 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by joncha
hmm... I was wondering... does the CPA have an open membership? ...or do you put prospective members through some kind of trial period to weed out the police agents and agents provocatuers?
jon. |
It has been whomever I invited to join, however, I never said that others couldn't invite people to join. I don't think Poly allows closed clubs, though. In any event, there's nothing we could do to stop anyone from slapping CPA on themselves.
Since this is, essentially, a joke party, there's not a lot of point in weeding out police. Don't get me wrong, we take our politics seriously, but hell, one should always beable to laugh at onesself. Humor is a very human thing, and communism is about creating a world in which we can be fully human.
So, if you want in, you're in. If not, you're not.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 16-01-2004 at 23:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
The capitalist claim that there exists a single human nature independently of the kind of socio-political system people live in just amounts to special pleading.
|
What can I say, but that I disagree? "Capitalism" has been around for a few hundred years, so far as I can see. Yet my (admittedly rather dim) view of human nature is based on human history going back far beyond the industrial revolution.
Will human behavior change under a communist system? Yes, of course. But not the way communists hope, I think. People will still compete and try to get ahead. The rules of the game, however, will have changed, so that people must adapt to them. And adapt they will. The only hope you would have, I think, would be to somehow channel that competition towards things you think are good for all. A system based on honors, perhaps, as opposed to wealth? Dunno if that would work.
Anyway, I would really like to see a group of people (a large one) set up a "real" communist state somewhere, without the tyranny/oppression bit, and be left alone by everyone else, and see how they do... over a few generations (so obviously I'd be dead by the time the experiment can really be judged). But that hasn't happened yet, and the attempts thus far have not been encouraging. Therefore, I remain *extremely* skeptical about communism.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
What can I say, but that I disagree? "Capitalism" has been around for a few hundred years, so far as I can see. Yet my (admittedly rather dim) view of human nature is based on human history going back far beyond the industrial revolution. |
Small human communities many times thrive and exist in systems in which the main mode of eocnomic activity if gift giving- one person gives a gift, expecting others to give one as well- or think of the importance of courtesy in so many societies- you let any stranger into your house, feed them and aid them, in the expectation that when you are in need, the saem will be done for you. Now, if there was someone in the US who just let anyone into thier house and helped them for a few days, we would label them as so generous- but as is clear, the reason this is done in other societies is not a sense of generosity, but one of shared commitments one has to everyone else that must be honored.
quote:
Will human behavior change under a communist system? Yes, of course. But not the way communists hope, I think. People will still compete and try to get ahead. The rules of the game, however, will have changed, so that people must adapt to them. And adapt they will. The only hope you would have, I think, would be to somehow channel that competition towards things you think are good for all. A system based on honors, perhaps, as opposed to wealth? Dunno if that would work. |
A communist system does not call for a change in human behavior- after all, the proleteriat revolution comes form the greed of the working classes, wantiong a slice of the pie the system denies them-that is a selfish motive. If the rules change, it will be becuase the system of rules changed. Are we more or less greedy today than people in the Mercantalist system? and the feudal system? I always go back to slavery- we view slavery as horrible and immoral, even though it was an ancient practice going back to the dawn of hisotry, defended by philosophers for millenia. Did human nature change? no. But the economic systems did.
quote:
Anyway, I would really like to see a group of people (a large one) set up a "real" communist state somewhere, without the tyranny/oppression bit, and be left alone by everyone else, and see how they do... over a few generations (so obviously I'd be dead by the time the experiment can really be judged). But that hasn't happened yet, and the attempts thus far have not been encouraging. Therefore, I remain *extremely* skeptical about communism.
-Arrian |
As said before, all attempts up to know have been politically driven ones, in which some vanguard thought it could take reign of history and move the system along.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Small human communities many times thrive and exist in systems in which the main mode of eocnomic activity if gift giving- one person gives a gift, expecting others to give one as well- or think of the importance of courtesy in so many societies- you let any stranger into your house, feed them and aid them, in the expectation that when you are in need, the saem will be done for you. Now, if there was someone in the US who just let anyone into thier house and helped them for a few days, we would label them as so generous- but as is clear, the reason this is done in other societies is not a sense of generosity, but one of shared commitments one has to everyone else that must be honored. |
Not so. The gift of hospitality moreso reflects the travel arrangements and need for civility in otherwise hostile environs. Historically, dignitaries/nobels etc. when traveling were under special protection to be shown hospitality else they be insulted and start war. As most of our accustomed coutesies and manners derive from a guarded sense of fair play. It doesn't necessarily derive from a Godlen Rule mentality but moreover from a sense of fear and self preservation.
