The Rues as stated in the last thread:


Other than that, enjoy your discussion

channler said

I don't understand, could you clarify? I'm sorry, it just didn't make any sense to me, about people who don't take responsibility don't deserve to get the cure for cancer or something...

I'm sorry about that...my thoughts were a bit fragmented when I typed that.. hehe, guess I shouldn't try and talk on the phone and type at the same time.

I guess I speak of a Meritocracy (i think I spelled that right).

Where ones deeds, or merit, picks their place in life.

Now, I ment that to go with the whole equality thing. If someone should choose not to, contribute to society (in a positive way), then should they be as glorified, and as "equal" as those that give selflessly?

I just don't think someone that doesn't work, should be entitled to do what those who do labor should be entitled to.

The problem with a meritocracy is that eventually someone like Mahatma Ghandi shows up, and makes contributions greatly outweighing the income necessary to sustain them -- and arguably, the lack of insight caused by an elevated position would make such an individual less useful. Now, I'm not belittling the achievements of Ghandi in any way, but under a meritocracy he'd be a gigantic economic black hole, and thus the perfect poster-boy for the advantages of a distribution model concerned with need and contribution (that is, from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs) as opposed to contribution alone (as in your meritocracy concept).

But look at me, I'm babbling on like a schoolgirl on taking advantage of variances in the ratio of need to ability to increase surplus. I guess that makes me some sort of hard-right Communist.

That aside, however, the mutual problem of both our systems would be the determination of merit. What's to stop our panel of meritologists to decide that their position is of such immense value, or in the Marxist case, that their need is so great and their duties so intregal, that they need to have an income that surpasses that of the greatest scientist or philosopher? And what would stop people wise to what's going on to offer these people goods and services in exchange for ruling that their positions are likewise important? We would have the same old capitalist system, except now we have the government successfully convincing people that the distribution system is fair -- and if the Comrade Stalins and Chairman Maos of the world have taught us one single lesson, it's that such a thing can only produce problems.

Funnily enough, your views just now were a sort of libertarian approach to communism, shared mostly by anarchists. I think that if humans were down on their luck the community should help them, but majorly with job enrollment, not just with giving them money and expecting them to find a job on their own. I think welfare of the unemployed should be kept to communities, and I think people shouldn't be left to sink if they are being dosed some bad luck.

This is what I really feel, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Some people (disabled, veterans, elderly, orphans, natural disaster survivors) need more than regular people, and all people should at least attempt to commit the most they can to society.

But those morals don't work in a society where everything is about possessions and the bottom line. The entire way the society works was drawn out by the richest, so naturally that's why it favors the welathy, and that to me is not equality, they didn't do anything to deserve it, they're not giving anything to society to deserve more than anybody else, they just know how to stay focused on the bottom line.

That's why everything I do, I do for the proletariat. That's why my dream when I'm older is to go to countries like the United Arab Emirates, Haite and Co,bodia, and organize Unions even if it requires me to become a target by the CIA (as the CIA are often behind the assassinations of Union Organizers) because I believe in a global economy if we can stop the US from leeching off these puppet governments, then the proletariat revolution will naturally follow up the chain to them. I can't break the hold the rich have over society from the United Staes, but I can atleast catalize the fight for freedom in other countries.

Well go tell Chavez you hate Bush and he'll let you start another revolution O_o

The thing is, there will always be the rich, there will always be the middle class, and there will always be the poor. (But then again, what we consider poor in the US in decent in some countries..)

Some people prosper, some get lucky, others steal, and more fight, in the the game of personal advancement. I would say that pure communism is a utopian society... only if humans didn't run it... or live in it..

However, I will always support someone that will show me that they can work hard, and are willing too. I think the migrant workers in my area are great people. I mean they will go through so much for so little just to support themselves, when so many just tell the gov to give them money. (Yes there are migrant workers that are citizins..)

Before humans settled down and started growing there food and stay in one place there were not rich and poor, there were no possesions, telling me they're not inert things in human nature. They're only inert things in a possesion based society. If people realized their work was for the community, and worked on a communal way, then greed and other things would simply work themselves out.

But my goal is not to transform humanity, my goal in life is simply to end the oppressive hold the rich have over the poor in many countries by uniting workers.

