I think my country was better in communism...

[Uzi]

You do that. Me? I happen to think that the developed world is currently living under some of the best governance the world has ever seen. That's not to say that it doesn't screw up, but it's a hell of a lot better than a lot of the things we've done in the past.

Even if it was the best the world has ever seen, it's got potential to be 1000x better.

[Crashdummy]

And what you need my friend is a dose of hard work and hope. I believe all no matter where you are from can strive to be better as long as there is a beacon of freedom some where in this world all can achieve what ever there heart desires. That is not possible under communism.. When ever one is the same, no one stands out.

Again, you belive that, but that is not real. You need a shower of reality. There are a lot of people in free countries without any real posibility of social mobility.

I even gave examples to you. And i dont know why you mention communism to me, when i said real communism cant be implemented in current society and the practical communisms implemented were bad.

Also, i dont think people standing out is a neccesity. I belive some people feel the necesity to stand out, but that is because we havent grown up as a society enough, we are still young.

Some day, people's neccesity of knowing no one dies of hunger will be bigger than people's neccesity of standing out.

[Reeve]

Even if it was the best the world has ever seen, it's got potential to be 1000x better.

Without having a good roadmap to how, it's certainly not wise to try to forcibly overthrow the best governance in history with a freaking pitchfork.

[mookspal]

This article really depressed me with the mindset many people have today. The sad thing is, at least in America, we are moving towards a more socialist/communist society. The government and our dependency on the government has never been higher than it is today. Historians always proclaim that "history is bound to repeat itself." I will never complain about paying my taxes because I love my country, but listening to people like this talk really bothers me. I was raised on the principals of you work for what you get.

[mvallas]

The food shortage alone tells me that communism didn't work for your country. If you have a full belly, you are warm at night and are entertained, you really have a good life.

One of my favorite quotes is "Every government is only 3 meals away from a revolution". ^_^

[Wælcyrie]

Americans hate Communism because they have so much capitalism in their systems.
Hell 90% of them don't even understand proper communism.

[Tomatketchup]

This article really depressed me with the mindset many people have today. The sad thing is, at least in America, we are moving towards a more socialist/communist society. The government and our dependency on the government has never been higher than it is today. Historians always proclaim that "history is bound to repeat itself." I will never complain about paying my taxes because I love my country, but listening to people like this talk really bothers me. I was raised on the principals of you work for what you get.

You get what you work for in a socialist society as well. It's only your tax money that goes to the public sector, which it does already even though it's at a lower scale. You still get to keep your old salary which is still better than those who don't work, you still get to keep the stuff you buy, there's still free trade etc. You also get free education and free healthcare.

I can understand to a certain degree that Americans don't want the government to have more power, but seriously, with more and more socialism inevitably getting into the American society, the Republicans, or at least it's modern form, will be pretty much snuffed out, which will eliminate a lot of the fucking wackoos your country has, and while the Democrats aren't the best, they're still a lot better than any crazy ass religious fanfare.

And for the last time, socialism isn't fucking communism. Anytime you say communism is the same as socialism a kitten dies.

[Syxz]

Strawman again. Who said humans are "entirely driven" by natural instincts? Nobody. Except you.

If the whole basis of your argument is still "there is no human nature IF I change the meaning of human nature into some bullshit that nobody actually use!" then there's not much debate to be had.

No it isn't. We instinctively dislike the smell of our own excretions, that's why there is no culture where you pee and defecate on your own bed.

No, you're cherrypicking the facts to suit your argument. Human are social animals. We naturally seek social interactions. Culture and marketing influence many to seek a specific type of interaction (on facebook), but they do not provide the impetus for socialisation in the first place. Think about what you just wrote. Nurture may be responsible for you wanting facebook friends in order to appear cool, but why do you want to appear cool in the first place?

Gaining status in the eyes of our peers is an inherently social thing.

What argument? You claimed that human nature doesn't exist. I challenged you to provide evidence. Dont' move the goal post to "problem with your reasoning" when you still haven't been able to show that human nature doesn't exist other than 1) pretending it means something it doesn't, i.e. strawman or 2) completely ignore reality.


I called them like I see them. Don't use strawmans if you don't want to be called on it.


How overly dramatic of you to feign outrage just because I'm not willing to do your homework for you. You claimed there is no human nature. You need to establish how feral children supports that point - not just "oh look X which means I'm right. Just because".

