The W
Views: 99165587
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.9.07 1131
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Wienerville: Commie Pinko Haven?
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next(2093 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (66 total)
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 472/2105
EXP: 6580514
For next: 70176

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 23 hours
Last activity: 16 hours
#21 Posted on 10.5.02 1409.25
Reposted on: 10.5.09 1417.25
Right. The old "I already know it's wrong, so I won't bother to learn about it" arguement.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 181/1528
EXP: 4071538
For next: 119610

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2800 days
Last activity: 2642 days
AIM:  
#22 Posted on 10.5.02 2108.59
Reposted on: 10.5.09 2111.25
The "kindness" that lies at the heart of your anarchism is no more than another form of slavery. Compelling a man to work for his neighbor, for absolutely no compensation, is absurd. My life is mine, not anyone else's. I'll help who I choose to help, and deal with who I choose to deal with. I think everyone has that right, and I don't think that makes me, or anyone else, an asshole. Socialism, communism, and this "feel-good" anarchism all involve submitting one's will to another, vaguely defined thing like "the public good."

Besides, we already had a society, right here in America, where people, at least some of them, worked tirelessly for the good of their neighbors. It didn't work out, though, as there was some war or another around the 1860s that put an end to it.

What I seem to be hearing from advocates of socialism and communism is this: "You certainly don't HAVE to work for the public good, but you're an asshole if you don't."

astrobstrd
Bockwurst
Level: 52

Posts: 96/612
EXP: 1024279
For next: 59569

Since: 13.3.02
From: Loveland, OH

Since last post: 2550 days
Last activity: 2517 days
AIM:  
#23 Posted on 11.5.02 0057.12
Reposted on: 11.5.09 0057.51
For a good view of what Anarchists want, take a look at any society that existed on a Band level. A great example would be the band that the film "The Gods Must Be Crazy!" is based around. Though they no longer exist at the band level, they lived in a collective and worked for the common good. They also ate very well and had more leisure time than almost any known society.
Any anthropologist worth his salt will tell you that "The Gods Must Be Crazy!" is garbage and highly misleading, but for the life of me I can't remember the name of the band, so I'm using the movie as reference only
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 212/1084
EXP: 2431791
For next: 30073

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2957 days
Last activity: 2954 days
#24 Posted on 11.5.02 0243.21
Reposted on: 11.5.09 0243.22
It's slavery for people to willingly work together for the good of one another? You're parents were slaves by working towards the benefit of the family?
Sean
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 50/88
EXP: 55768
For next: 2583

Since: 26.3.02
From: Mastic, NY

Since last post: 4456 days
Last activity: 3544 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#25 Posted on 13.5.02 0505.43
Reposted on: 13.5.09 0529.02

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    It's slavery for people to willingly work together for the good of one another? You're parents were slaves by working towards the benefit of the family?


The key word is "willingly." Parents support their children out of the natural egotism of our species - the desire to propogate ourselves.

The assumption that people should "want" to help each other in one giant happy collective makes a grave fallacy, which is that all men are created equal. As sad as that may be, it's simply not the case.
astrobstrd
Bockwurst
Level: 52

Posts: 105/612
EXP: 1024279
For next: 59569

Since: 13.3.02
From: Loveland, OH

Since last post: 2550 days
Last activity: 2517 days
AIM:  
#26 Posted on 13.5.02 0754.39
Reposted on: 13.5.09 0757.11

    Originally posted by Sean

      Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
      It's slavery for people to willingly work together for the good of one another? You're parents were slaves by working towards the benefit of the family?


    The key word is "willingly." Parents support their children out of the natural egotism of our species - the desire to propogate ourselves.

    The assumption that people should "want" to help each other in one giant happy collective makes a grave fallacy, which is that all men are created equal. As sad as that may be, it's simply not the case.