You are right that before people settled down and started growing food, there were no rich or poor. They were called the strong and the weak at that point. Since this was way before writing existed we can only speculate here, but its very likely humans lived in the same type of families as gorillas and or wolves do today. When food was killed or gathered, the strong were the first to eat and then only what was left was distributed among the weaker members. To me, it is very much human nature.

Also you will never have true equality with humans because everyone's viewpoint of true equality is not ... well... err .. equal. ;)

Actually, my reasearch has shown quite the contrary.

There are still people all over the world that live exactly as they did before humans settled down, and they don't exist that way at all. Sure, genetically inept children (mutated ones) don't survive, but as is the rule of evolution, and mutations are only born in countries where the government horrendously pollutes the water supply, and even then are rare.

The people live as communists, purely and simply. They own nothing, though every member will have a spear or something, no one goes around trying to horde and sell spears, because their survival depends on all members being equal. Though anthropologists call them communinalists, the only difference between that and communism is after Engels and Marx, writers decided to include some idea of a dictator of a proletariat, which was a stupid idea, and all communist states are trapped in these dictatorships that have no concern of fulfulling their promise when they took office. (that was actually why the communist government in Hungary was overthrown by OTHER communists).

This post has been edited by DoomedOne: Jan 12 2006, 04:48 AM

I hope you'll forgive me for going for the obvious metaphor, and note that lacking any well-documented examples of the hoarding of actual spears in developed western capitalist states, I am forced to remind you that in the Civil War, certain ruin would await industrialists -- and especially the industrialist sons of a wealthy banking family -- should the Confederacy win. AFAIK, neither side showed any particular reluctance to use tactics involving the civilian population of the other side, either, posing a more immediate threat should be equality of the battlefield be threatened.

Take one John Pierpont Morgan, a wealthy Northern industrialist born into one such wealthy banking family, the house of Morgan. What did this J. P. Morgan do when his life was on the line? Why, he triumphantly marched into a Union arsenal, and broke a deal with the quartermaster to give him five thousand rifles awaiting repair, for $3.50 each. He then marched out to a general on the field, and sold him the broken rifles for $22 each, barring any inspection. One can assume that the reason this episode is detailed in the annals of some obscure congressional report, and not listed as but one of the charges in a treason hearing against this man, is because most of the witnesses -- those soldiers who you believe this man would work so dearly to protect, because their condition would ultimately determine whether he should live or die -- either fell that day at the hands of enemy fire, or succumbed to grievous wounds caused by the malfunctioning rifles.

One can obviously see here that some disease worked its way into the western mentality, and because of it we are less susceptible today to things like necessity, preferring the security and luxury of the more abstract concept of wealth.

He had to convince himself that his wealth was better than the protection of the Union, but that doesn't argue my point either, we are an industrialized nation, and heavily distanced from the result of our actions. We don't know what cause our choices make anymore, or how big an impact they actually have.

Are you attempting to imply that this man hadn't developed a mature outlook on life and death, when the anecdote in question places him squarely in the middle of a battlefield? Now, I've never been one to think very highly of the bourgeoisie mental acuity, but let's be reasonable here...

This was an informed decision that he made of his own free will, and he stared down the consequences of his actions in transit to, within, and fleeing from the place of this transaction. And it isn't just this one scenario, either -- I'm sure you can think of plenty of people, roles, and situations where somewhere along the line, one's percieved value over other members of society becomes more important than living.

This post has been edited by Marxist ßastard: Jan 13 2006, 04:52 AM

I'd personally opt to keep the perceived value and perceived differences of individuals. I can't help but think that it is impossible for human nature to allow an absolute equality as it is inherent that we strive to best our peers. Having a 'gap' between the values holds back stagnation and also offers someone on a 'lower rung' (i use that loosely and candidly) a look at what opportunities they can grasp when they see others on a 'higher rung'.

The ultimate extension of this notion, that we should be better than our peers is the thought that we should be better than our peers, once and for all -- IE, barring any oppurtunity for the other man to come out on top, thus eliminating any kind of fair competition. Even a duck could see that we go down a dangerous path once that thought reaches into somebody's mind.

And you think we should encourage it.

This post has been edited by Marxist ßastard: Jan 13 2006, 06:37 PM

The qualifying statement there is 'ultimate extension'. This can be applied to any methodology, the ultimate extension of which is invariably a 'bad thing' when it comes to human nature.