Well semaphore, you’ve made me curious with, at least to me, that very aggressive post So if I may be impudent to ask of you: What is Human Nature? Because the reason why Knight Gil said there was no human nature, was that you claimed there were one in the first place. So you’ve made so very curious to what you view as human nature, and I think it is also in your interest to define human nature as you see it if you want a proper (in your view) answer from Knight Gil to why he thinks there is no human nature. So please, if I may ask that of you, give us your definition/view of human nature so the debate can be more specific. If you have already made a definition of human nature, then I’m sorry, must have missed it.

Because for now I think I remember you saying that human nature include being a social animal which dislike the smell of our own excretions.
And if that’s the definition, the it would seem that capitalism, and with that the endless and dominant praise of economy, would not be the best way to make something where social animals would thrive.

There's a lot of people in Chile who would agree with you and say that the government of Allende was the greatest point in this country's history, but it's mostly kids who weren't alive in 1973 when a loaf a bread cost about $10 and you could only get one pack of cigarettes per week because the government was rationing them out because there was a shortage. (Meanwhile the friends of Allende could get all they wanted because they were "special" and "deserved" the products "more" than the rest of the people)

You had to wait in line at stores for hours to buy vegetables or fruit and you had to pay the absurd prices that the government demanded for "their" products even though you were the one who was working 15 hours a day to produce those goods.

The only way to get anything was to be best friends with the government and pray that they will pick you to be wealthy and let you be in charge of some business, because they won't let you start up your own and work hard. It was like a big gated rep grind: No matter how hard you work or how much you try, they put the limit on how much you can acheive.

Yea...communism pretty much sucks. I know it's all fashionable for Americans and Europeans kids to like it and wear Che Guevara t-shirts and everything and be rebellious against capitalism, but...Communism really REALLY sucks.

There is a poet from China named Kelly Tsai who talks about this phenomenon of rich American and Euro kids be enamored with communism, I think she is right:

Now, since you’re from Chile you can probably help me out here.
I thought the issue with Allende was that as soon as he came to power US started to influence different factors in the country since they had major interest in some things in Chile. Furthermore US started a campaign against Allende to take him out of power. It was also, or maybe mainly, a part of an economic experiment to see, what later would be described as neoliberalism, Miltons ideas in action. Am I’m completely brainwashed?

And the “communism” you describe, sounds more to me as something not quite the same as the thought of Marx. But maybe I’m wrong. What do you think?

[semaphore]

So if I may be impudent to ask of you: What is Human Nature?

It's a set of psychological and behavioural traits that is regarded to be common to all of humanity, independent of culture. You know it's an actual term that you can find in the dictionary, right? It's not like I just made up a new phrase.

it would seem that capitalism, and with that the endless and dominant praise of economy, would not be the best way to make something where social animals would thrive.

That's a non sequitur. Capitalism at its core is simply the production of goods and services for profit and private ownership. There is no reason why capitalism is incompatible with the fact that humans are social animals.

[Syxz]

It's a set of psychological and behavioural traits that is regarded to be common to all of humanity, independent of culture. You know it's an actual term that you can find in the dictionary, right? It's not like I just made up a new phrase.

Yes of course I know it an actual term, don’t think so low about your fellow posters. But is there cohesion between all interpretations of human nature? Probably not. So how am I going to know when I’ve founds the one which you think is correct? And that is why I again must be quite rude and ask you to elaborate on “a set of psychological and behavioural traits that is regarded to be common to all of humanity, independent of culture.”, since it would make it clear what your interpretation of human nature is, or what definition you use when talking about it.

That's a non sequitur. Capitalism at its core is simply the production of goods and services for profit and private ownership. There is no reason why capitalism is incompatible with the fact that humans are social animals.

Well, couldn’t capitalism also be said to include, maybe enforce, or perhaps create, increasing individuality? You said that “Capitalism at its core is simply the production of goods and services for profit and private ownership.”, if I have a private ownership of something, then that ownership must belong to my person. As that I cannot see how that relates well to being social animals. Same with profit. Profit for who? Me, of course. Or at least, profit for the individual, and perhaps the corporation the individual own.
Unless of course you view different groups in the social environment as different social groups which compete against each other?

Am I’m completely wrong on this line of thought? (if yes, then please explain why, I love to learn what people thinks about all kinds of things so )

[Wikiy]

We've never really had a strong communist movement here, it was always more social democracy, most of our socialists didn't believe in a forced revolution or anything like that, so what one would call communists have never been more then a fringe movement, stronger in some municiplities, but I don't think they've been in the parliament ever. At least not in my lifetime(28 years).