Communist eh? We hold these truths to be self-evident...
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 219/1084
EXP: 2431791
For next: 30073

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2957 days
Last activity: 2954 days
#27 Posted on 13.5.02 0758.24
Reposted on: 13.5.09 0759.01
Communism recognizes that people are not equal, as you work to the best of your ability to provide for the community as a whole. And just because people are not equals does not mean that they cannot want to help society as a whole.
Sean
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 52/88
EXP: 55768
For next: 2583

Since: 26.3.02
From: Mastic, NY

Since last post: 4456 days
Last activity: 3544 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#28 Posted on 13.5.02 0818.19
Reposted on: 13.5.09 0829.01

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    Communism recognizes that people are not equal, as you work to the best of your ability to provide for the community as a whole. And just because people are not equals does not mean that they cannot want to help society as a whole.


Why not break down what "wanting" to help society as a whole actually means? Does the mere desire to help society constitute a laudable action?

If one thinks that men should be nice to each other and work towards the betterment of the society, he is a Communist?

You're breaking down Communism into something it's not meant to be. Communism is an economic system, not a social one. There is no "willingness" to help, or some highfalutin' desire for social good.

Basic human resources practices over the last 25 years have proven that people work hard under two basic conditions:

1) pay incentive
2) competition with peers

It's a well-known trick in management circles to get your employees to work harder by simply praising other employees' performances in their presence. It does't work permanently, but it can temporarily increase production in a time of crisis. Under a communist system, these incentives cease to have any real function - although we all know they would still work, simply because people are naturally competitive.

I'd also like to briefly touch upon the notion that all men are not created equal, and maybe step on some toes. Let's throw this out: If all men are not created equal, some are "better," and some are "worse." This is, of course, strictly in terms of potential economic output. A man who serves a more important function obviously results in a greater economic output - ie, the CEO of a company is more responsible for profits than a factory worker. Without the monetary advantages of being a CEO, however, nobody would want to assume such a position simply due to the tremendous stress and responsibility that accompanies such a position.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 480/2105
EXP: 6580514
For next: 70176

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 23 hours
Last activity: 16 hours
#29 Posted on 13.5.02 0835.57
Reposted on: 13.5.09 0837.53
This entire arguement is based on the fact that economic output (which isn't a natural phenomenon and isn't that easily definied) should be the main goal of a society. That's not assumed in anarchism.

Moe
Sean
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 53/88
EXP: 55768
For next: 2583

Since: 26.3.02
From: Mastic, NY

Since last post: 4456 days
Last activity: 3544 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#30 Posted on 13.5.02 1416.47
Reposted on: 13.5.09 1420.19

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    This entire arguement is based on the fact that economic output (which isn't a natural phenomenon and isn't that easily definied) should be the main goal of a society. That's not assumed in anarchism.

    Moe



Whether it _should be_ a main goal of a society is irrelevant. These anarchist societies wouldn't just sit around, procreate and starve to death, would they?
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 709/5402
EXP: 27064482
For next: 67522

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 55 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#31 Posted on 13.5.02 1439.07
Reposted on: 13.5.09 1440.27

    Originally posted by Sean

      Originally posted by MoeGates
      This entire arguement is based on the fact that economic output (which isn't a natural phenomenon and isn't that easily definied) should be the main goal of a society. That's not assumed in anarchism.

      Moe



    Whether it _should be_ a main goal of a society is irrelevant. These anarchist societies wouldn't just sit around, procreate and starve to death, would they?


