its like hitting your head at a brick wall, this is a christian kid and his arguement is this: Human beigns are fallen and thus will always be evil, your system will collapse with the first corrupt person.
My Arguement: Human beings are enherently Altruistic, it is the enviroment thats shapes human behavior, society, change society and you change human behavior thus allowing for humanity to evolve to something better, to reach a new level of potential.
He says thats stupid etc etc list random Christian arguement here.
Person also believes that world will end and when its recreated then we'll have a perfect world.
My head hurts, gets this: "You should become a Christian Blayne, that way you'll know your theory will never work and you'll know that human beings are all evil."
Could you think of a better way to make sure I never ever convert!? Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
From what you've said here, I wouldn't glorify the exchange by use of the term "debate."
I'm also not quite clear on why communism (as an idea) is doomed to fail from a "Christian" perspective.
The first Christians lived in insular communities providing mutual aid, sharing all resources, etc. Didn't they? Seems that way from Paul's letters at any rate. And some of what Peter wrote too, IIRC.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
We had a discussion on communism in class today, too. And we all agreed that it wouldn't work. And many of the people in the class, including the professor, had lived in countries with command economies.
However, we were also all international business or marketing majors.
-pH
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Communism can work in a system with full moral accountability and shared moral values. Which means it won't work.
Posted by IB_wench (Member # 9081) on :
Sorry the guy was being a jerk... but cut the rest of us some slack - just because some jerks are Christians does not mean all Christians are jerks.
I don't think that being a Christian and beliving that communism is doomed to failure are directly connected... they occasionally appear together, but being a Christian does not require one to expound upon the evils of communism. At least, I should hope not, otherwise I have some serious expounding to catch up on. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Well the general idea is that because of Capitolisms contradictions, it will collapse and a workers utopia will take its place. (Marxism)
Lenin theorized that spontanious revolutions were unlikely is not improbable to succeed (though the overthrowing the the Manchu's was largely spontanious) so he theorized that a small segment of the intelligensia aka the Communist Party could lead the working class to overthrow Capitalism and with the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat condition humanity until Humanity is able on its own to form a Workers Utopia and from there government will simply wither away and disappear.
Maoism (beware the wraith of Rakeesha nd Synposia)is the same as Leninism but puts the emthasis from a workers rebellion in the cities to a farmer uprising in the countryside .
But the General trend is this, a Communist Society is a Society that is quote end quote "perfect" everyone is equal (not meaning that noone is more equal then others or that everyone must be mowed the same height, just that there will be no prejudice based on class or ethnic etc etc differnece.
There is no war, no poverty, no unhappiness (well, meaning is that everyone is content to work at what they're best at for the benefit of all. There is no money so there's no distinction of wealth or property, though IMHO that is not to mean noone can have an Ipod.
The goal of a Communist is to fight/work towards this goal, accepting half measures such as workers rights and certain liberal agenda's the bring basic equality to all human beings within society, and gives the poor a second chance to make a living. The progression towards perfection is worthy of itself and It does not matter to me if its in my lifetime, it never happened in Marx's and I don't see why it should happen in mine but for as long as I can contribute just a little bit towards it I'm fine.
The point is that with this progression, society would be gradually changing and thus as the government slowly withers away the people will have the power to do whats right and the dream can be realized. Human beings will finally be the true arbiters of our fate not the enviroment and society will have become that Utopia and all of Humanity will be content, thus there will be no corruption of murderors for the societal impetus to do such things the root cause will have disappeared.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The Christian view shared by a few people I was argueing with, believed that human beings will always be evil because of what Adam/Eve did and thus nothing can change human nature and thus we are all doomed to kill each other for all time until the Anti Christ comes and does his thing etc.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Who is Synposia? Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
whoever the girl(?) is who spazed at the very mention of Mao Zedong.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Do you mean Synestasia?
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
*laugh* One more try, guys.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
GASP! Its Jesus Reagon! He's coem to save the world with an M16 and Bible!
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Disclaimer: I'm sure this post will be badly worded as I'm long overdue for sleep but trying to keep myself awake until night time. But I'll try and get my point across as best I can. Please excuse my stupidity at this time, if at all possible.
quote:The Christian view shared by a few people I was argueing with, believed that human beings will always be evil because of what Adam/Eve did and thus nothing can change human nature and thus we are all doomed to kill each other for all time until the Anti Christ comes and does his thing etc.