I'm not calling Sweden communistic, I'm only saying that the opinion that people should work not only for themselves but also for the society in general is more common in Sweden. And communism can't work without that. Which is why for example Sweden is a country where communism would work even better than say Yugoslavia or Cuba.

My original point was that the entire West isn't based on capitalism and that there are indeed countries which lean more towards socialism.

[Haven]

My parents have been running their own small business for over 15 years. Trying to make something and build a business will never be easy, but at least after the fall of communism they were allowed to work for themselves.

What if I told you that Lenin actually endorsed small business in his New Economical Policy? Too bad Stalin canceled it (no sarcasm implied).

The Situation is the same here. We have the World bank, EU and NPOs barking orders and regulations. The Communst Industry crumbled, because it was not able to compete. It was slow and its workers were lazy and unmotivated. This was all bred by the Communist doctrine. The motto of the workers 23 years ago was "He pretends he is paying and i pretend i am working".

But is the attitude that different now? My part-time job now while I'm studying is in the office. Even my working day is half procrastination, I'm not speaking about "advanced" office plankton.

Don't get me started on the lack of freedom. So many people were killed for speaking out.

You're right about this one. However, recently these bitches that are Russian government tried to pass a law for Internet censorship. Also, Magnitsky's case - a lawyer dug a bit too deep into the business of respectable people - ended up being officially taken into custody without a charge and died in a cell because of severe beatings and traumas. I know it's not comparable to Iron Curtain, but still... some things don't change, they are just covered up better.

Communism destroyed workers ethics and the sense of community.

It was more about planned economics. The worst thing was "equality" in a sense that my grandmother, who used to work real hard in the post, got the same wages as an alcoholic that didn't even show up regularly. But I kinda miss (I know it sounds starnge from someone born in '87) the good things - free healthcare and education, and big things that country made. Free education and healthcare still exist, but considering that no one gives a fuck about something that doesn't give immediate profit, they are horribly underfinanced, and today's teachers and doctors are 15% saints and 85% give zero fucks because of how little they are payed. And that feeling, as I said before - in days of yore technology was about sending people to space, while now it's about paying for new apps in your iPhone.

[semaphore]

But is there cohesion between all interpretations of human nature? Probably not. So how am I going to know when I’ve founds the one which you think is correct?

Irrelevant. The original claim is that human nature doesn't exist, not that a particular interpretation of human nature is mistaken. The extent of human nature vs nurture is an ongoing debate in science. The existence of human nature is not.

if I have a private ownership of something, then that ownership must belong to my person. As that I cannot see how that relates well to being social animals... Am I’m completely wrong on this line of thought?

Apparently you are. Being social animals simply means that humans interact with each other so frequently that we naturally form societies. There's nothing about it that's incompatible with private ownership or profit. Business transactions are also an interaction that takes place within society.

It seems like you interpreted social animals to mean we are naturally socialists.

[Syxz]

Just to make it clear before I start:
Basically my claim is this: The issue of the debate between the two of you (semaphore & Knight Gil), comes from the fact that a proper definition of human nature have not been made. And a definition is extremely relevant to this discussion about communism, since one of the typical arguments against communism in its pure form, is that it does not take human nature into consideration.

The following can be viewed very offensive, that is NOT the intent. The intent is only to qualify the debate since I think it is extremely interesting, and a vital part of the overall communism debate (which is also interesting).

Irrelevant. The original claim is that human nature doesn't exist, not that a particular interpretation of human nature is mistaken.

Not irrelevant. The original claim was NOT that human nature does not exist. The original claim was made by you, stating that human nature is the issue of communism, without defining what human nature is, as seen in the following quote:

Failure to take human nature into account is a massive failure for a system that's designed to work with... humans.

And therefore saying that human nature DOES exist (if you’ve made a definition earlier, and I’ve missed it, then I’m sorry for the inconvenience).

Knight Gil then claimed there was no such thing as human nature:

There is no such thing as "Human Nature"

To which you, semaphore, ask:

And your evidence for this claim is what, thin air?

Now, perhaps Knight Gil made a mistake by directly stating that human nature does not exist, since he probably did not know the exact definition of the term human nature that you had in mind. Therefore the rest of the debate between the two of you is a debate without a visible, common foundation, which means that the ongoing discussion would be rather incoherent about the conditions of the debate.
What Knight Gil perhaps should have done was asking for your definition of human nature, or you should perhaps have given a definition when you asked for his evidence, since asking a person to argument against…. nothing, is not very productive.