There's a difference between being a main goal and being A goal. Our system has decreed efficiency and productivity to be a very highly considered priority. Other societies place an even higher premium on it than we do, eliminating all protections for the individual in favor of the employers, as in the sweatshops of Southeast Asia. Other societies place less of a premium on it, such as Sweden where people get more than 2 weeks off per year, unlike the U.S. Theoretically a society could decide simply to put in only enough effort and resources into subsistence living, and thus move productivity and efficiency far down the list of desirable traits. 99% of what we do and create is unnecessary for our survival. If people eliminated that, then the main goal of the society would shift accordingly.
astrobstrd
Bockwurst
Level: 52

Posts: 107/612
EXP: 1024279
For next: 59569

Since: 13.3.02
From: Loveland, OH

Since last post: 2550 days
Last activity: 2517 days
AIM:  
#32 Posted on 13.5.02 1439.36
Reposted on: 13.5.09 1442.00
    Originally posted by Sean

      Originally posted by MoeGates
      This entire arguement is based on the fact that economic output (which isn't a natural phenomenon and isn't that easily definied) should be the main goal of a society. That's not assumed in anarchism.

      Moe



    Whether it _should be_ a main goal of a society is irrelevant. These anarchist societies wouldn't just sit around, procreate and starve to death, would they?



Many societies do not produce a high economic output, but exist at a subsistance level. They grow enough food to eat and a little bit extra to get whatever they cannot produce on their own.

Wow spf, you beat me to the point by 29 seconds.

(edited by astrobstrd on 13.5.02 1541)
Sean
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 54/88
EXP: 55768
For next: 2583

Since: 26.3.02
From: Mastic, NY

Since last post: 4456 days
Last activity: 3544 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#33 Posted on 13.5.02 1538.48
Reposted on: 13.5.09 1547.22

    Originally posted by spf2119

      Originally posted by Sean

        Originally posted by MoeGates
        This entire arguement is based on the fact that economic output (which isn't a natural phenomenon and isn't that easily definied) should be the main goal of a society. That's not assumed in anarchism.

        Moe



      Whether it _should be_ a main goal of a society is irrelevant. These anarchist societies wouldn't just sit around, procreate and starve to death, would they?


    There's a difference between being a main goal and being A goal. Our system has decreed efficiency and productivity to be a very highly considered priority. Other societies place an even higher premium on it than we do, eliminating all protections for the individual in favor of the employers, as in the sweatshops of Southeast Asia. Other societies place less of a premium on it, such as Sweden where people get more than 2 weeks off per year, unlike the U.S. Theoretically a society could decide simply to put in only enough effort and resources into subsistence living, and thus move productivity and efficiency far down the list of desirable traits. 99% of what we do and create is unnecessary for our survival. If people eliminated that, then the main goal of the society would shift accordingly.



I think you're just trying to argue the viability of a subsistence culture and not the desiribility, so I'll address that point first.

First, society doesn't "decide" anything. Never has, never will. People react to external conditions and force revolution. Without the necessary conditions for such a state to occur (and frankly, I don't know of any) it just couldn't happen.

Second, this theory assumes that people are content to simply exist. You are correct when you say that 99% of what we do is unnecessary for our survival - all we need for survival is food and procreation.

This theory simply does not take sexual competition into account. The desire for sexual companionship is inexorably linked with competitive economic systems. If we were to somehow eliminate economic competition, there would be no direct outlet for sexual competition. Would we share our women, too?
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 486/2105
EXP: 6580514
For next: 70176

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 23 hours
Last activity: 16 hours
#34 Posted on 13.5.02 1649.12
Reposted on: 13.5.09 1656.17
This theory simply does not take sexual competition into account. The desire for sexual companionship is inexorably linked with competitive economic systems. If we were to somehow eliminate economic competition, there would be no direct outlet for sexual competition. Would we share our women, too?

EDIT: after reading this again, I've realized I'm not sure if what I address below is what you're trying to say, so I'll ask you to explain this further. In case I assumed right, here is the original post:

Hmmm... I guess chicks really do dig the guys with the fancy cars

I don't know about the whole "economic competition for sex" theory. While I'll give you that generally males "compete" for females, even in our uber-materialistic culture, getting money (wealth, possesions, whatever) is only one way that compitition happens. There are plenty of reasons why women choose men (and men choose women, and men choose men, etc.) other than because they have more money than the next guy (heck, if this was true I sure wouldn't be married). In addition, in our (theoretically) monogomous culture, everyone should wind up with a mate and the ability to procreate no matter how the compition works. It may not be the mate you're looking for, but ugly chicks give birth just as well as hot ones.