[QUOTE]
A communist system does not call for a change in human behavior- after all, the proleteriat revolution comes form the greed of the working classes, wantiong a slice of the pie the system denies them-that is a selfish motive. If the rules change, it will be becuase the system of rules changed. Are we more or less greedy today than people in the Mercantalist system? and the feudal system? I always go back to slavery- we view slavery as horrible and immoral, even though it was an ancient practice going back to the dawn of hisotry, defended by philosophers for millenia. Did human nature change? no. But the economic systems did.
[\QUOTE]
So your saying greed and communism can co-exist in a new set of economic systems?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
As said before, all attempts up to know have been politically driven ones, in which some vanguard thought it could take reign of history and move the system along. |
History doesn't just happen. History is made by actors, not watchers. If we sit around and wait to be saved, we will never be saved. Salvation, revolution, etc. are all conscious choices that must be made and acted upon in order to happen. When Marx wrote that socialism was inevitable, he meant because he could not believe the working class would put up with the conditions under which they existed for long.
Lenin did not argue that a vanguard should substitute itself as the engine of history. He argued that 1) on its own, the working class will not make the leap from trade union conscioussness to revolutionary class consciousness, thus a group of professional revolutionaries was needed to raise that consciousness in the working class, 2) that the conditions in Tsarist Russia necessitated that such a revolutionaries must be tightly organized, semi-underground, and democratically-centralized.
These points have been misunderstood by just about everyone from the begining, as well as made into fetishes. Only a few years later (1905), Lenin had to argue against his party who was quoting him back at himself, that the conditions in Russia had changed, and that they had to adapt to new circumstances, i.e., a revolution.
Fourteen years later, Lenin had to write another book arguing against his early arguements again, because comrades in the West, who were not facing Tsarism, were copying his moves, not his methodology. Since Lenin's death, his words have become Mosiac law for the communist movement: Stalinist, Trotskyist, and Maoist alike. They all, however, miss the context and method, which is the essential kernal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
So your saying greed and communism can co-exist in a new set of economic systems? |
If by greed you mean self-interest, yes. Greed is an extreme form of self-interest, and can often be detrimental to one's actual interests. For example, the Hopi Indians used to consider peope who had accumulated too much wealth to be evil spirits, and they sent them away. So in this case, greed causes you to be exiled from your home, and to likely die in the wilderness.
A theoretical example of how self-interest works in a communal system. You all share in the products of your work together. This means, if you do more work, you get more products, which means you have more for everyone, including yourself. The counter, of course, is that by doing no work, you can still get something because everyone else will be doing something. But how willing do you think they will be to share with shirkers? In a democratic system, people won't put up with shirkers for long. Plus here are other methods of attitude adjustment: shunning, ridicule, exile, stocks (protected from the elements, we're not cruel), etc. Or maybe we could just find the shirker different work that suited them better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
It's still a fallacy to claim that current science is wrong because all previous science has been wrong. |
Really, and what fallacy would that be? It looks like a straightforward inductive inference to me.
Remember that this is expressing a probability, not a certainty. It's quite likely that a lot of our scientific beliefs are wrong, because we don't yet understand everything as is evidenced by the lack of a grand unified theory.
Last edited by Agathon on 17-01-2004 at 03:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
What can I say, but that I disagree? "Capitalism" has been around for a few hundred years, so far as I can see. Yet my (admittedly rather dim) view of human nature is based on human history going back far beyond the industrial revolution. |
Like what?
quote:
Will human behavior change under a communist system? Yes, of course. But not the way communists hope, I think. People will still compete and try to get ahead. |
But people compete now in certain specified ways rather than just competing in everything. Why would someone want to get ahead if they're pretty much satisfied with the way things are or if communal effort will get them what they want more efficiently?
quote:
The rules of the game, however, will have changed, so that people must adapt to them. And adapt they will. The only hope you would have, I think, would be to somehow channel that competition towards things you think are good for all. A system based on honors, perhaps, as opposed to wealth? Dunno if that would work. |
You are still assuming that people will feel the same way no matter what happens. Look at the example of public health care. People pissed and moaned about this when it was introduced, now no one cares because it is so much more efficient than private insurance.