How can they not challenge their religions teachings against their own inate logic!? It's like brainwashing. These people are so annoying! I have no love, no pity and no hatred for them (really no opinion at all) but feel like having a rant right now. So that's my argument for why baptism as a baby makes no sense. I had something else to say but now I've forgotten. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Warning: Blayne and his spelling may cause severe brain hemorrhage and bruising to the grammatical soul.
This has been a public service announcement.
-pH
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
rofl. Even I can accept a joke at my expense. Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Communism can work in a system with full moral accountability and shared moral values. Which means it won't work.
Tom, that's the simplest and truest 1 liner (I know it's two lines, but whatever) I've ever heard about communism. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Human beings are fallen and thus will always be evil, your system will collapse with the first corrupt person.
My Arguement: Human beings are inherently Altruistic, it is the enviroment thats shapes human behavior, society, change society and you change human behavior thus allowing for humanity to evolve to something better, to reach a new level of potential.
The funny bit is that you two got down to the nitty gritty really quick. The problem with debating this with adults is that too often they cloud what they really think in economic arguments which nobody finds compelling.
First off, is evil the opposite of altruistic? Isn't there a place for self-regard amongst the angels? And isn't prodigality an unbecoming form of altruism?
Individual degradation is a product of communism, and social irresponsibility on top and individual degradation on bottom belongs with capitalism. Why not mix them, which is pretty much what we do here with better and worse results.
_____
The problem with his variant of Christianity, and it is subtle and pervasive, is that its easy to hide behind the wickedness of Adam as a reason to almost be preemptively wicked, doing on to others before they do onto you. This is how this variant of Christianty, in particular, gives itself to clannishness and fear mongering. If we slowed down our fearing and guarding against the wickedness of others and started doing more to make ourselves pleasing to God, I think everyone would fair better. There would be a few catastrophe's, and lapse in efficiency, but I think people's over all quality of life would be higher.
Another problem with the deep belief in the wickedness of man is that neuters the dignity of education.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: My Arguement: Human beings are enherently Altruistic
You don't have to be a Christian to know that your argument is stupid. Mere observation of human behavior shows that it is mind-numbingly wrong.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually I DID mixed them, within my mind I have this half developed plan, where small scale open market capitalism helps with living standrads and provides jobs + the imputus to work.
But I have this only fuzzy Idea of how through a Libetarian view of minimalist government that slowly withers away as its nolonger needed and humanity has reached a basic level of understanding.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I don't know. Today a buddy of mine helped me out when she didn't have to, and she doesn't expect anything from me in return. I think that altruism and selfishness are motivated largely by cultural narratives, and that these cultural narratives shape a people.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Why Irregardless? Why are human "supposedly" evil? What made us this way? If its the aka "Christian" view then Satan tricked us and were stuck with it. I fit is socialogical and enviromental then why can't we change it? Throughout history haven't there been many great examples of good?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Blayne, do you not understand how ridiculous it is to attempt to dictate consumer demand?
-pH
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
hmm? When did I say it was going to be a 100% planned economy?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Not so much ridiculous, but it is often degrading. Planned economies don't so much dictate their demand as much as you tell them what they are going to get, whether they want it or not. Its giving their demand the middle finger. The other side is setting the market equal to their demand and nurturing a culture of entitled brats, where something is good or bad, fitting or shameful, because it is popular or unpopular, and morality starts getting confused with what is fashionable.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Why Irregardless? Why are human "supposedly" evil? What made us this way? If its the aka "Christian" view then Satan tricked us and were stuck with it. I fit is socialogical and enviromental then why can't we change it? Throughout history haven't there been many great examples of good?
Sure. But people are motivated by self-interest. Some of this is instinctive, like self-preservation. Lots of people are motivated by fear. It is possible for people to *choose* to do good, sure -- but many people are NOT going to choose that, MOST of the time. And I personally (like millions of other people) would never cooperate with a Communist system & would, in fact, work to destroy it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
To acertain extent think... "The Giver" just not with the colour blindness and the "realeasing" of defects. I'll continue laterz sleep == now.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I almost never trust a summary of someone else's position that ends with .
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Blayne, I think you're being inconsistent in your descriptions of what an ideal government would look like. The biggest problem I have is that if the eventual goal is government dissolution, or at least extreme minimalism, the phase of hyper-intrusiveness makes no sense to me.
It's as if you are saying "all that's needed is a few generations of careful education and then we can all be selfless." The problem is that you're putting too much stock in:
- social indoctrination of the individual (it'd have to be near total and extremely uniform, allowing for NO interpersonal differences.
- the cleverness and resourcefulness of whoever is accomplishing the education. I.e., the bureaucracy would have to be effective, efficient, and well funded.
- the ability of leaders to develop a "cheat proof" system. Basically, unless every attempt to "get ahead" fails, the system itself has built into it the seeds of its own destruction; inequality of anything means that the system will eventually collapse into the same old fighting for scarce resources.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by IB_wench: just because some jerks are Christians does not mean all Christians are jerks.
Nor or all jerks Christians. I'm a jerk, and I'm Jewish!
(OK, I'm not really a jerk, I just act like one occasionally.)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Come to think of it, it's communism (or communalism) that works best at the local level. Certainly family units operate more like communes than an open market. Some people live in communities of shared resources and labor. But that's a conscious willing choice on their part (at least among the "immigrants" into such a system).
Large scale, truly communal lifestyles aren't easily sustained, IMO, because it's (so far) proven impossible to establish universal equality, or even acceptable inequality within that framework.
I still believe, however, that as an idea, it is closer to the Christian ideal than is laissez faire capitalism.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
People tend to be pretty quick to discount communism with little more than a one-line argument against it. Given that it seems to be operating in some form or another in a couple of places, I'm not sure that simply stating that humans are not altruistic is enough to prove that communism cannot find a way to function with that. One problem is - what do you mean by Communism? What adjustments can communism make to their system in order to account for human nature, while still being communism?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually Tres, their argument was over what human nature is. Solving that question satisfactorily would seem to be the first step toward effective resolution of their differences. It has much less to do with Communism, per se, and much more to do with what their view of humanity and the roles of the individual and society are.
This is really Philosophy 101, to me. If you grant one initial premise (e.g., man is by nature "good") and take off from there where do you get. If you grant the opposite premise, where do you get?
Since people are framing this as a debate, the first debatable point is obviously whether the initial premises are true.
There are only a few ways to approach government vis a vis mans nature. Either you start with one or the other premise (man is good or evil) or you try to design a system in which man's nature doesn't really matter. And THAT can be done either through authoritarian means (i.e., the individual's will doesn't matter because the state controls everything) or structural means (i.e., the individual's will doesn't matter because there's no way to get away from the fact that the system rewards "x" and punishes "y.")
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Communism can work in a system with full moral accountability and shared moral values. Which means it won't work.
Tom, what I've said for years. It can work in small doses (ie, communes) but not for a large civilization.
Blayne, you believe people are basically altruistic? <shakes head with pity>
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: its like hitting your head at a brick wall, this is a christian kid and his arguement is this: Human beigns are fallen and thus will always be evil, your system will collapse with the first corrupt person.
My Arguement: Human beings are enherently Altruistic, it is the enviroment thats shapes human behavior, society, change society and you change human behavior thus allowing for humanity to evolve to something better, to reach a new level of potential.
He says thats stupid etc etc list random Christian arguement here.
Person also believes that world will end and when its recreated then we'll have a perfect world.
My head hurts, gets this: "You should become a Christian Blayne, that way you'll know your theory will never work and you'll know that human beings are all evil."
Could you think of a better way to make sure I never ever convert!?
There really is no point in arguing with some one who has those beliefs.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Or who believes otherwise, for that matter. It does sound like he wasn't the best person to discuss religion with.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Blayne, I'm not even sure what there is to debate.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: My Arguement: Human beings are enherently Altruistic, it is the enviroment thats shapes human behavior, society, change society and you change human behavior thus allowing for humanity to evolve to something better, to reach a new level of potential.
But communism is bad. I mean inherently bad. And there are elements of human nature that should not (cannot, really) be changed.
And human beings aren't inherently altruistic, Blayne. No living creature is. It has nothing to do with "original sin"; it's simply a matter that no one is inherently anything. Now, you can teach people to see the welfare of others as something that will improve ones own welfare as well. That's doable. But communism is, by its very definition, about depriving people of the right to choose their own values and priorities. And that, I have to say, is truly evil. Regardless of intentions.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: My head hurts, gets this: "You should become a Christian Blayne, that way you'll know your theory will never work and you'll know that human beings are all evil."
Could you think of a better way to make sure I never ever convert!?
Actually, I'm sorry he did that, because it's liable to just convince you that communism has value. And it doesn't.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by IB_wench: just because some jerks are Christians does not mean all Christians are jerks.
Nor or all jerks Christians. I'm a jerk, and I'm Jewish!
(OK, I'm not really a jerk, I just act like one occasionally.)
Me too!
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: People tend to be pretty quick to discount communism with little more than a one-line argument against it. Given that it seems to be operating in some form or another in a couple of places, I'm not sure that simply stating that humans are not altruistic is enough to prove that communism cannot find a way to function with that. One problem is - what do you mean by Communism? What adjustments can communism make to their system in order to account for human nature, while still being communism?
If you beat people down long enough, telling them that they have no right to succeed so long as others aren't succeeding every bit as much, you can eventually get them to accept that. Oh, from time to time, there'll be rebels who think that individuals can actually live for themselves, but a good Communist society will bitch-slap such troublemakers without a second thought. The rest will continue on, plodding into greyness, with initiative seen as dangerous, and creativity seen as a threat, and mediocrity will be the highest value.
Blayne, read Harrison Bergeron. Please.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:But communism is, by its very definition, about depriving people of the right to choose their own values and priorities. And that, I have to say, is truly evil. Regardless of intentions.
Or in other words, the group is more important than the individual. But is that really a bad thing?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: but a good Communist society will bitch-slap such troublemakers without a second thought.
I don't know why, but I think that is one of the best one-liners I have seen on hatrack. I mean this as a true compliment.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: whoever the girl(?) is who spazed at the very mention of Mao Zedong.
Only because Mao really was a terrible, terrible person. Trust me on this. I am reading his biography right now... Well, mostly in the bathroom. The fact is that he killed and tortured a great deal of people and his idea of revolution was making bunch of peasants kill anyone that had land and he was a hypocrit of the highest degree. What we need is a system with some sort of middle ground. Uncontrolled capitalism is a horrible thing that leads to a great deal of greed, bad working conditions, ect, we've seen this in the past. But, uncontrolled communism, or at least a communist dictatorship isn't any better, in fact in a lot of ways it's a whole lot worse. We need middle ground. We need a system that works for the individual and that depends on cooperation and compassion. I do believe that such a system is possible, but it would be difficult to try to attempt such a thing here. People need to learn that no matter what their social status is, their religion, whatever, people have to depend and rely on each other and help each other. It's how it works for the most part in nature. More later break is nearly over and my thoughts are not that clear.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, you know, not every society defines 'success' as 'having a bigger car than the neighbours'. The rewards for initiative do not need to be monetary : Prestige, admiration, sex, honor, poems, and primate competitiveness all work just fine. Just because a communist society distributes material goods evenly doesn't mean that there can't be any rewards.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Here's what I don't get ... I've never taken a debate class, so maybe I'm missing something, but why wasn't the Christian kid slapped down for using his Christian doctrine as the foundation of his argument, when his audience and his opponent didn't accept it as a given? That's a terrible persuasive tactic.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I didn't get the impression that it was a debate class, but rather a private argument comrade Bradley was having with this kid.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Blayne's foundational premise that people are inherently altruistic is just as unfounded and likely to be rejected by at least as many audience members as the other kid's foundational premise.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Good points, actually Somehow, I got the impression that it was a formal debate, and I was like, "That's retarded!"
I think I reacted more strongly to the Christian kid's argument because I've debated with other Christians who acted the same way, and it annoyed me Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I believe that Humans do act in their own percieved best self-interest. However, self does not always mean individual. It can mean family, or group or people or nation or something else. If we see the whole as more important than the one, then "altruism" is truely best self-interest.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
KOM, Societies may, in general, define success in different ways. True communism forces individuals into defining success a certain way. And some individuals define it by having a big car. The point is, everyone defines success differently. I want a nice house in the country, and peace and quiet. Sammy wants to live in the city and go to the theater nightly. Joe wants to work really hard for 20 years, and then retire in luxury. Dan is perfectly happy living off welfare. That's the great thing about capitalism, you can (for the most part) pursue your particular happiness, and work as hard as you desire to get it.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, you know, not every society defines 'success' as 'having a bigger car than the neighbours'. The rewards for initiative do not need to be monetary : Prestige, admiration, sex, honor, poems, and primate competitiveness all work just fine. Just because a communist society distributes material goods evenly doesn't mean that there can't be any rewards.
I would prefer to let the individual define what makes his or her own life a success.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:But communism is, by its very definition, about depriving people of the right to choose their own values and priorities. And that, I have to say, is truly evil. Regardless of intentions.
Or in other words, the group is more important than the individual. But is that really a bad thing?
Are you serious? Individuals are all there is. They come together in groups, but they do so by their own choice. If it's not by choice, it's slavery.
The idea that a group might "own" me is simply appalling.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: I believe that Humans do act in their own percieved best self-interest. However, self does not always mean individual. It can mean family, or group or people or nation or something else. If we see the whole as more important than the one, then "altruism" is truely best self-interest.
Fair enough. My sense of self definitely includes more than just me.
But it has to be by choice. Not by some "planners" making that choice for me.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Avatar, you're spot on.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
the debate could be broken down this way:
Blayne's Opponent: God knows what is best, so we follow God.
PROBLEM: God hasn't taken an active hand in running a country for some time. (The Christian version of God--not since he annointed David)
SOLUTION: Work toward God's kingdom.
Blayne: The people as a group know what's best. Let them lead.
PROBLEM: The people can not lead. They are the ones who are lead.
SOLUTION: Build a state where the people learn not to be lead, but to lead.
Since organized religion is designed to lead everyone to God, the two choices are basically mutually exclusive.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:not to be lead, but to lead.
*brain asplode*
(to steal a phrase)
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I think you can lead, and be led to God. But that's just me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Build a state where the people learn not to be lead, but to lead.
Come on all you people: stop being a dense, soft metal which used to be used in plumbing and start being leaders!
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Yes StarLisa. No opportunity to choose is my definition of Hell. However, I may choose to submit to a discipline, for instance formal military service, if I percieve that service to be in my (read my group) self interest.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I agree with the people saying that the original poster's assertion that "people are inherently altruistic" can just as easily be dismissed as his Christian friend's assertion that "we are all born sinner and evil (or whatever it was)". Altruism is a concept that has been greatly studied in modern biology, and for the most part, a concensus has been reached that there really ins't true altruism in nature (to the extent that altruism means you do something beneficial to someone else at your own expense and expect nothing back at all). The only kinds of altruism seen in nature are 1) Kin selection, where individuals will lower their fitness (we are talking in evolutionary terms here) for the increased fitness of a close relative (anyone remember the famous quote: "I'd give my life for two brothers or eight first cousins"), or 2) Reciprocal altruism, where an individual will lower their fitness for another individual's benefit provided that they know in the future the same sacrifice will be granted to them (this happens in vampire bats for example). In terms of "human altruism", the latter is what is actually happening most of the time people seem to be altruistic.
But even if you don't agree with that, consider our own existence as evidence that we aren't altruistic. In a purely altruistic society, selfish individuals have loads to gain. Consider this cartoon http://members.arstechnica.com/x/c2walter/FarSideLemmings.jpg the one individual who cheats stands to gain the most from the selfless society. The same studies have been done in humans, and those who are selfish always prevail in an altruistic environment.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Yes StarLisa. No opportunity to choose is my definition of Hell. However, I may choose to submit to a discipline, for instance formal military service, if I percieve that service to be in my (read my group) self interest.
I agree completely. I hope you don't think I'm one of those people who thinks it's wrong to act as part of a group. I'm not. But you choosing to submit to a discipline is not the same as being forced to.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Blayne,
I think it's strange that you think that capitalism is going to collapse because of its contradictions. I'm not saying that there aren't contradictions, I'm saying that a lot of things have contradictions, infelicities, or weaknesses in integrity, and they survive just fine. For example, the US is founded upon everyone's creator given right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but we also have an enormous penal system whose task it is to infringe upon that those rights. The nation still stands, contradictions and all. There is an old saying about marxists, that they predicted eight revolutions for every one that happens.
[ February 11, 2006, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Just to quib many revolutions DID occur whether or not they succeeded is due to circumstance. Republican spain got owned due to A) Stalin's pulling out of the conflict to appease Hitler and B) the fact that the Colonial Army which was considered the best trained forces in Spain were able to arriv ein Spain with Germany's help in the first and largest airlift Operation undertaken until possible the Berlin Airlift.
There are also some countries that were initially successful IE: Hungary but the zeal to spread to Romania and other countries became its downfall. As hungary lacked the ability to trade space for time and the resources to carry out sustained military operations.
I could go on.
Aside from that my underlying hypothesis in this is that my most fundamental proof is that we as a society exists, if human beings were truly selffish then we should've never have evolved past tribalism. But instead humanity formed connections with one an other and as Col. Graff said in Ender's Game these connections is what allowed humans to be able to sacrifice themselves for the greater good to form cities, nations, empires.
Now while we're on the topic of planned economies my polish friend wishes to take over the world and put inplace a planned economy under the theory that if the government owns all the banks and everything then there's infinit money.
Can anyone phrase in better words then I can that this simply isn't possible and/or sustainable? The Soviet Union tried likewise and stifled creativity and free thought eventually losing its ability to maintain a technological lead, no economy even on a global scale can hold onto a purely planned economy indefinately.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Point out that the government does, in fact, own all the printing presses and can, if it chooses, create an infinite supply of money. It was tried in Germany in 1923. What it cannot do is create an infinite supply of goods and services. Ye gods, Blayne, just how stupid are your friends, anyway?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Don't ask I wonder that myself sometimes. At least D. (for sake of privacy) is smart, almost as good a strategist as me, just more of an ass. He's obsessed with Ayh Historical scenarios sometimes in our games.
Posted by tmservo (Member # 8552) on :
quote:Communism can work in a system with full moral accountability and shared moral values. Which means it won't work.
Pretty much.
quote:But communism is bad. I mean inherently bad. And there are elements of human nature that should not (cannot, really) be changed.
And human beings aren't inherently altruistic, Blayne. No living creature is.
quote: Aside from that my underlying hypothesis in this is that my most fundamental proof is that we as a society exists, if human beings were truly selffish then we should've never have evolved past tribalism.
Yeesh. No, humans are not entirely selfish. They are also not entirely altruistic. A society completely altruistic also would not have made it out of the tribal world. In fact, I'd argue that if you truly believe in Evolution, Communism makes completely no sense.
In the past (distant and not so distant) humans born with more skill, prowess, etc. tended to rise in power amongst a tribe, and therefore, they were given more opportunities to procreate. That's how we managed to get past tribalism; the weak were completely weeded out of the gene pool. I know that sounds completely terrible, but be honest. Joe, the very nice kid born sickly in 1341 probably didn't have nearly as much chance of landing a woman and popping out kids and Tim, the neighborhood tough kid who'd grow up to be a knight.
Thus, the genes of one were passed on. Going farther back, the weak were simply killed off.
In a noble world, everyone would always look past weaknesses, etc. but the problem inherent in communism is that it requires that to be upheld regardless of the nature of the people involved.
In other words, if I had a nation full of clones, I could probably pull communism off, because everyone would have identical needs as well as identical skills. Of course, they'd all die off in a generation or two, but that's another story.
But, since we have such a varied population base, we have a varied skill set. And thus, we as humans have to assign value. Whether we like it or not. A farmer grows corn. He's great at it. But we as a society don't value the corn nearly as much as we value the guy who figured out how to build a combine. So, how many combines do you trade for corn?
Sure, they can both "give them away freely" and share, but the inbuilt desires of a human being say that you're going to have a bunch of people contend that they have more inherent value.
So, let's strip all the dollars and money out of it. There is no money to extend, everything is free.
What is the end result? Well, the end result is a different kind of marketplace; those who cannot put in goods are immediately viewed as a lower caste and therefore they have little change of procreating outside of their caste, and within a few generations, the ideal of communism degrades into a set of "elites" etc.
And, whether we want to believe it or not, there are actually people who like POWER. Hell, I'll admit, I like power, just a enough for me to control this and that And thus, a power comes about that proclaims "hey! This isn't right, everyone should be equal, and I will control the situation to make sure everyone is equal"
And you end up with consolidated power.
That's why communism never happens as it is invisioned on paper. Within a few months/a year or two after the idea surfaces, you quickly end up with an administrative body to "oversee" it and power is consolidated, and you have very little actual communism.
Human beings, through our genetic selection which praises those who desire to recreate and find self-worth tend to deny the end altrustic goals of communism.
Posted by tmservo (Member # 8552) on :
quote:Now while we're on the topic of planned economies my polish friend wishes to take over the world and put inplace a planned economy under the theory that if the government owns all the banks and everything then there's infinit money.
Argh. This is such a terrible thought stream. Could there be infinite money? Sure, you could print money forever. But that doesn't mean value is attached.
When the world bank "forgives" loans, that's virtually the same as "printing money".
Here's what happens when you just print money with no universal plan globally: you encourage corrupt nations to harvest it and centralize power.
Also the ability to just print money to "help people" ends up screwing them in the long term.
Many countries in africa plead for repeated debt forgiveness, which just encourages more money to go to those in power; so we artificially keep a bad system going. It also discourages any development of industry; so people keep goods in their raw state, etc. keeping them poor longer.
Yeah, I'm not so sure of a globally balanced economy works until everyone is on the same playing field, because up until then, it just goes to keep large swaths down by lowering their desire to change.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)