That’s why I don’t view it as irrelevant when I’m asking for your definition of human nature, or at least the definition, made by others, that you use. How can Knight Gil else responds probably? How can you else become satisfied with his answer in such a way that you either can dismiss his claim, accept it, take it into consideration, redefine the definition you use, or whatever will happen?
To sum up:
I’m asking you to provide the definition of human nature you use, so that the evidence of Knight Gil’s claim you search for, can be coherent with your definition.

This is kind of what have happened until now: Knight Gil argues against elements he think you include in the term human nature. Then you dismiss them, saying that those elements are not a part of human nature.
I’ll just post some quotes from you, semaphore, to take a look at this issue. This might seem a little aggressive from my side, also because it’s probably the same I’m going to say again and again and again, but please don’t take it as an aggressive post, all I’m asking for is the definition of human nature you use. If the reader of this post got the point, the next part is not so imporantant, then the reader can easily jump to the paragraph which stats with: "The definition you made", which will be marked with red.
Now, the quotes:

I want any actual evidence, not this mess of incoherent gibberish you just wrote, which amounted to "there is no human nature IF I redefine the phrase completely to mean some strawman nonsense".

You say he is redefining human nature without you having made a definition yourself. With no overall cohesion of the interpretations of human nature, how can he know if he redefines human nature in the way you think of it, or use the correct definition, that is the same as yours? He has no chance.

Who said humans are "entirely driven" by natural instincts? Nobody. Except you.

If ‘nobody’ has said “humans are “entirely driven” by natural instincts”, then what have they said? How can Knight Gil know if what he says belongs to the term human nature, in the same way as you view human nature, when you have not defined what you think of the term human nature includes?

If the whole basis of your argument is still "there is no human nature IF I change the meaning of human nature into some bullshit that nobody actually use!" then there's not much debate to be had.

True, there is not much of a debate, because what is he debating against? What claim is it he tries to dismiss? A claim that has yet not been defined.

No, you're cherrypicking the facts to suit your argument. Human are social animals. We naturally seek social interactions. Culture and marketing influence many to seek a specific type of interaction (on facebook), but they do not provide the impetus for socialisation in the first place. Think about what you just wrote. Nurture may be responsible for you wanting facebook friends in order to appear cool, but why do you want to appear cool in the first place?

What is he picking facts from? How can he use the sum of all the facts? That would require at least a somewhat useful attempt of defining human nature, which have not been made by you, at least as I see it. In this quote though, we get a little closer to the definition. You see human nature as including: “We naturally seek social interactions.”.

Gaining status in the eyes of our peers is an inherently social thing.

This quote also leads us a tiny bit further a useful definition. Human nature also include “gaining status in the eyes of our peers.”, at least that’s how I understand you.

What argument? You claimed that human nature doesn't exist. I challenged you to provide evidence. Dont' move the goal post to "problem with your reasoning" when you still haven't been able to show that human nature doesn't exist other than 1) pretending it means something it doesn't, i.e. strawman or 2) completely ignore reality.

The issue is the same. You challenged him to provide evidence, evidence of a claim that human nature does not exist, but a definition of human nature have not been made, so how can he bring evidence that relates to the term?
This is why you make your point number 1. You say he is pretending it means something it don’t. How can he know what it means when you have not defined it?
And your point number 2, I guess relates to that as well, else it is way more offensive than it already is.

The definition you made, after I asked you, is not entirely useful, because you do not write what you mean by:

It's a set of psychological and behavioural traits that is regarded to be common to all of humanity, independent of culture. You know it's an actual term that you can find in the dictionary, right? It's not like I just made up a new phrase.

Therefore I ask, once again, for an elaboration on the above quote.

All I want is a good debate, and such cannot be had if a definition of human nature is not made, because how can one else point to issues about that definition?

The extent of human nature vs nurture is an ongoing debate in science. The existence of human nature is not.

Since the existence of human nature is not an issue, but the extent is, then it should be rather easy to find your definition, should it not? And that also means that there is NOT cohesion between the definitions, making it clear that it is impossible to know which definition you use.
And it should be rather easy for you, especially since you so wittily said to me:

You know it's an actual term that you can find in the dictionary, right? It's not like I just made up a new phrase. .

Besides, even if science claims that there is a human nature, when you bump into people who thinks there is none, and start a debate, then it is not enough (at least in my view) to discard the claim with: “Science says there is, therefore no debate can be had. “. You must provide the debate with a definition, and then use science to back up your claim! If you hold the cards of science, isn’t your hand stronger, making it easier for you to argue? So why not qualify the debate?