Imagine if our current way of doing things resulted in environmental disaster. People would simply dump the things they formerly did because they'd realise how silly it was.
quote:
Anyway, I would really like to see a group of people (a large one) set up a "real" communist state somewhere, without the tyranny/oppression bit, and be left alone by everyone else, and see how they do... over a few generations (so obviously I'd be dead by the time the experiment can really be judged). But that hasn't happened yet, and the attempts thus far have not been encouraging. Therefore, I remain *extremely* skeptical about communism. |
It's not a case of "setting one up" but merely waiting for it to evolve.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
joncha
|
 |
North of FOPOG
Jan 2003
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Why do you think that every other western country has state health care? Only the US doesn't because of lobbyists and a commitment to liberty. But the truth is that sometimes we are better off if we give up particular liberties.
Health care in the US is a sort of perverse joke. You spend money like water and get bugger all for it. |
Wow. I think the whole "liberty" thing is the justification, not the reason. The sole reason for a private healthcare system is greed.
Greed on the part of the wealthy, who are in a position to pay for inflated health costs, can take the chance and not pay into the system because they can afford it when they actually need it, and can be callous enough to not want to pay for the "freeloaders" who need care but can't afford it. Greed also of big business, who can profit far more off of other peoples misery (definately not hyperbole in the case of healthcare corporations) under a private system.
The concept behind a public is, if someone needs medical care, heal them. The driving motive behind a private system is profit, so... if we can make some money out of it, heal people. If not, screw it and screw them.
jon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
joncha
|
|
North of FOPOG
Jan 2003
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It has been whomever I invited to join, however, I never said that others couldn't invite people to join. I don't think Poly allows closed clubs, though. In any event, there's nothing we could do to stop anyone from slapping CPA on themselves.
Since this is, essentially, a joke party, there's not a lot of point in weeding out police. Don't get me wrong, we take our politics seriously, but hell, one should always beable to laugh at onesself. Humor is a very human thing, and communism is about creating a world in which we can be fully human.
So, if you want in, you're in. If not, you're not. |
I'll take that as an invite. 
The police thing was a weak, 3am attempt at humour. Although the sentiment can apply to right wing ****ers making ridiculous arguments as "members" of the party. All part of the fun of OT rant/counter rant, I guess.
jon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by joncha
Wow. I think the whole "liberty" thing is the justification, not the reason. The sole reason for a private healthcare system is greed.
Greed on the part of the wealthy, who are in a position to pay for inflated health costs, can take the chance and not pay into the system because they can afford it when they actually need it, and can be callous enough to not want to pay for the "freeloaders" who need care but can't afford it. Greed also of big business, who can profit far more off of other peoples misery (definately not hyperbole in the case of healthcare corporations) under a private system.
The concept behind a public is, if someone needs medical care, heal them. The driving motive behind a private system is profit, so... if we can make some money out of it, heal people. If not, screw it and screw them.
jon. |
The liberty thing is essentially the same reason why car insurance is compulsory. If you left it up to people to insure voluntarily, some would try to free ride because they either don't think they will have an accident or they know that they can declare bankruptcy in the event they are sued. That being so we would all be collectively underinsured and that is inefficient. Making insurance compulsory stops people from trying to free ride and everyone ends up better off.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
My favourite one is about the havoc that was caused by privatizing streets.
|
I don't doubt there are areas that should not be privatised. and I agree that Canada, as a society is more efficient than many other places. I just think there are ways we can improve our health care system.
Yes, the state does pay promptly, but it also pays too freely. Even Canada's system has plenty of waste we can trim.
quote:
The insurance companies, you'll note, disagree.
|
It's an interesting question, as to which is more efficient, but we have to look over the long run.
For example, as a student I benefit greatly from the collective power of all the students having to pay for a bus pass. In turn, this increases the ridership for the buses, making public transit more competitive when compared to other forms of transportation.
The problem is that this arrangement does not cater well to innovation, nor does it adapt well to changes in circumstances.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-01-2004 21:59
|