to capitalism -- an economic system -- what is only properly imputed to a person or agent. Variously capitalism asserts, causes, is immoral, is tyrannical, makes war, decimates the environment, etc. Neither are classes agents or persons.

[danyboy27]

Why? If no one is in control whats the problem? Under Capitalism and Statism, the people in control, the bosses, the politicians, have to be rational, and suppress irrational emotion, because what they do effects a lot of people. Under communism everyone is their own boss, and works with each other, people will have to take responsibility yes, but not more so than under Capitalism.


humm, you got a nice point here :D
But you can see everywhere on the tv and newspaper right now that capitalism is driven by emotion, you got scandals after scandals of people stealing from their own buisness millions of dollars every day, bad decisions are taken all the time beccause of investors and bosses feeling over this or that project.

that cause a high level of instability, but since the structure is build this way, every time something mess up, there is always a way out to kick th structure and put it on a right track for a moment.

the problem i see in not having nobody in control is that, to track down a problem and reverse the process that will eventually be caused by people feeling and emotions, or even human mistake, its gonna ask trememdous errors, and the logistic and administrative system we would have to put in place to do all that would be gargantuan, or at least that the impression i got about having a stateless society, to keep the check and balence regulated, a lot more security and management layer would be needed.
or at least, that the perception i have of it.



Whats hardcore communism?

the principle of perfect failsafe society, where all work fine without error or problem beccause we share all equally.
communism could happen, i really believe it, but not has perfect has a lot of people portrait it.
politics are something that man created, same goes for spaceship, and like everything man create, trouble happen, that the problem i got with absolute communism, people who talk to me about that are basicly trying to tell me that we can make a spaceship that will never crash.
that the problem i have.

note: then again, i have no intention to flame, or being mean or agressive toward peoples, just to discuss, and so far, its going well.
i really enjoy that civilized conversation with you gacky. lets continue.

[RGacky3]

the problem i see in not having nobody in control is that, to track down a problem and reverse the process that will eventually be caused by people feeling and emotions, or even human mistake, its gonna ask trememdous errors, and the logistic and administrative system we would have to put in place to do all that would be gargantuan, or at least that the impression i got about having a stateless society, to keep the check and balence regulated, a lot more security and management layer would be needed.
or at least, that the perception i have of it.


What is has more checks and balances than Anarchism? Seriously, yeah people will make mistakes, of coarse, but how does that mean that having a State and private property is better? That will just make the mistakes compounded.

We are talking here about a more free and fair system, not one where nothing can ever go wrong. Anarchism is more free and fair.

As far as finding out problems, it will be the same as in any other system, some people have certain responsibilities, if something does'nt work, then, over time, the community can change it, with a government in place, you have to essencially beg the government, also in a Class society something "working" is relative, meaning if its working for the ruling class, chances are they arn't going to change it.


people who talk to me about that are basicly trying to tell me that we can make a spaceship that will never crash.

Let me ask you, what will cause more damage, and Evil King? Or an Evil Senator? The point I"m trying to make, is the more decentralized the less damage people can make on society.

To asume that a hiarchy is needed to keep people in line, is to assume that the people on top are somehow morally superior to the people on the bottom, the benevolent dictator train of thought, and that is extreamly naive.

Like I said before, no one is saying its fool proof, that problems can't arise, but they will be more fairly handled, and leave people freer under Anarchism.

People talking about how things "might" go wrong in Anarchism should look around, things ARE going wrong, for the vast majority of the people in the world.

[danyboy27]

i like your recent post gacky, good discussion like that reallly feel good, even tho i dont necessarly agree with you all the time.

if more people like you would like to admit that its not failsafe, people would believe more in communism.

Even if it look this way, i dont believe that some people are superiors to other, but i do believe that some people got more skill for certain things, it dosnt making them better than the other. Some people are more skilled to lead people, that all. Of course, the current system tend to favorize the opportunists more than the people who got the ability to lead, wich result in big clusterfuck. Really i dont mind having a chief/leader or boss if he know what he doing. I admit that anarchism got the advantage that people can remove their chain of command if they are doing badly their job, but even that is far from being a perfect way of doing thing, sometimes, you got the feeling someone bad while in fact, he doing a great job.

then again, good to talk with you in a civilized manner. i know its getting repetitive, but i think its worth mentionning.

[RGacky3]

if more people like you would like to admit that its not failsafe, people would believe more in communism.

I don't think anyone is arguing that its failsafe, in the sense your thinking of it.


Really i dont mind having a chief/leader or boss if he know what he doing. I admit that anarchism got the advantage that people can remove their chain of command if they are doing badly their job, but even that is far from being a perfect way of doing thing, sometimes, you got the feeling someone bad while in fact, he doing a great job.