In short, there are plenty of reasons for Halle Berry to choose to sleep with someone else instead of me besides the fact I'm poor.

Moe


(edited by MoeGates on 13.5.02 1752)
Sean
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 55/88
EXP: 55768
For next: 2583

Since: 26.3.02
From: Mastic, NY

Since last post: 4456 days
Last activity: 3544 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#35 Posted on 13.5.02 1814.33
Reposted on: 13.5.09 1817.40

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    This theory simply does not take sexual competition into account. The desire for sexual companionship is inexorably linked with competitive economic systems. If we were to somehow eliminate economic competition, there would be no direct outlet for sexual competition. Would we share our women, too?

    EDIT: after reading this again, I've realized I'm not sure if what I address below is what you're trying to say, so I'll ask you to explain this further. In case I assumed right, here is the original post:

    Hmmm... I guess chicks really do dig the guys with the fancy cars

    I don't know about the whole "economic competition for sex" theory. While I'll give you that generally males "compete" for females, even in our uber-materialistic culture, getting money (wealth, possesions, whatever) is only one way that compitition happens. There are plenty of reasons why women choose men (and men choose women, and men choose men, etc.) other than because they have more money than the next guy (heck, if this was true I sure wouldn't be married). In addition, in our (theoretically) monogomous culture, everyone should wind up with a mate and the ability to procreate no matter how the compition works. It may not be the mate you're looking for, but ugly chicks give birth just as well as hot ones.

    In short, there are plenty of reasons for Halle Berry to choose to sleep with someone else instead of me besides the fact I'm poor.

    Moe


    (edited by MoeGates on 13.5.02 1752)



OK, I will go into greater detail. Economics, by definition, is not necessarily about money. The term transcends the transaction of goods and currency.

The competition for mates is by definition economic. The man who has acquired the better mate has succeeded in this portion of his economy. From the day we hit 13, all of our actions are a direct result of this competition. It is no surprise, then, that there are more beautiful/rich people than there are beautiful/poor, or ugly/rich.

But that's getting ahead of myself.

In this supposedly non-competitive society, what factors will be used in determining what man gets what woman? Do we expect men to just accept whatever woman lays down before him? I will go out on a limb and argue that the same factors that dictate these relationships today will still be in effect. The man with the "better" job and higher intelligence in all likelihood *should* get the better woman.

So how, exactly, is this system egalitarian? The elite still have the most power, just not in terms of dollars and cents. The plant manager wields power over the assembly line worker, regardless of whether they're making the same wage. If he's also banging the hottest chick, would this not lead to mass resentment of this underclass?
astrobstrd
Bockwurst
Level: 52

Posts: 108/612
EXP: 1024279
For next: 59569

Since: 13.3.02
From: Loveland, OH

Since last post: 2550 days
Last activity: 2517 days
AIM:  
#36 Posted on 14.5.02 0008.24
Reposted on: 14.5.09 0011.45
    Originally posted by Sean






    OK, I will go into greater detail. Economics, by definition, is not necessarily about money. The term transcends the transaction of goods and currency.

    The competition for mates is by definition economic. The man who has acquired the better mate has succeeded in this portion of his economy. From the day we hit 13, all of our actions are a direct result of this competition. It is no surprise, then, that there are more beautiful/rich people than there are beautiful/poor, or ugly/rich.

    But that's getting ahead of myself.

    In this supposedly non-competitive society, what factors will be used in determining what man gets what woman? Do we expect men to just accept whatever woman lays down before him? I will go out on a limb and argue that the same factors that dictate these relationships today will still be in effect. The man with the "better" job and higher intelligence in all likelihood *should* get the better woman.

    So how, exactly, is this system egalitarian? The elite still have the most power, just not in terms of dollars and cents. The plant manager wields power over the assembly line worker, regardless of whether they're making the same wage. If he's also banging the hottest chick, would this not lead to mass resentment of this underclass?



I won't even start into how sexist this argument is, but move on to another point. You are right, some people are better than others...at certain things. Sure your plant owner may have a business degree, but can he fix a car? Can he farm and cook his own food? In communist and anarchist thought (not necessarily mine) the underclass is not dependent on the upperclass, it is the other way around (at least theoretically). It is more of a tribal system where those with power hold on to it only by the will of the proletariet (sp?)

(edited by astrobstrd on 14.5.02 0109)

(edited by astrobstrd on 14.5.02 0109)
Sean
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 57/88
EXP: 55768
For next: 2583

Since: 26.3.02
From: Mastic, NY

Since last post: 4456 days
Last activity: 3544 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#37 Posted on 14.5.02 0025.44
Reposted on: 14.5.09 0029.02

    Originally posted by astrobstrd
      Originally posted by Sean






      OK, I will go into greater detail. Economics, by definition, is not necessarily about money. The term transcends the transaction of goods and currency.

      The competition for mates is by definition economic. The man who has acquired the better mate has succeeded in this portion of his economy. From the day we hit 13, all of our actions are a direct result of this competition. It is no surprise, then, that there are more beautiful/rich people than there are beautiful/poor, or ugly/rich.

      But that's getting ahead of myself.

      In this supposedly non-competitive society, what factors will be used in determining what man gets what woman? Do we expect men to just accept whatever woman lays down before him? I will go out on a limb and argue that the same factors that dictate these relationships today will still be in effect. The man with the "better" job and higher intelligence in all likelihood *should* get the better woman.

      So how, exactly, is this system egalitarian? The elite still have the most power, just not in terms of dollars and cents. The plant manager wields power over the assembly line worker, regardless of whether they're making the same wage. If he's also banging the hottest chick, would this not lead to mass resentment of this underclass?



    I won't even start into how sexist this argument is, but move on to another point. You are right, some people are better than others...at certain things. Sure your plant owner may have a business degree, but can he fix a car? Can he farm and cook his own food? In communist and anarchist thought (not necessarily mine) the underclass is not dependent on the upperclass, it is the other way around (at least theoretically). It is more of a tribal system where those with power hold on to it only by the will of the proletariet (sp?)

    (edited by astrobstrd on 14.5.02 0109)

    (edited by astrobstrd on 14.5.02 0109)



Stop copping out. The argument is not sexist, it's reality. We're animals. We compete for mates in order to propogate our best traits and eliminate our worst, on both the male and female sides. I say "men" frequently, but women also compete with each other for the best mate. It's really no shock that rich and beautiful people, for the most part, mate with each other.

You are oversimplifying basic tenets of economic systems in order to make this ideology sound viable. It's not a question of skill levels, but of management duties. There are born leaders and born followers. A man can be the best farmer in the history of agriculture, but without any means of distributing his product to those around him, most of the food will spoil.

According to your post, you put fixing a car and growing one's food on an equal plane. Who oversees which foods to produce, and their respective quantities? Who determines how many cars should be made, and insures that the quality of cars produced meets a proper level of safety and/or comfort?

When I first started college, I was pretty heavily into the whole communist racket. I read lots of Jack London, went to lectures, etc. But the more I studied, and the more I understood how management systems work, I realized that most people are simply not willing or able to take the responsibility necessary to oversee production at any level. Managers, fulfill this void. By assuming any level of control, they effectively negate any pretense of egalitarianism.
astrobstrd
Bockwurst
Level: 52

Posts: 109/612
EXP: 1024279
For next: 59569

Since: 13.3.02
From: Loveland, OH

Since last post: 2550 days
Last activity: 2517 days
AIM:  
#38 Posted on 14.5.02 0125.59
Reposted on: 14.5.09 0127.12

    Originally posted by Sean


Stop copping out. The argument is not sexist, it's reality. We're animals. We compete for mates in order to propogate our best traits and eliminate our worst, on both the male and female sides. I say "men" frequently, but women also compete with each other for the best mate. It's really no shock that rich and beautiful people, for the most part, mate with each other.

