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.
Americans hate Communism because they have so much capitalism in their systems.
Hell 90% of them don't even understand proper communism.
You may remember me from such threads as!
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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 )
My original point was that the entire West isn't based on capitalism and that there are indeed countries which lean more towards socialism.
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.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".
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.Don't get me started on the lack of freedom. So many people were killed for speaking out.
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.Communism destroyed workers ethics and the sense of community.
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.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?
It seems like you interpreted social animals to mean we are naturally socialists.
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).
Knight Gil then claimed there was no such thing as human nature:
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:
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:
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?
And it should be rather easy for you, especially since you so wittily said to me:
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).
The good thing about your post is that now you’ve made a definition of humans as 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.
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.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
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.
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."All I want is a good debate
As you probably know, the theory of evolution is probably not something everyone agrees with. So what?As you probably know, that view of human is probably not something everyone agrees with.
And now we come to the only section in your entire wall of text that's actually remotely meaningful.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.
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.
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"?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.
(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:
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.
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]
“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.
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).
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.
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,
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 sad this have come down to being about us
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 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?
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.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?
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.I argue because I want to know!
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.
Last edited by semaphore; 2013-01-04 at 03:41 PM.
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
I don't think the US should become exactly like the Nordic countries in terms of politics, but I still believe that the US should at least be able to provide free education and healthcare, it really saddens me when I talk to my American friends that they hate their country because they feel like they have to spend fortunes just to be able to live sometimes.3) "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."