 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
I seriously wonder whether the Iranian model of democracy would have worked in the USSR (with communism substituting the Iranian religious fundamentalism). |
There are actually significant similarities between the Iranian and Russian Revolutions. In both cases, a workers' revolution started out democratic and was hijacked by extremist elements, with a charasmatic leader returning from exile. Iran, however, remained significantly more democratic, even with the external threats of invading neighbors and imperialists fomenting counter-revolution. And in both cases, the ideological leaders of the revolution ended up becoming the ruling class, though in Iran, they became an owning class, wheras in the USSR, they became a managing class.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Vagabond
|
 |
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
I have read that Russians consider western manners annoying, such as when we say, "thanks," etc., when someone does something nice, for example opening a door or brining someone something.
|
It's because this may be perceived by Russians as some kind of falseness. For example, Russians welcome only sincere smiles. A polite but insincere smile may be perceived as false and cause an adverse effect. (What I say here should be understood in relative terms, as a tendency compared to the West, but not literally. Besides, times change...)
quote:
I read that this was because Russians just sortof automatically do these things without thinking because it is part of the community spirit they were raised up in. Since there is more of a group identity, it's just kinda built into the culture, wheras in the western world, the emphasis is on the individual, so doing those things is out of the ordinary and not expected.
|
I wouldn't link that with an individual or a group identity. Russians are generally less polite than Westerners. So not all of those things are done by Russians. But if certain such things are done, they are largely perceived as natural, so that an unnecessary "thank you" may sound awkward.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:29
|
|
You will note, dear sirs, how in a communists society you will be paid equally, will be permitted time off, will be permitted to stay home to take care of the baby, permitted to have a certain size apartment, certain clothes, etc., etc., etc.
Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. Permitted.
Think about this for a moment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Human nature is multi-faceted, greed is only part of it, and for most people greed is not dominant. Humans started out in tribes, thus all psychological elements that help build a successful tribe (helping each other, function as a group, etc.) are dominant - because we are the descendents of these successful tribes.
|
Group think. Greed is fundamental. Want and need are relative terms, i.e., want is a function of what other people have. Need is more subjectively absolute, i.e., I need to breath in order to live. However the want to live is still relative, since our definition of "self" is relative to other people, i.e., the individual and society is dualistic. Though this supports my argument, history on its own has shown that wherever humans get together, greed is the fundamental force, since any cooperative elements are still operating on an egoistic premise; altruism is still a dilusion, whether or not egoism is a conscious process, it is still the premise for all of our actions.
Whether what we delineate as "capitalist" or "communist" is successful depends solely on incidental economics, there is no "better" option since they both work best in different circumstances. In times of plenty, the best course of action egoistically speaking is competition and acquisition, when times are hard it makes the most sense for an individual to work together with other people in a cooperative commune.
quote:
Besides, greed is really just artificial "human nature." It only came into being after humans had invented "private ownership."
|
See above.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Greed is fundamental. |
You have not shown that's the case. Many people readily share, even if they don't have much. Very primitive peoples such as African Bushmen aren't greedy at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Though this supports my argument, history on its own has shown that wherever humans get together, greed is the fundamental force, since any cooperative elements are still operating on an egoistic premise; altruism is still a dilusion, whether or not egoism is a conscious process, it is still the premise for all of our actions. |
You are throwing out more terms without backing them up. For example, you claim that egoism is the fundamental motive without constructing a good argument or show some historical evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
In times of plenty, the best course of action egoistically speaking is competition and acquisition, when times are hard it makes the most sense for an individual to work together with other people in a cooperative commune. |
How so? It appears in times of plenty, the optimal course of action is to share, while it is good to horde when the times are bad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
You have not shown that's the case. Many people readily share, even if they don't have much. Very primitive peoples such as African Bushmen aren't greedy at all.