Well now that's an utterly defeatist outlook on the issue. If you truly believe that, then the reason why you're bothering to participate in this discussion is beyond me.

It is far from defeatist. Its an observation based on our apparent desire to self destruct if given enough leighway. This can be seen not only on a macro but also micro scale. Afterall, nations are made up from individuals, and individuals do seem to take great pleasure in things going wrong rather than things going right. The media is a great example of how a blood and guts story sells more than a miracle child birth story.

Yes, it is my opinion that human nature is self-destructive, but this does not invalidate my own arguments on this matter. It was not i who brought up the 'ultimate extension' of what i was discussing, i was merely retorting based on that comment. My original argument was based on contemporary society where competition was a healthy necessity for a society to flourish and not stagnate.

However, if this is still deemed as an inappopriate argument for participation then thats fair enough and i will respect your opinion.

I simply think our ancestors were cooperative people, who worked together and didn't take more than each other, because humans are an incredibly community based species, wer require community to survive, just like the stronger elephants protect the elderly and the youth in this groups, we humans have held communal economy long before anyone settled down and started farming, and even then the world was still based mostly on community.

I am implying, and not attempting to imply, but downright implying that John Morgan was distanced from his actions has a human being, not as a unionist or as a rich man or anything. The more little transactions distanced you from the token of your hard work, the more community was lost to competition, doing things for the wealth of the community was lost to doing things for the wealth of oneself. John Morgan would stand out as an immoral person even in today's society, but even that is an irrelevant example, because community is no longer apart of our society, and communal nature has been forgotten.

People think human nature is one of greed, my point is that it is in fact not at all, and though competition played a role even in the early humans, mostly between two different tribes that would often kill individuals of the other tribe, but genocide was unthinkable. People think humans could never get to a society where they are all working for each other and living without crime or greed to unemployement, all the promises of a completed communist world, when in fact humans live like such all over the world.

Take Ledakh, the people there are farmers, and though in the last 20 years they've seen massive industrialization, before it hit they lived as communists, sharing everything, wasting nothing, helping each other, striving for the health of all individuals instead of their own personal family, everything.

So, to reiterate, my point (as I bring it back to the topic, or where the topic led to) is that it's still veru much a part of human nature to work together with your community.

I think the problem though is that we have moved beyond mere survival. Community-based micro-cultures that you are describing do live like that because they are ultimately dependent on each other for their survival. Everyone chips in and does their part because they themselves risk death if they community fails.

The Problem: Technology and/or perhaps just the sheer numbers of people have moved us beyond mere survival. Some individuals have discovered that not doing their part does not seem to make the health/safety of the community fail. Therefore they choose not to work and fall to relying on others in the community to pick up his share AND still provide him food/shelter.

When a growing percentage of this population begins making an noticable impact upon the community in a negative way. The community must respond! This response is usually to isolate those non-contributors from some of the community benefits in order to limit their negative impact. Guess what... A class system just evolved.

The newly dejected members now form a new population within the overall society. Some of them now must begin to work even harder because some of the benefits are lost to them and survival again is the motivator. Eventually this new population will fracture again and another class is born.

I guess what I am trying to say is that without a proper motivation like survival, communistic societys are doomed to failure. Maybe its a bad thing, but money and possessions are really the motivations when actual survival is not in question. If I were to lose my job.... I wouldn't worry that I won't be able to eat. I worry that I won't be able to afford my intenet connection or cable tv.

I don't think pure equality is good. When I use the word 'equality' I use it to mean 'equal opportunity'. If everyone is forced to be the same, then there is no motivation to better yourself or anyone else around you; you all have to be the same. There needs to be equal opportunity so that people that want to work hard and better themselves can, while those that don't care, or do just enough to get by can stay exactly where they keep themselves.

That's why, despite all its drawbacks, I support capitalism. Socialism merely makes people realize that they are going to make the same amount of money no matter what they do, so they are going to do far less than they would were they under the rod of an employer threatening to fire or cut pay. With socialism, your job is guaranteed no matter what the hell you do, because you have no boss, you have an equal. So one bad worker leads to more and more, and soon, productivity is down the toilet, leaving the economy in the sewers.

For an excellent explanation of my point, I suggest reading the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind.