Jump to content

Continuing the debate


Menchise
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

Address the main points as to why we are wrong instead of quoting some professor's

"theory".

1) I have been addressing some points by quoting other sources.

2) The author is not a professor, so stop calling him that.

3) The author's "theory" is supported by facts.

So far, everyone has been using the 'human nature' argument, which is why I quoted that author. He provides three concrete examples that disprove the points about 'human nature'. So far, nobody has rebutted that quote (with the exception of some meaningless rhetoric). In fact, most people have ignored it, and continued using 'human nature' in their arguments. Until someone can effectively reply to Harman's quote (the author's name is Chris Harman), I will continue to ignore the 'human nature' arguments and get on with the debate.

[ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

First off Menchise, everyone I apoligize if any of my arguments have offended you. From this point forward I will attempt to use basic logic, facts, statistics to back up any claims I might have.

I fail to see what is has to do with human nature. I see differences in culture to be sure, human nature is itself simply a person's feeling of self worth and, how do I put it?

Human nature gives me preference to choose one path over another. Whether it's because I logically disagree, or emotionally, or whatever. Human nature isn't solid, as evidenced by the existence of communists, whose nature tells them that they are correct in doing what they are doing, while at the same time not reconizing the differences of others. You have said it yourself, you organize people by class, race, etc. You fail to see that perhaps some workers don't exactly like being categorized.

Human nature is a collection of the morals, culture, knowledge of a person and how he applies it to everyday decisions. Regardless things vary on an individual basis, therefore grouping the "workers of the world" into one specific model would not work.

You consistently deny the "cult of the individual" as forwarded by both Nikita Krushkev and Adolf Hitler. Both of them wanted to do away with the thought of individuals and focus on society.

Alright, my argument to this point is that Communism would collapse upon itself because it requires perfect obedience under a system.

I'm certain that if you killed enough people and forced them under the sytem then after 2 or 3 generations you would breed out the undesirables. Of course that would be Stalinist or Hitleristic of you.

What else can be done to assure the functioning of a communist state?

Alright, now on to this distribution of income thing. Lets say that I was living in an apartment complex. I have two neighbors. One neighbor is sick and doesn't have much money. The other neighbor has enough money to get by. Me being the generous soul that I am, gives the sickly neighbor 200 dollars to help him out. Two months later he is still in the same position, my 200 dollars wasn't enough, considering he spent alot of it on booze, but perhaps the lottery tickets he bought will pan out... theres always hope. I go to the other neighbor and ask him if he can help out. My other neighbor replies that he understands the person's situation but is saving money to move up in life and send his child to school. I respond by pulling a gun on him and forcing him to give a portion of his income to the sickly neighbor.

Is what I did right? Do I have the right to use force to redistribute his income? Why then should government have a right to do something that if I did it it would be illegal?

Alright, my argument is that you use feel-good communist rhetoric to help the socially "disadvantaged", which is cool with you as you consider spending everyone else's money to do it, so it's easy for you to feel good about it because it isn't you paying for it.

Everyone in life, whatever their station they are there by choice. It's sad, but true. If you are living on the street corner then you made bad choices in life. If you are rich then you made good choices. God forbid that the rich are rich because they earned the income. They didn't just magically get it did they? By your argument, you should take money away from those who earned it, give it to those who did not earn it. What does that foster other than dependancy? You have people working really hard and the only satisfaction they get from it is that it is trinkled down to those who didn't work as hard. Now this crap about "but they are doing there best" is a theory. You cannot guarantee that everyone would be doing there best. As soon as the top worker figured out he could work less hard and still make the same amount, he would do it simply because it is easier.

Onto something else. If someone makes wrong decisions, they automatically assume the reason they failed in life is because of someone else. "I didn't get hired because I'm black!", "I didn't succeed because of society!", "I didn't succeed because my parents didn't teach me enough!" etc. It takes an enormous amount of maturty to look in the mirror and say that it's my fault, but I won't make the same bad decisions again and I will work to better myself.

It is so much easier to blame everything else than to turn to yourself and realize you are wrong. No one has a right to anything of anyone else's ownership.

I realize that there are "urban outdoorsmen" i.e. homeless people in the world. Realize however that they are there by choice. They had a choice whether or not to educate themselve and work harder and strive to earn a living, or to sit there because working was too "un-cool" for them. Why not go tell someone who got rich by working 60 hour weeks, along with going to college and busting their @$$ for years that they are only there because they took advantage of someone else. Then duck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

So far, everyone has been using the 'human nature' argument, which is why I quoted that author. He provides three concrete examples that disprove the points about 'human nature'. So far, nobody has rebutted that quote (with the exception of some meaningless rhetoric). In fact, most people have ignored it, and continued using 'human nature' in their arguments. Until someone can effectively reply to Harman's quote (the author's name is Chris Harman), I will continue to ignore the 'human nature' arguments and get on with the debate.


Well, there ya go Menchise, The debate is therefore over. If Human Nature is to be taken out of the equation in order to debate with you, then the debate is over.

You ignore Human Nature at your peril, Capitalism works with Human Nature, the More driven you are the more money you will make, the less driven the less money you will make.

Communism attempts to make ALL men equal, sorry, not all men are equal. Some are smarter, some are better educated, some know how to keep money, some know only how to spend it. Men and women, in and of themselves are NOT equal, they are guaranteed to be treated equally under the law, but as far as the economy it is every person for themselves.

You may not like this, but it works and it works well. Communism is great for insects, they do not think, socialism is great for animals, but they again do not think. Capitalism is the economy of a free people, with individual rights and liberties, the only way to create a socialist or communist state is to either A: create a true democracy, and turn one class against the other. Result being you destroy the country. Or B: you force that political viewpoint on the population, by first disarming them, then getting rid of those that disagree with such a system(Killing them) and taking all private property under central government control, and again you then destroy the country.

No, Human Nature plays a MAJOR role in the success of the capitalist sytem and the failure of the Socialist and communism models. By ignoring Human Nature, then I would even agree that socialism would work, but I know human nature, and therefore neither of those sytems could eever last for long without self destructing. See the Soviet Union, and China, China is like free enterprise gone crazy, the communist regime has learned that a little free enterprise is a GREAT thing. Every person in that country has something to sell you, it's crazy!!! At the same time it is a wonderful thing, because once free enterprise gets a hold, communism and socialism are doomed.

China is going to slip into a democratic type country, just like it's neighbor Taiwan, it will just take a little more time.

Communism and Socialism has been an abject failure EVERY time it has been tried. Canada with its national healthcare system is BROKE, and I mean BROKE, they have no more money, they are even beginning to think it should be privatized again. Sense prevails, it just took 25 years and thousands of unneeded deaths. Deaths because of 6-12 month waiting lists for surgeries that would be done in 24 hours or less here in the states. Those patients died because of that lack of treatment.

Your dream system DOES NOT work Menchise, and that has been proven, over, and over, and over, and over again...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Sigh*

Still no response to the economic argument (the one where if everyone divides all the money in the world, everyone would be rich).

At any rate, I again need to stress this argument. Remember, GOODS are the economy -- not money. Now, while the rich have a lot of money, exponentially moreso than the poor, they do NOT have exponentially more hard goods than the poor. The value of the goods they DO have is much higher but do not detract from the actual supply of raw materials.

Now, if EVERYONE could have such valuable goods, the supply of raw materials and land would be at a premium. So, that $10 million that everyone has would actually be worth less than $10,000 in today's terms.

So what happens? Instead of a few being impoverished, most being comfortable in the middle class, and a few being highly wealthy, EVERYONE ends up in the lower class due to lack of MATERIALS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would expand on your point Jaguar, only by saying that if you took the following out of the equation:

Common Sense: Because people are going to realize that they are working harder and not being rewarded for it.

Human Nature: Because people are going to see no benefit for themselves. - Not everyone is selflessly loving like you.

Human Beings: Because we cannot be contained to a system that offers no progress only a sustainable living environment (if it works)

I guess if you removed those three factors all you are left with is an idea, and that idea cannot sustain itself without those 3 factors in harmony with it.

It won't work, but to prove it to you, why don't you list the requirements that people would have to live by in order for it to work, and what would be involved in the system(i.e. MONEY, CENTRALIZATION, GOVERNMENT, etc.) And how it would take effect, and I will gladly offer you a counterbalance point that outweighs yours.

An analogy: (by me )

If you have a sterile environment, of course you won't get sick, but even if there is one microbe of virii in the air your immune system stands a chance of being infected.

In other words, the slightest thing out of alignment could cause your fullproof never get sick scheme to fail.

Apply it to Communism, sure the system will work in a perfect setting; a few "microbes

i.e. people, fall out of line and the system feels some effect. a few hundred and a small shudder, thousands it starts shaking, and millions it collapses under it's own weight. I'm talking a minority of people, who in our republic of the USA don't affect it because of seperation of powers (i.e. we aren't a democracy) Because if everyone was equal, do you really think that 40% would stand by and let 60% dictate the way things are going to be?

Jaguar we need to get a gun debate going too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urza sticks his head out from behind a bush to avoid getting hit in the crossfire

Heh, I'm not touching this with a 5 foot stick.

Urza quickly returns to his hiding spot in the bush

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my opinion on that part that if everyone devides their money equally everyone would be rich. In a year the money would redistribute itself and it will look 99% like it looked before. Whoever was rich before will be rich again and whoever was poor will be poor again. I came here from Russia when I was 11. So I am amazed at people skiping high school, getting busted by the cops for stupid things, f...ing around in college instead of getting the education thye paid for (what's even dumber is if they paid for it and are still messing around, then you are just a retard). So in US if you want to have money, dedicated, and you don't even need to be espacially smart, average IQ will do nicelly. You can do pretty much anything you want. I mean look at me. I live with my mom. She doesn't make a lot of money, so we live in an appartment and basically go paycheck to paycheck and I am getting an education that is worth $60,000. How? Grants, loans. So if you are complaning that you can't get ahead or something. Bullshit. It's hard, but it's possible. So devide the money equally and the people who don't have them now, 99% of them will not have them a year later, they couldn't get it in the first place so what makes you think they can keep it or make their money grow?

[ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Jaguar we need to get a gun debate going too

LOL, not until I pay off my HK-91 and get enough money to pick up my Fully auto MP-5 Thank you very much!!

Nah, go for it, let's get another thread started, we know who is anti-gun, and you and I of course know where we stand , so go for it dude!!!

[ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe, we'll wait until this one is concluded.

I'm interested in simply stating a full opinion about gun ownership, letting people duke it out, and then telling them where they are wrong when necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Hellbinder[CE]

quote:

I agree, and that's why I'm against capitalism. Capitalist production is based on owners taking away the personal rewards of workers who perform all of the labour and manufacture all of the products.


I am sorry, But that is totally rediculous. Top workers nearly ALWAYS make top wages. While there are a few companies that are just evil that is not the norm. Quality competative Companies and Firms pay top dollar to those who make them the money. PERIOD!

It is up to the WORKER to get the skills that are in demand. There is NO motivation in a Socialistic society to excell.

IT is totally mind numbing how any sane thinking individual could STILL be for any form of socialism. Socialism supresses Freedom and creativity PERIOD.

You people have seen the results of Socialism and its brother Communism over and over again. what will it take to get you people to stop wanting to enslave your brethren under the guise of Equality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ye folks sound like a bloomin' broken record

Ye all keep saying the same smack over and over and over ... getting nowhere fast

As to gun control (another oxymoron IMO) - they can get my weapon after they pry it from my cold dead hand(s)

TTFN

[ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: Gallion ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes indeedy Gallion, we seem to be repeating ourselves again and again, but Menchise keeps doing it and until he finally gives in and says that indeed capitalism is the only thing that has proven workable, then we will continue to repeat ourselves until he gets it!!

And as far as gun control, to me that is hitting what you are aiming at!!! And boy can I!!!! LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing. First they need gun control to ban guns. See, once they know who has what guns they can put out a ban on guns and now they know who and what to collect from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, I'm going to keep it simple, just respond to my main points...

POINT # 1

Human nature exists... and does play a role in the way that people function in society. Just because a perfect economical and social model would fit you like a glove does not mean it would fit the next person. You say so yourself:

"Harman was pointing out that what we call 'human nature' is different from society to society. "

So in essence you have defeated the argument of socialism yourself,though I must expand on Harman's quote because people instead of just society are indeed different by themselves and do indeed vary. I am not disputing the fact that Communism could work/function in a limited area for a limited period of time. However, my point is, that it would not stand up to scrutiny of someone with any intelligence who realizes they could be in a better position in life, should they better themselves.

I say human nature varies by the person, only in the effect that whatever they believe will help themselves, they will do. You do not see animals taking care of each other, they compete, which brings me to my next point.

Point # 2

Communism discourages competition... however competition is what has driven the American economy by leaps and bounds over the last half century. Competition is a good thing, and is a method of advancement in our society.

I say that communism discourages competition, because no matter how hard someone worked, the could never rise above the common denominator. Whoever is the weakest link in the chain forces everyone to his/her level.

I disagree because a person should be compensated for however much they contribute, not be set at a certain level. If I stack 10 tons of bricks and you stack 1 ton, all in the same amount of time, quite frankly I deserve more. After seeing no reward don't you think I would feel a little cheated? Do you not think I would envy you if you worked 1/10 of what I did and got paid the same? Regardless of your ability?

quote:

If the total sum of a person's experience occurred within a particular society, for example, a society where competition and greed are regarded as essential and core human characteristics, wouldn't that person invariably grow up to be competitive and greedy?

What exactly is greed? Can you define it? Perhaps it varies from person to person as well if they see themselves as greedy. Suffice to say that if someone earns 10 times more than you have earned, perhaps they deserve it, and you seeing them as greedy is only jealousy at not having performed 10 times better?

To your quote however, I do not agree that greed even plays a part, that's socialist word play. Capitalism is not = to greed. see above.

The fallacy of your point is lessened by your reference to competition. Yes it is a part of Capitalism. If someone grows up in a competitive oriented society, no they aren't necessarily going to enjoy it, 9 times out of 10 because either they cannot compete, or do not believe they can compete.

quote:

how does that person find himself agreeing with socialists?

Because it makes them feel good to believe in a cause that claims to be able to answer all problems and correct social injustices. Especially when it isn't their money they want taken away as much as those who have more than they do.

quote:

Capitalist production is based on owners taking away the personal rewards of workers who perform all of the labour and manufacture all of the products.

A flat out fairy tale, sorry. See Hellbinders counter to that.

[AFTER EDIT]After reading back over your quote, replace the word capitalism with Communism and you are correct. Because the owners of production "the workers" take away the personal rewards of those who perform most of the labor and manufacture most of the products. With Capitalism in the sentence it is a misguided lie or misperception of reality. [/AFTER EDIT]

Point # 3

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer... but why? Is it because the rich people are stealing everything with their greed? More likely it is because the rich keep doing what it is that made them rich, and the poor keep doing what it is that makes them poor.

*DISCLAIMER - not meaning to strike a class difference here, but for the sake of argument as you see it.

Rich people, who started out life at the bottom (just to be fair) and worked their way to the top, did so by extraordinary effort and competitiveness.

Poor people continue spending more than they have coming in and never attempt to better their situation, or give up after a few failed attempts.

Even though the "rich" spend nearly 40% of their income in taxes, BTW the top 1% wage earners in America contribute 40% of all taxes in America, yet they still make money. Even though they are losing money through taxes, they use their skills to continue balancing it with what comes in.

Contrary to your belief, the rich are smart. Not saying that poor people are dumb. They just aren't as smart as the rich OR aren't as determined. (either or)

See my quote:

quote:

Why not go tell someone who got rich by working 60 hour weeks, along with going to college and busting their @$$ for years that they are only there because they took advantage of someone else.

Then duck.


Okay, I agree with Jaguar's earlier point of human equality to the extent that not everyone is equal in terms of ability, desire, etc. Most of us are born equal, from that point on what choices we make determine where we end up in life. You cannot force choices or lack thereof upon people.

Answer this:

quote:

Alright, now on to this distribution of income thing. Lets say that I was living in an apartment complex. I have two neighbors. One neighbor is sick and doesn't have much money. The other neighbor has enough money to get by. Me being the generous soul that I am, gives the sickly neighbor 200 dollars to help him out. Two months later he is still in the same position, my 200 dollars wasn't enough, considering he spent alot of it on booze, but perhaps the lottery tickets he bought will pan out... theres always hope. I go to the other neighbor and ask him if he can help out. My other neighbor replies that he understands the person's situation but is saving money to move up in life and send his child to school. I respond by pulling a gun on him and forcing him to give a portion of his income to the sickly neighbor.

Is what I did right? Do I have the right to use force to redistribute his income? Why then should government have a right to do something that if I did it it would be illegal?

And one other point Menchise, you haven't answered yet.

How, in your view would Communism work?

Down to the individual level, what is expected of each citizen, what rights (if any) would they have? What would you do in the event of disobedience?

MAIN POINT

And what is wrong with having more than someone else if you earned it and they didn't?

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: $iLk ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

"Harman was pointing out that what we call 'human nature' is different from society to society. "


And that may have been true 200 years ago, maybe even 100 years ago, but not anymore.

Capitalism and free enterprise is a system that works, VERY well, and most if not all of the worlds population either, knows about it, is invloved in it, or wish they had it.

Also, you seem to be trapped in what I call the zero sum game. To you, there is a pie, that pie is the economy and everyone gets a piece, but the people that are rich get more of that same pie and therefore the rest of us get less of that pie.

This economic model is patently false, the pie is not one size and that's it. The pie GROWS!!! And as the pie gets larger there is more for everyone. As a rich person gets richer, he creates more jobs within his company, which then creates more jobs through the support services that the new employee needs, he needs a house, construction gets jobs, he needs food, the local grocer gets business, the local mall has another customer, so they make money.

1 rich company owner creates many more jobs then just the ones that he has within his company, and as he grows, the economy grows, and as the economy grows more jobs are created, and as more jobs are created, the economy grows more and more jobs are created, it goes on and on and on, but, sometimes the economy grows too fast and the brakes need to be put on to stop inflation, I think myself that this is a crock, 2-3% growth is nothing, I think that the free market economy should be cut loose from the fed bank control and let it grow as fast as it is able. But that is just me as an amateur economist, but as the rich get richer, they bring up the rest of us right along with them. As the rich get richer, we ALL get richer... because there is more because the rich person has created more with his initial investment and business.

The economy is NOT a zero sum game, it grows.. and that I think is the trap you are in. Someone along the line has convinced you that there is only a certain amount for everyone to share and therefore it is unfair that there are rich people and so many more poor people. This is wrong, as I have explained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any system with the intention to grow forever using up the limited resources available is doomed to fail one day, i.e. when those resources are used up.

That's the reason why this sort of capitalism will not work forever (or, say, some more 1000 years).

All in all, this discussion is very nice, interesting, and all in all useless. You guys will never get any common dominator: under a capitalistic point of view, communism / socialism (whatever) will not work. All arguments I have read so far go start from a limited point of view, and how could they not? If we could go back in time, and would try to ask a Sioux, or Escimo, why their system worked, they sure would be astonished by the question...

Oh, one thing: some animals indeed do help each other. The elefants for ex. This may because they can afford it, they have no natural enemies. Well, OTOH humans have no more "natural" enemies, also...

Fact is, the good ol' Darwin system (survival of the fittest) simply has it's flaws, therefore it should not be transfered over to ecomony, or the likes. Even, if you are tempted to do this, because it seems to fit.

I guess in some 100, or 1000 years this competetive system, called capitalism, will fail. If humans survive, the next working system may be some kind of communism, or may not. But not yet, not now, not today. The time just is not (yet?) right.

Best regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Any system with the intention to grow forever using up the limited resources available is doomed to fail one day, i.e. when those resources are used up.

That's the reason why this sort of capitalism will not work forever (or, say, some more 1000 years).

Agree if you limit your definition and expectation to that. However, resources are plentiful and with each passing day, we learn to do more with less. When we drill for oil for instance, much more careful about it, none is wasted, and plus we put caps on how much we take out so that it can eventually be replaced or last even longer. So eventually I see us developing a stable market of necessity, provided we don't try to redistribute everything amongst the billions of people born every few years, and allow Darwinism to take it's course.

quote:

All arguments I have read so far go start from a limited point of view

I agree as far as our arguments, common sense is very unforgiving about expanded thought that doesn't work, so you have to stay limited within the bounds of good sense.

quote:

If we could go back in time, and would try to ask a Sioux, or Escimo, why their system worked, they sure would be astonished by the question...

Probably because you question them using it in the past tense... "worked" They would probably rethink their position if they knew how they were going to end up. They weren't fit for competition, noble though it might be of them, and they turned a blind eye to it.

quote:

posted 10-16-2001 06:52

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any system with the intention to grow forever using up the limited resources available is doomed to fail one day, i.e. when those resources are used up.

That's the reason why this sort of capitalism will not work forever (or, say, some more 1000 years).

All in all, this discussion is very nice, interesting, and all in all useless. You guys will never get any common dominator: under a capitalistic point of view, communism / socialism (whatever) will not work. All arguments I have read so far go start from a limited point of view, and how could they not? If we could go back in time, and would try to ask a Sioux, or Escimo, why their system worked, they sure would be astonished by the question...

Oh, one thing: some animals indeed do help each other. The elefants for ex. This may because they can afford it, they have no natural enemies.

Agreed, communism would work with elephants. Of course I have wondered why they gore each other with tusks over females..

quote:

Fact is, the good ol' Darwin system (survival of the fittest) simply has it's flaws, therefore it should not be transfered over to ecomony, or the likes. Even, if you are tempted to do this, because it seems to fit.

My thought isn't the economy per say' more the fact that the economy is a tool of survival as applied to humans. Survivalism therefore becomes the key, and you have to choose whether to strive to better your own situation or carry along those who don't pull their own weight. Whatever you want to do is fine, however you can't expect to force those who don't to comply with you.

quote:

I guess in some 100, or 1000 years this competetive system, called capitalism, will fail. If humans survive, the next working system may be some kind of communism, or may not. But not yet, not now, not today. The time just is not (yet?) right.

I have already agreed in this thread. When humanity reaches a stage of evolutionary thought whereby they grow past human nature and into some kind of cooperative instinct, then it will work. My point simply being it won't work now.

quote:

Best regards.

Thank you, and I respect your opinions, though mine somewhat differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Human nature exists... and does play a role in the way that people function in

society.

Of course human nature exists, but what is 'human nature'? Where is the line between what is inherent in human beings and what is taught to us by social constructs? Were humans really born greedy, or have humans just adapted to a society that rewards greed? Why do some humans choose to adapt, while others try to change things?

Where in the book of 'human nature' does it say that having more money makes you a happier person, let alone a better person? I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said that money never makes anyone truly happy. Why do so many people believe that making more money for yourself is the same as improving yourself? Osama bin Ladin runs a terror business that specializes in human plastiques. Is he improving himself? Shell is a billion dollar oil company that bribes the Nigerian government into assassinating unionists. Is that improvement? Is that 'human nature'? No. That's capitalism.

quote:

Because it makes them feel good to believe in a cause that claims to be able to

answer all problems and correct social injustices. Especially when it isn't their money they want taken away as much as those who have more than they do.

Now you've defeated the argument of capitalism yourself. Why would I ever agree with a cause that claims to answer problems and injustices if, as you and Jaguar so vigorously claim, capitalism works very well? If capitalism really did work very well, then why do so many problems and social injustices exist?

That is what I've been getting at during the entire time that we've been discussing 'human nature'. People believe in causes that challenge the existing society when the sum of their experiences contradict with the teachings of that society!

quote:

I say human nature varies by the person, only in the effect that whatever they

believe will help themselves, they will do. You do not see animals taking care of each other, they compete, which brings me to my next point.

Animals only take what they need. What's our excuse?

quote:

I disagree because a person should be compensated for however much they contribute, not be set at a certain level. If I stack 10 tons of bricks and you stack 1 ton, all in the same amount of time, quite frankly I deserve more. After seeing no reward don't you think I would feel a little cheated? Do you not think I would envy you if you worked 1/10 of what I did and got paid the same? Regardless of your ability?

Don't you think that I would envy you if I could only stack 1 ton of bricks while you could stack 10 times as many in the same amount of time? Do you not think I would feel cheated if I worked just as hard as you did and you got paid ten times as much? Regardless of my effort?

See what I mean? Competition can also discourage people from trying to improve themselves because no matter how hard they try, they're still regarded as inferior. In the end, they starve to death because nobody will hire them.

quote:

And what is wrong with having more than someone else if you earned it and

they didn't?

What does it take for someone to earn something? Working to the best of one's ability, or having more ability than someone else?

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try and spell it out for you.

quote:

Of course human nature exists, but what is 'human nature'? Where is the line between what is inherent in human beings and what is taught to us by social constructs? Were humans really born greedy, or have humans just adapted to a society that rewards greed? Why do some humans choose to adapt, while others try to change things?


Human Nature : The way a person reacts or acts in response to a stimulus based on his/her personal feelings and preference

I made that definition and think it fits, but let me compound on it, if a person's natural preference is to better themselves, any ideas that are contrary to that he/she will oppose. Likewise they would be succeptible to whatever ideas go along with their needs/desires.

However, this varies from person to person, and no system which proposes to make people equal will succeed. Likewise Capitalism would not have succeeded if it didn't offer something to humanity.

Throughout history, conflicts, wars, etc. have forced us through hardships which in the end bettered us. By arresting hardships, humanity would become complacent, and would be unable to resist taking advantage of others, or being taken advantage of. Particularly if this system is forced upon even a minority who would not accept it.

A system whereby people are allowed to thrive by their own merits, regardless of ability (i.e. if someone is so crippled they can't lift anything, but use their intelligence to thrive) is superior to a system which supports the weak (weak meaning those who do not contribute by choice or ability) at the expense of those who are stronger (Darwinian of me I know). This system would prevent natural course and upset the balance of nature. Since we do not have any natural enemies, Capitalism has become a new battleground for humanity to work at bettering themselves.

quote:

Where in the book of 'human nature' does it say that having more money makes you a happier person, let alone a better person? I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said that money never makes anyone truly happy. Why do so many people believe that making more money for yourself is the same as improving yourself? Osama bin Ladin runs a terror business that specializes in human plastiques. Is he improving himself? Shell is a billion dollar oil company that bribes the Nigerian government into assassinating unionists. Is that improvement? Is that 'human nature'? No. That's capitalism.

And that is an 'emotionalist' communist argument based on feelings and not fact. A few examples out of hundreds of thousands of counterpoints doesn't constitute judgement of the system itself. I could just as easily, instead of bringing up minor entities, bring up whole hellhole countries, People's Republic of China, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba - How many have

DIED

by that system as opposed to Capitalism? Disadvantage in a system I believe is preferable to being dead. Exactly how many people in the United States die from poverty every year? As opposed to any Socialist based government anywhere ever? As I said, greed is nothing but a word for those to de-legitamize legitimate income.

Is it greed to keep what you earn instead of pampering those who haven't earned it?

quote:

Now you've defeated the argument of capitalism yourself. Why would I ever agree with a cause that claims to answer problems and injustices if, as you and Jaguar so vigorously claim, capitalism works very well? If capitalism really did work very well, then why do so many problems and social injustices exist?

Your "social injustices" are either imagined, or are worse in Communist countries. Case closed.

Bring me statistics from Communist countries about deaths due to poverty, the great injustices of China as opposed to the US.

Find me one statistic in any socialist system country-wide that raises it above Capitalist countries. And then compare the cost. Very low crime rate? Among private citizens, but the government makes up for that. 100% employment? Great room for improvement and choice of job market

quote:

That is what I've been getting at during the entire time that we've been discussing 'human nature'. People agree with causes that challenge the existing society when the sum of their experiences contradict with the teachings of that society!

Why tell people that society, or government should teach them when in the end it is up to parents?

quote:

Animals only take what they need. What's our excuse?

Lots of animals (monkeys, lions, tigers included) kill each other for the "need" of not feeling uncomfortable with another male/female around the pack. Or because they don't belong.

quote:

Don't you think that I would feel cheated if I could only stack 1 ton of bricks while you could stack 10 times as many in the same amount of time? Do you not think I would envy you if I worked just as hard as you did and you got paid ten times as much? Regardless of my effort?

Effort is a big part of it, because I didn't say anything about you being disabled did I? Let's assume we were both "able" to do the same amount of work, yet you felt like you couldn't compete so weren't able to? You still get paid the same either way, so why should I work harder as I could pull a you and cut down my workload by 9/10?

quote:

See what I mean? Competition can also discourage people from trying to improve themselves because no matter how hard they try, they're still regarded as inferior. In the end, they starve to death because nobody will hire them.

What's a good capitalist country that doesn't hire those who are disabled? I know many Communist countries don't... wonder why?

See above about statistics of those starving in capitalist countries and those in ANY non-capitalist country.

quote:

What does it take for someone to earn something? Working to the best of one's ability, or having more ability than someone else?

Working to the best of one's ability, while at the same time performing the necessary amount of work. If they can't work in a certain job, capitalism gives them opportunity to move to something more suited.

Okay, you have actual Capitalism in practice in the world working. Communism hasn't ever worked on a country-wide scale? I have seen it work city-wide, and household wide. Why not Nation-wide?

Perhaps because The more variables you throw in (each person being a different variable, as there is no set ability, effort, personality, humannature about a person) The more likely the calculation screws up and the whole problem comes crashing down on you.

You can't argue that blocks of nations are the limit of humanity. It's individuals who prevent your system from working.

BTW, what's more important? Happiness at achivement, or bland daily effort to no end except death?

You have already limited achievment from being reached in a communist society, except in the effect of society itself. Personal success is nil.

You're main problem is that you have blocked people into "society" and "class".

Think about people as people.

That's what capitalism does, we aren't all perfect, we aren't all at the TOP of competition, but even the weakest of us can survive as well as the best in a communist system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, well, sorry guys, but I tire of debating something that is SOO obvious.

Capitalism works and makes the standard of living higher then anywhere else in the world. USA

Socialism fails, it puts EVERYONE equally in poverty, and destroys any motivation to better oneself. and will self destruct... USSR

Communism is a utopian dream that will NEVER work as long as humans are human.

And Remember, Karl Marx wasn't even a Marxist!! I wonder why?

Bottom line is that socialism has failed EVERY time it has been tried and has killed Millions in the process, this is JUSTICE? This is FAIR? I don't think so.

Capitalism has always succeeded if left alone and not overregulated by a government, because as you regulate it, it becomes a socialism and will self destruct and destroy that country. See Canada, BANKRUPT!!!

Sorry Menchise, no matter what you say or how you dream, in the REAL world, Socialism and Communism will ALWAYS fail, and will destroy millions of peoples lives in the process. Whereas capitalism lifts ALL boats, and that is a fact. In America, the poverty level is $20,000, where else in the world is the poverty level this high, where else in the world do Poverty level include 2 cars, 2 color televisions, a house? Where else? NO WHERE ELSE!!!

Sorry Menchise, Capitalism works, Socialism is, has, and always will FAIL!!! And DESTROY the society it is trying to make fair and just!!

END OF DEBATE!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually poverty level in the United States is legally determined on amount of income, not on the amount of money you have. So if you are a multibillionare who owns all kinds of businesses, sell off all your assets and lay low for 1 year and you will be counted among the impoverished.

That's the way the legal term implies it, therefore people who are retired, living without Social Security, yet who saved up enough to get by comfortably are automatically added to the statistic.

Logic and facts

ALWAYS

defeat emotionalism. While it would be nice to have world peace and live in some kind of Utopia, the actual chances of that happening are nil. Actually there is a greater chance of world peace suceeding fully than there is of communism working. Because World Peace wouldn't suppress humanity.

The inescapable fact is, at least in the United States, Everyone, and I mean every single person has opportunity to be sucessful. Just because it's hard, or some people get there faster, doesn't mean that you can't do it. As long as we have that to strive towards, Capitalism will work.

The main fallacy of the leftist point of view is that they view society, government, etc. as above the individual. That's because if you break it down enough it falls apart, whereas capitalism works on all levels.

Menchise, I would be inclined to agree with you if you could show me what an individual would reap from this system. Why they would be motivated to give it 100%

All your arguments are that society is one living organism that agrees with itself 100% and should help all it's parts.

It's not that simple. When you break it down to basic levels - on both sides, capitalism come out on top.

The lies you hear about EVIL CAPITALISTS stealing from the poor to line their own pockets is just that - lies. Or at least misrepresentation.

We have already shown you that people have a choice whether or not to work for somebody, or work for themselves.

If they work FOR somebody the FOR implies that the SOMEBODY is reaping some benefit.

If they work FOR themselves the FOR implies that they themselves are reaping the benefit of their work.

No offense or anything, but your failure to address many of the overwhelming flaws in your argument and trying to poke tiny holes in ours, which are easily rebuffed while yours are gaping does show that something is a little one sided here.

When challenged to back up your posts you return by challenging us to back up ours and misrepresent them to us. We rebuff it and the pattern continues.

Classic liberal, the arguments that are too hard and impossible to disprove you ignore, and rely on miscellaneous statements drawn from some or another commie to attempt to point at us EVIL capitalists. It's nothing but emotional arguments and bogeyman scare tactics. While we rely on evidence. We point to where communism has always failed and you point to how it would work if.

There is something wrong when to justify an idea that has been proven a failure you have to suggest that maybe if something or another was different it would work.

"Leave Human Nature out of it, it's too hard to argue with!" you say.

"Human Nature is a lame excuse, it doesn't exist!" so said the indians

"well maybe it does exist but it doesn't have anything to do with humans... or nature"

Finally in desperation you say "let's leave human nature out of it!"

And we respond by saying, "that's what's wrong with your theory anyway!!!"

And on it goes. You know that if you grant the same idea of human nature that we do your argument is nothing. You have to ignore it or redefine it to keep from admitting you are wrong.

Answer one question for me -

How would Communism work as you described if human nature was as we described?

10 galcredits says the answer has something to do with eskimos...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very strange thread. Doesn't seem to be about anything real world at all. The U.S. is hardly a capitalist country, it's an uneasy blend of socialism and fascism.

Examples of socialism: unemployment insurance, medicare, public schools, social security, subsidized higher education, laws that protect the environment and its wildlife from exploitation, and every other program that provides a benefit to people in general without regard to their differing abilities, skills, health, etc. (These things are always under assault by the right wing, but as I say, we live in an uneasy blend of socialism and fascism.)

Frankly, the very existence of government "for the people" is socialism, and so is taxation. How odd that socialism as a concept is so demonized in this thread, since people obviously want a certain amount of it in their lives.

If we had a truly capitalist country here, particularly free market capitalism, there would be no hundreds of billions per year in corporate welfare spent, no bailouts, no tariffs, no Greenspan, no trade laws, no interference in any way with the vagaries of the marketplace. Ironically, capitalists so love a sure thing that they embrace these socialist themes, if not those that benefit people over profit.

As far as my reading and education goes, dozens of developing countries around the world have tried to build socialist democracies in the past half century, with every likelihood of success, but the so-called capitalist forces (I don't think of them as capitalist, but I've already used the f word twice) have mobilized to undermine them and put into place military dictatorships instead, which are far more receptive to the idea of exploitation of labor and materials.

Capitalism, it seems plain to me, is a very unsuccessful program that seems always to want to destroy itself by lack of restraint. It's bad for people in general because of the unleashing of the politics of greed into the social equation, leading to stalled technologies like solar power, exploitation of workers, destruction of the environment, and much more. It has survived so long in the U.S. only because there is, or has been until recently, a strong framework of hard fought for laws protecting the civil liberties and freedoms of the people.

Unrestrained greed (pure "capitalism") can only lead to revolution, as history teaches us. But I make the point again that this country is not capitalist. It wouldn't have lasted if it were. And if you are so naive as to think that the U.S. has not been perpetrating political crimes around the globe in the name of profit, there's plenty of reading material available. Start, I think, with "A People's History of the United States," by Howard Zinn, for some solid background and deprogramming, and then read a little Chomsky and Parenti.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...