|
I don't doubt that, but does that make them altruistic? One must ask the question "why do they share" and my answer is self-interest (egoism). If you accept that the human brain, as a computer, operates on certain logical principles, then is it possible for it *not* to act in its own interest, or for its own whim? As for us as subjectively conscious individuals, naturally we think of ourselves as altruistic, benevolent people, but that does not transfer categorically to a situation where humans as numbers matters, or a political equation were determinations of human nature are of the utmost importance. That is a different situation than hiding away from friends, family etc because they are operating in their own self-interest, which is a determination largely irrelevant in that latter context.
quote:
You are throwing out more terms without backing them up. For example, you claim that egoism is the fundamental motive without constructing a good argument or show some historical evidence.
|
Very well. We've all heard the axiomatic example of the man who runs into a burning car that's about to explode to save a stranger, so placing himself at great personal risk for no discernable gain. I doubt a better example of what is termed "altruism" could be found, so it's a good example to work with. Naturally, if it can be shown that he is operating out of self-interest or egoistically, then altruism in this case is false. What might motivate someone to do such a thing? Obvious suggestion would be instint (certain anecdotal cases I remember hearing about suggest instinct)... so the instinct to help a stranger, or shall we say an instinct to altruism. But is that not to the satisfaction and gratification of those instincts that one performs those actions? We might do something because of the endorphine rush that feels good, but that's shaky ground for the foundation of this argument, so I can ask the question above, is it possible for us "not" to act on a fundamentally egoistic level? Naturally certain things have an altruistic appearance, even to us, but appearences can be deceptive, I am asking the question of the premise of subjective motivation, including the motivation of the "best of intentions". I should say "no", because the brain is always dealing with inputs to that brain, it is operating upon its OWN premises (remember consciousness is absolute in that subjective sense). For this debate, we need to get away from the notion of egoism only applying whereupon it produces, or intends to produce a discernable economic benefit.
quote:
How so? It appears in times of plenty, the optimal course of action is to share, while it is good to horde when the times are bad.
|
A question better asked of economists, since my argument would stand if it were the other way around. One notices that our instinct for community is shared among other animals where the gain to the individual through working together is greater than the gain of working alone... i.e. the product of 5 people divided by 5 is greater than the product of 1. Competition for resources increases as they diminish of course but only where one as an individual has the means to get them.
As a species, we humans, indeed many of the apes, are unextraordinary. We are physically slight compared to the predators where we evolved, physically weak and lacking great bouts of speed compared to feline predators. To our advantage we have our brains, opposable thumbs, a good balance of senses (as opposed to a specialised acute sense) and the ability to run or walk for great distances, iow our capacity to migrate quickly is greater than other land-based animals. We developed tools and trade to help us, but these are at their most effective when we work together, otherwise a lone human competiting with other humans in a bad time is going to lead to disaster. Consider a lone human, even with the addition of basic tools, trying to bring down a large animal. His chances are greatly increased when he works with others.
For much of our evolutionary history, I should imagine it was a constant struggle to survive, communities and communism was the logical course of action. Trade was conducted to that end, there is anthropological evidence of beads being used in Africa tens of thousands of years ago as the currency in a trading network that prevented individual tribes from starving. Now we are richer and can elevate ourselves on the bones of others, competition becomes a better means of achieving what we want. Simple evolution is insufficient here, a more complex model is required, but that like I said falls into the grounds of economics, so someone more familiar with that field can provide a better answer than I can on that latter point, my point is about egoism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Whaleboy, good. You seem to understand the "difference" between being a commune by consent and otherwise. I agree that consensual communes are quite pleasant. I used to live in one.
Now it is your turn to be intellectually honest.
|
Why mention intellectual honesty unless you suspect intellectual dishonesty, but don't point it out? And yes, communes by choice would seem to imply an action taken for own interest as opposed to being forced, which obviously is unacceptable because it may not be to the individuals advantage... upon which we base wants, needs and rights. Needless to say, my argument precludes Stalinism by force, ditto democracy.
quote:
Did Kuciwalker teach you that? Altruism and self-interest are mutually exclusive by definition.
|
Horizontal and vertical causes. To a given end, altruism and egoism are mutually exclusive, but out of context, a pretense of altruism can be predicated by egoism, which is my argument.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-01-2005 06:11
|