You are oversimplifying basic tenets of economic systems in order to make this ideology sound viable. It's not a question of skill levels, but of management duties. There are born leaders and born followers. A man can be the best farmer in the history of agriculture, but without any means of distributing his product to those around him, most of the food will spoil.

According to your post, you put fixing a car and growing one's food on an equal plane. Who oversees which foods to produce, and their respective quantities? Who determines how many cars should be made, and insures that the quality of cars produced meets a proper level of safety and/or comfort?

When I first started college, I was pretty heavily into the whole communist racket. I read lots of Jack London, went to lectures, etc. But the more I studied, and the more I understood how management systems work, I realized that most people are simply not willing or able to take the responsibility necessary to oversee production at any level. Managers, fulfill this void. By assuming any level of control, they effectively negate any pretense of egalitarianism.



Saying a revolution will start because the peasants all get Babushkas and the rich all get J-Lo isn't sexist? We have kind of stepped of off what is good for our "evolution". What makes a good bearer of children? Super-models with narrow hips? If the manager is "banging the hot chick", then the lowly peons you describe have an equal shot at "banging the genetically superior chick" and evening out the gene pool. Did you also think that maybe why rich = beautiful is because of better clothes/make-up/health-care, and not that being born poor = ugly gibbering half-wit?

On to the politics...first of all, I am not a communist nor an anarchist. I think these policies are nearly impossible to apply to an industrialized state. However...my point is that people who live at subsistence level, not producing for market, can easily slip into this model of government.
The goal, however lofty, of the (true) communist and anarchist is to return to this level of simplicity i.e. management isn't nearly as important because there is no bottom line, you are producing only for necessary use, not mass consumption. However taxing and stressful management is, they know that in return they will get everything that they need.

Again, I don't agree with this philosophy (I tend to fall kind of in the middle Democrat and Green Party), but I'm just trying to say that they produce only for SUBSISTENCE.

With how you are going on about classes, and dissing "...all men are created equal" I would be interested to know your philosophical/political leanings. It sounds like you kind of take an Objectivist/Aristocratic approach.
Sean
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 58/88
EXP: 55768
For next: 2583

Since: 26.3.02
From: Mastic, NY

Since last post: 4456 days
Last activity: 3544 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#39 Posted on 14.5.02 0253.13
Reposted on: 14.5.09 0254.46
Is see that you have as much trouble with this quoting system as I do

You say: Saying a revolution will start because the peasants all get Babushkas and the rich all get J-Lo isn't sexist? We have kind of stepped of off what is good for our "evolution". What makes a good bearer of children? Super-models with narrow hips? If the manager is "banging the hot chick", then the lowly peons you describe have an equal shot at "banging the genetically superior chick" and evening out the gene pool. Did you also think that maybe why rich = beautiful is because of better clothes/make-up/health-care, and not that being born poor = ugly gibbering half-wit?

I say: You are taking this from the perspective of a man, which is understandable. Women also compete for the most desirable mate - one who passes on the best blend of physical and social characteristics. You mistake my delineation between rich/poor ugly/beautiful as some kind of qualitative analysis of character. I am not criticizing the ugly or the poor, just identifying them as such. Frankly, I'm not the greatest looking guy, nor am I very wealthy. If one can get past personal disappointment with his lot in life, he can objectively observe the world around him. I can accept that there are definite patterns to how people select their mates...and the exceptios are just that - exceptions.

You Say: On to the politics...first of all, I am not a communist nor an anarchist. I think these policies are nearly impossible to apply to an industrialized state. However...my point is that people who live at subsistence level, not producing for market, can easily slip into this model of government.