As a final thing on the matter of a definition: What you can claim, is that it is Knight Gil who must make a definition of human nature, since he claims there exist no such thing. But that kind of backwards in quite a few ways in my opinion:
1: He did not say it existed so why should he be the one to make the definition? It would be kind of the same to ask you why human nature does not exist.
2: Defining something a person think do not exist is kind of futile as I currently see it, at least in this debate.
3: It would create an uneven debate where the only one with visible claims would be Knight Gil, leading to a debate where he is constantly on the defense while you’re constantly on the offense (I hate that “debates” usually go this way).

Apparently you are. Being social animals simply means that humans interact with each other so frequently that we naturally form societies. There's nothing about it that's incompatible with private ownership or profit. Business transactions are also an interaction that takes place within society.

You missed the first sentence which is quite important:

Well, couldn’t capitalism also be said to include, maybe enforce, or perhaps create, increasing individuality?

I don’t know if it was intended or not to miss the sentence, but that’s actually the main question of that paragraph.

The good thing about your post is that now you’ve made a definition of humans as social animals:

Being social animals simply means that humans interact with each other so frequently that we naturally form societies.

As you probably know, that view of human is probably not something everyone agrees with. And it means that if anyone should like to, they can form an argument against that claim. Splendid.

It seems like you interpreted social animals to mean we are naturally socialists.

Dunno. Maybe. All I was thinking was that among other kind of animals that appear social to me (weather they are social animals or not I don’t know), there seems to be a tendency of sharing the resources among the participants of the group and to be supportive and caring for the other members of the group. Now I’m not a biologist, so I might be mistaken. But if I’m correct (which I probably aren’t) then this line of thought that I’ve presented, points towards a conclusion that communism, perhaps, would be more suitable than capitalism, for social animals.
But this is a minor part of what I’m saying. My whole reason for entering the debate was the need of a definition of human nature to qualify the debate, at least in my opinion.

[semaphore]

Basically my claim is this: The issue of the debate between the two of you (semaphore & Knight Gil), comes from the fact that a proper definition of human nature have not been made.

He claimed that there is no human nature. He failed to substantiate that claim with anything resembling logic. That's all there is to it. Stop trying to move the goal post to "what's included in human nature". If you want to start another conversation about whether communism took human nature into account, start another god damn conversation. Don't drag out old posts and argue about their meaning. Like seriously. You're making a claim about an argument someone else entirely was having.

Not irrelevant. The original claim was NOT that human nature does not exist ... Knight Gil then claimed there was no such thing as human nature ... Now, perhaps Knight Gil made a mistake by directly stating that human nature does not exist

In other words, Knight Gil's original claim WAS that human nature does not exist. You're trying to defend his claim by saying "oh but he made a mistake there, let's reinterpret the debate in some other way". Hey, you know what would be nice and appropriate in a debate? Don't claim that something doesn't exist if you don't even know it means. I'm not accountable if he chose to make a statement on something, without knowing what that something actually is. Again, dictionaries exist.

And here is where I stop entertaining your weird obsession with what went down in an internet argument, which has already ran far longer than that whole debate itself. If it pleases you to argue about an argument, then you just go right on ahead by yourself. I waste enough time as it is, so no thank you.

All I want is a good debate

Then choose a more engaging topic than: "(the internet argument) between (two complete strangers) comes from the fact that a proper definition of human nature have not been made."

As you probably know, that view of human is probably not something everyone agrees with.

As you probably know, the theory of evolution is probably not something everyone agrees with. So what?

Dunno. Maybe. All I was thinking was that among other kind of animals that appear social to me (weather they are social animals or not I don’t know), there seems to be a tendency of sharing the resources among the participants of the group and to be supportive and caring for the other members of the group ... a conclusion that communism, perhaps, would be more suitable than capitalism, for social animals.

And now we come to the only section in your entire wall of text that's actually remotely meaningful.

No, that doesn't make any sense. Communism does not uniquely advocate "sharing resources" and being "supportive and caring". What do you think taxation is? That's the levying of resources from individual members of the group in order to use them to benefit the group as a whole. That's your sharing of resources. And what, you think capitalism demands people not care or support each other? That must be why most Western capitalist states do not have charities, social safety nets or social welfare at all. Oh wait.