Your assuming that people in general are simply too dumb to know if someone is good at a job or not. Plus the threat of maybe the people taking responsibility away from someone who is actually good at doing what he does is a much better prospect than someone having power over people who wields it bad.

Keep in mind Anarchism is'nt a "system" its a set of principles on how society should be organized, i.e. that people should be free and people are equal in rights.

[danyboy27]

I don't think anyone is arguing that its failsafe, in the sense your thinking of it.



Your assuming that people in general are simply too dumb to know if someone is good at a job or not. Plus the threat of maybe the people taking responsibility away from someone who is actually good at doing what he does is a much better prospect than someone having power over people who wields it bad.

Keep in mind Anarchism is'nt a "system" its a set of principles on how society should be organized, i.e. that people should be free and people are equal in rights.

NO! i dont say people are dumb, i just say that people might not always necessarly understand if the guy is incompetent, some task are a lot more complicated than they seem to be.

[RGacky3]

NO! i dont say people are dumb, i just say that people might not always necessarly understand if the guy is incompetent, some task are a lot more complicated than they seem to be.

The implication is that people would'nt realize that and would put incompetant people in places with responsibility requireing competance. Also in waht way would a Statist system or a Capitalist system (Social democracy or whatever) put people with more competance in areas with responsibility better? Thats implying that somehow government officials or bosses have better judgement than everyone else.

[danyboy27]

The implication is that people would'nt realize that and would put incompetant people in places with responsibility requireing competance. Also in waht way would a Statist system or a Capitalist system (Social democracy or whatever) put people with more competance in areas with responsibility better? Thats implying that somehow government officials or bosses have better judgement than everyone else.

look, i didnt say it would systimaticly happen, i say it could happen. what i am saying is, from my work experience, cadres tend to do their best, and when they didnt they get replaced. a person could be verry friendly and do crappy work, but since he friendly, most of his working comrade will support his errors or missmanagement, until the authority replace him after they saw he botched his work for the last 3 month. then again, i dont say it would happen all the time, but that stuff that could happen. Sometimes, higher authorities got better judgement mainly beccause they got a better, bigger picture of the whole thing.

in the buisness i am in right now, i do a task x okay, and i do it well, i dont neither have the time or the experience to judge of the work of another of my comrade, its up to the cadres and the administration to do that.
not that they necessarly have a better judgement, but they see the bigger picture. a consciencious cadre ALWAYS listen the worker, i never accepted to work in a place where cadres where blind deaf and mute.

anyway, cadres like that dont live long.

[RGacky3]

look, i didnt say it would systimaticly happen, i say it could happen. what i am saying is, from my work experience, cadres tend to do their best, and when they didnt they get replaced. a person could be verry friendly and do crappy work, but since he friendly, most of his working comrade will support his errors or missmanagement, until the authority replace him after they saw he botched his work for the last 3 month. then again, i dont say it would happen all the time, but that stuff that could happen. Sometimes, higher authorities got better judgement mainly beccause they got a better, bigger picture of the whole thing.

in the buisness i am in right now, i do a task x okay, and i do it well, i dont neither have the time or the experience to judge of the work of another of my comrade, its up to the cadres and the administration to do that.
not that they necessarly have a better judgement, but they see the bigger picture. a consciencious cadre ALWAYS listen the worker, i never accepted to work in a place where cadres where blind deaf and mute.

anyway, cadres like that dont live long.

Its COMPLEATLY different in a Capitalist situation, when the workers only real responsibility is to pick up a pay check, their work is'nt "their work" its the companies. Look at a partnership, the partners might be good friends or whatever, but they are giong to make sure the other partners are decent at what they do.

But if your saying it would'nt systemically happen, what exactly are you arguing for or against?

[danyboy27]

Its COMPLEATLY different in a Capitalist situation, when the workers only real responsibility is to pick up a pay check, their work is'nt "their work" its the companies. Look at a partnership, the partners might be good friends or whatever, but they are giong to make sure the other partners are decent at what they do.

But if your saying it would'nt systemically happen, what exactly are you arguing for or against?

look, when i work, i do 1 task, and i do it right, that the way i am, and i know a lot of people that think this way.

[RGacky3]

look, when i work, i do 1 task, and i do it right, that the way i am, and i know a lot of people that think this way.

Good for you, whats the point?

[danyboy27]

Good for you, whats the point?

the point is, not everybody want to actively implicate themselves in their workplaces.

[RGacky3]

the point is, not everybody want to actively implicate themselves in their workplaces.

That may be the case but that does'nt mean they are responsible for the finished product, they just may or may not pride themself in a job well done. That was my point when I said they are worried about "their paycheck." Either way, wether your pride yourself in work or not is niether here nor there, because ultimately that has nothing to do with justifying authority.