I say: I don't buy it. Even basic tribes who grew their own food and existed at a subsistence level had elders/leaders who administered punishment, assigned tasks, and organized food distribution to prevent spoilage. Once you do this, you create a managerial class, effectively killing this "ideal" system.

You say: The goal, however lofty, of the (true) communist and anarchist is to return to this level of simplicity i.e. management isn't nearly as important because there is no bottom line, you are producing only for necessary use, not mass consumption. However taxing and stressful management is, they know that in return they will get everything that they need.

I say: But herein lies the fundamental problem. WHO determines what we need? Do I determine my needs? Isn't it possible that my needs differ from my neighbor's? Isn't that an option? If you, by "need," simply mean food and shelter, then there is no need to have any social groups at all - why don't a man and woman get married, grow a few veggies on their own plot of land (and who determines borders and ownership?), have some kiddies, and be done with it? Once we bring interconnectedness on any level into the equation, we invariably create an oppressive (on some level, at least) governance, which in turn creates classes based on natural ability.

You say: Again, I don't agree with this philosophy (I tend to fall kind of in the middle Democrat and Green Party), but I'm just trying to say that they produce only for SUBSISTENCE.

I say: See above. Subsistence has not been defined to my liking. I don't believe that anyone will be content to live in a single-family domicile and eat only his own vegetables. The elimination of the community, which is what this sysem would ultimately entail, goes against every psychological and sociological study of human behavior ever conducted.

You say: With how you are going on about classes, and dissing "...all men are created equal" I would be interested to know your philosophical/political leanings. It sounds like you kind of take an Objectivist/Aristocratic approach.

I say: I don't like to classify my beliefs using some broad name, since I will invariably disagree with some basic tenet of said belief. I can be pretty much summed up as a social darwinist, I think. My whole philosophy is not about whether these things are right or wrong, but more that they just are. I believe in the reality that some people are better at different tasks than others. I recognize that, ultimately, the manager is much more valuable than the grunt since he is harder to adequately replace.

Do I have delusions of grandeur about myself? Maybe a little. We all do. I realize, though, that being born into the lower-middle class will most likely guarantee that is where I will end up when I'm retired, even though I have knowledge about savings and pensions that my parents simply didn't, and I also have the "benefit" (however dubious) of a Johns Hopkins education. Unlike the majority of lower/lower-middle class people that, via financial aid, attend top-20 schools, I have no resentment towards those born wealthy. Some people are born better off than me, and others worse off. Will that ever change? No. Is it possible? From what I've witnessed and understood to be true about sociological trends, it's just not.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 220/1084
EXP: 2431791
For next: 30073

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2957 days
Last activity: 2954 days
#40 Posted on 14.5.02 0332.31
Reposted on: 14.5.09 0332.45
a few things: I don't know about you, but I strive to be better than an animal, and truly believe that I am. Animals don't have as intricat a society as we do, and can't because they are more prone to give in to instinct.


The ancient egalitarian tribes had leaders, but they served a religious role. In communism/anarchism, religion is not a factor. Yes, somebody might be overseeing the whole production of it, but they are all still equals. He is not a "boss," no matter what his job may be. They all work towards the betterment of the state, so their is no resnetment among them, and no power worship as none of them have power over the others. I don't think my boss at the grocery store has any real power over me in our current system, as institutions are built from the bottom up, and not vice versa.

Your criticisms seem to rely on the idea that man naturally falls into leader/led roles, and that this is somehow incompatible with communism/anarchism. I don't see how it is. Yes, they preach equality, but it is equality in power, not ability. As I said before, each contributes what he can and gets what he needs. It relies on the fundamental kindness of mankind. Naive, maybe, but impossible? I don't know.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: Canadian Politics Is Retarded
Next thread: The World at War
Previous thread: East Timor
(2093 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Wienerville: Commie Pinko Haven?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.221 seconds.