Again, capitalism is private ownership and doing business for profits. Your gross oversimplification ignores the fact that the resources at your disposal as a result of private ownership and profits can still be shared. We share them with our family, our friends, our neighbours everyday.

But this is a minor part of what I’m saying. My whole reason for entering the debate was the need of a definition of human nature to qualify the debate, at least in my opinion.

So what, your'e just arguing for the sake of arguing? While the actual topic, the interaction of human nature with capitalism, is only "a minor part"?

[bufferunderrun]

Without having a good roadmap to how, it's certainly not wise to try to forcibly overthrow the best governance in history with a freaking pitchfork.

Yes but if someone think that its country will be better under a commie regime i don't really think that it would be placed under the "best governance in history" label. Maybe it's just someone like the guy that it's opening threads in the forum searching for a work that allow him to play wow but in general if you think that a commie regime is better than what you have now probably the governance is pretty fucked.

[Syxz]

(to completly skip what you (semaphore) might not want to read, jump to red sentence, though I would appreciate if you just read the "intro".)

Your post is a perfect example of your behavior the last few posts, and the (rather high) respect I have had for you during my time here at MMO, I must say is fading. The respect with which I asked, since I had a assumption that a good answer would come (it was wrong though). It is sad this have come down to being about us, more than about the topics in this thread, and I apologies for my contribution to the that misdirection, but you apparently can’t stay calm and try to argue in an appropriate tone. You have to say that I have a “weird obsession”, delegitimize my post by saying i care for “an internet argument”, call my post a wall of text (which it is, like this post will be) that mainly doesn’t make sense, and saying that I just want to argue for the sake for arguing. Why this aggression?

I wanted to qualify the debate, making it fruitful, which it is not when the discussion aren’t on the same terms. I rarely post on these forums, I prefer to read. Your tone here in the latest posts is one of many perfect examples of why.

Now I’ll first address the first part of your post, but it seems that you do not want to continue that, which is sad, since it leave the tension unsolved. But if you want to be so impolite and ignore this part of my post, be my guest. I’ll mark it with red when I’m done with this part:

Let’s take your first paragraph, and start from the end:

You're making a claim about an argument someone else entirely was having.

If two or more persons want a private argument it’s probably not such a good idea to continue in an open debate forum. If you don’t want others to responds to your posts, it’s just the completely wrong place.

Don't drag out old posts and argue about their meaning.

And the reason why I should not use old post from the same thread, about the same subject, is? It’s still posts on the same matter.

If you want to start another conversation about whether communism took human nature into account, start another god damn conversation.

Discussions develop. To discuss whether or not a country is better under the rule of communism kind of require the discussion about: Have there ever been a communist society? What is a communist society? Is it only the pure form a la Marx that can be said to be communism? What argues that communism does not work? In the last question, the question about human nature is relevant, as you rightfully pointed out. The debate develop. Knight Gil claimed there was no such thing as human nature. But who knew if you where talking about the same thing?

He claimed that there is no human nature. He failed to substantiate that claim with anything resembling logic. That's all there is to it.

Yes, he claimed there was none. But how can you, I or anyone know if the arguments he brought up was arguments against what he view human nature as? That means, without your definition of human nature, he can only discuss human nature as he defines it. But that’s unsatisfactory for you, and rightfully so, because you probably have quite a different view on what the term human nature consist off. So if you wanted a clear answer, related to your definition, he needed to know. And he did not (I guess).

In other words, Knight Gil's original claim WAS that human nature does not exist.

If I may be so rude and ask you to quote more fair next time? You do not include the parts where I talk about you in the quote, making it misleading for other readers. While it is true that Knight Gil’s original claim was that there was no human nature, that claim was a respond to your claim, that there was. So the original claim for this sub-debate was that there was human nature.

You're trying to defend his claim by saying "oh but he made a mistake there, let's reinterpret the debate in some other way".

I’m not defending his claim, at least not in the sense of whether or not human nature exist, I don’t think I qualified to speak detailed enough about such matters. But it seemed (and still does to some extent) that you where, which is why I tried to make it more explicit what kind of definition of the term human nature which was in use, so it is easier for the readers to know what the different views in the debate consist off. But what I am defending is that it is not quite fair again and again, to ask for evidence of why a certain definition of human nature does not exist, when that definition is nowhere to be found. Knight Gil argues against human nature from his point of view when you asked for evidence, because he did not have a chance to argue against your definition. That is how I view that part of this thread. Correct me (in a less hostile tone, if I may ask that of you) if I am wrong, and supply me with your view. That would make me glad.

Hey, you know what would be nice and appropriate in a debate? Don't claim that something doesn't exist if you don't even know it means. I'm not accountable if he chose to make a statement on something, without knowing what that something actually is.

It is also appropriate not to claim that one know whether or not his follow posters know something about a certain subject, when no clear definition has been given.
And no, you are not accountable for another person’s statement. That would be insane. You’re accountable of your own, and your own statement included a belief of human nature. An elaboration of that, is what I’m asking for.

Again, dictionaries exist.

And yet again, dictionaries is ONE interpretation of human nature. Because a term is defined in a dictionary, does that mean that I can say that it is the same definition you would use? Probably not. If I made such an assumption I would be truly arrogant (at least in my opinion). Therefore, I was kindly asking of you, to explicit your definition, or the definition you use, of the term human nature.

Hey, you know what would be nice and appropriate in a debate? Don't claim that something doesn't exist if you don't even know it means. I'm not accountable if he chose to make a statement on something, without knowing what that something actually is. Again, dictionaries exist. [/QUOTE]

As you probably know, the theory of evolution is probably not something everyone agrees with. So what?

So what? So what is answered right after the sentence you quoted me for. Here was what was written:
“And it means that if anyone should like to, they can form an argument against that claim. Splendid.”
The point of that was simply to points to the fact, that not everyone has the same definition as one self. I may view communism in one way, another person in a completely different way. The same with human nature. That is what creates debates form time to time. Different definitions. That was the point.

And here is where I stop entertaining your weird obsession with what went down in an internet argument, which has already ran far longer than that whole debate itself. If it pleases you to argue about an argument, then you just go right on ahead by yourself. I waste enough time as it is, so no thank you.

And this is here where you make me sad, claiming that I have a weird obsession. Where you look down upon every single debate (which you now call internet argument) on this forum, or was it perhaps just this one? Because if it just was this one, when did it turn to an internet argument, and not a debate? (that’s probably another discussion, one which truly does not belong in this thread. You are most welcome to write to me personally about this though, is you wish to do so). But why the need to delegitimize this part of the discussion just because you don’t like it anymore? Why attack me, twisting my purpose to be arguing about an argument, while all I wanted was a clear definition of your use of the term human nature?

You say you have wasted time, I’m sorry that you feel that way, that was not the intent. I just hope that you do in fact read this, and I hope that my intention has become clear. Then if I am lucky, you will answer me. But, if you truly don’t want to continue and find a way to at least solve the tension, then just say “Stop.” without any other reply to what have been written in this post until now, and I shall bother you no further about that subject.

Done with part one (though I would be glad if you would just read the paragraph above this sentence).

No, that doesn't make any sense. Communism does not uniquely advocate "sharing resources" and being "supportive and caring". What do you think taxation is? That's the levying of resources from individual members of the group in order to use them to benefit the group as a whole. That's your sharing of resources. And what, you think capitalism demands people not care or support each other? That must be why most Western capitalist states do not have charities, social safety nets or social welfare at all. Oh wait.

It is fair enough it you label it as not making sense, I can see where you’re coming from. Though, then may I ask you: Taxation, social safety nets, welfare etc., isn’t that exactly what advocates of capitalism want to reduce and probably remove? They want it to be controlled by the market. Meaning if you can’t pay, no mercy is given. Furthermore, things like taxation etc. that it be viewed as elements from a social democratic movement, which is (and correct me if I’m wrong) historically an infant of the communism movement?

Charities are interesting. Because that indeed points towards something that can be interpreted as social animals. But in my view they can also be an argument for communism is more suitable than capitalism. But that’s just my uneducated view.

Again, capitalism is private ownership and doing business for profits. Your gross oversimplification ignores the fact that the resources at your disposal as a result of private ownership and profits can still be shared. We share them with our family, our friends, our neighbours everyday.

It’s true. We can share the things we own. But only with those close to us (expect things like, or in line with, charity). But perhaps communism could be viewed as something where it was not just a few, but everyone we saw fit for sharing with?

So what, your'e just arguing for the sake of arguing? While the actual topic, the interaction of human nature with capitalism, is only "a minor part"?

Again, no. I’m not just arguing for the sake for arguing. That’s a very mean interpretation of my intent. I argue because I want to know! Know the definitions at use, know how people think, know what they think about the subject and why. The question of human nature is an important one. But it was not so much human nature as in relation to capitalism, as your post points towards. It was the relation of human nature and communism, and through that the discussion about whether or not a communist society can exist.

I’m sorry that this is needed (in my opinion), but I do hope that you will read the whole post, and perhaps before you answer, just take 5 minutes or something, to reflect on what I’m saying, because my intent is not a bad one, though the intent is perhaps not that relevant anymore, since the thread seems to have died a bit, though I think it was relevant enough them I posted the first time.

Under all circumstances,
Thank you.

[Garian]

Dunno. Maybe. All I was thinking was that among other kind of animals that appear social to me (weather they are social animals or not I don’t know), there seems to be a tendency of sharing the resources among the participants of the group and to be supportive and caring for the other members of the group. Now I’m not a biologist, so I might be mistaken. But if I’m correct (which I probably aren’t) then this line of thought that I’ve presented, points towards a conclusion that communism, perhaps, would be more suitable than capitalism, for social animals.

We don't need a centralized government that controls our lives from cradle to grave and owns the means of production to care about one another.

We need to change our culture, and we don't have to intrude on inalienable rights in order to do that.

[semaphore]

Your post is a perfect example of your behavior the last few posts, and the (rather high) respect I have had for you during my time here at MMO, I must say is fading. The respect with which I asked, since I had a assumption that a good answer would come (it was wrong though). It is sad this have come down to being about us, more than about the topics in this thread, and I apologies for my contribution to the that misdirection, but you apparently can’t stay calm and try to argue in an appropriate tone.

I guess you haven't seen me post often then, because that's how I've always talked. If my tone upsets you, then there's always the ignore function on this forum. I don't know what's with you people and the whole "you were mean to me so you're losing my respect!" routine. Yeah right.

It is sad this have come down to being about us

Says the person deliberately making it personal by arguing about the arguments rather than about the topic at hand. And now I'm skipping down to that red sentence because if that paragraph was any indication, this is going to be just more of you trying to take things personal for whatever reason, and arguing about past arguments. Instead of actually talking about the real topic like you pretend you want to.

It is fair enough it you label it as not making sense, I can see where you’re coming from. Though, then may I ask you: Taxation, social safety nets, welfare etc., isn’t that exactly what advocates of capitalism want to reduce and probably remove?

No. It's what the rich, the extreme right and the the anarcho-capitalists want to remove. Anarcho-capitalism in particular is just as dangerous as communism because it is also an entirely unworkable idea given the constraints of human nature. Only these idiots like to pretend that the free market is perfect and no state intervention is ever needed. Most of us, who already live under a capitalist system, understand the need for the government to provide essential services and to regulate the market. It does not conflict with the core tenants of capitalism, which is still only private ownership of the means of production and doing things for profit.

It’s true. We can share the things we own. But only with those close to us (expect things like, or in line with, charity). But perhaps communism could be viewed as something where it was not just a few, but everyone we saw fit for sharing with?

What the hell do you take Communism to be? It's not just "sharing". And you wouldn't have a choice when it comes to who to "share" with.

I argue because I want to know!

If you genuinely wanted to know, you'd be asking and discussing and talking about the topic at hand, which is Communism. Instead the majority of your last two posts are focused around arguing over something as trivially meaningless as "(the internet argument) between (two complete strangers) comes from (my interpretation of what happened)". I have no idea what your "intent" was in kicking up a fuss about that long after the other party has left the debate, but I have trouble seeing anything good about it.

The fact remains that Knight Gill responded to my post with the claim that human nature does not exist. When challenged for evidence, he failed to provide any, and left. That was the end of that argument. You're resurrecting it and arguing "when he said it doesn't exist, he actually means something completely different" - which fits arguing for the sake of arguing to a T. Again, if you want to discuss human nature and communism, then talk about that directly. But apparently you aren't actually interested, judging by the way that you devoted 2/3 of your last two posts to arguing about my argument with Knight Gil.

I'm sufficiently interested in the topic that I'll still talk about human nature and various economic systems even with you, but I'm sick of reading you trying to move the goal post for Knight Gil's argument. Either you came out and take up his claim that human nature doesn't exist or stop trying to start an argument about what you think he meant. And that's enough rant from me, not going to waste more forum space by indulging in this off-topic bickering.

[mookspal]

.

And for the last time, socialism isn't fucking communism. Anytime you say communism is the same as socialism a kitten dies.

1) I am against Socialism AND Communism. I do not look at them as the same. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
2) I am Republican. I am also agnostic. Most Republicans are not religious. The idea of less government control and freedom of choices empowers our ideals.
3) "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."
4) I hate Kittens