 |
| |
|
|
ajbera
|
 |
of the Cookieville Minimum Security Orphanarium
Apr 1999
time: 05:26
|
|
Uber:
If everyone receives equal shares of goods (just talking actual material items) regardless of their contribution to the work effort, what incentive is there for someone who is capable of contributing much more than the average person to actually do so?
If I can work 50% longer than my neighbor, and my work is 100% better (numbers yanked from my rectum, but washed before use), yet I will receive the same material rewards (food, clothes, residence, etc.) as my neighbor, why shuld I expend the extra effort to work longer/better?
Self-interest, and by extension self-gain, are the primary drivers of behavior. A certain degree of altruism/self-sacrfice is biologically hard-coded, but a sacrfice is only as appealing as the benefits one would gain from it. The average and sub-par performers have much too gain from such a system, but you must find a way to appeal to the superior.
I think that in order to affect a lasting social change you'll have to indoctrinate children that it is good and right to give your all even if you receive just a small fraction of the fruits of your labor. Religion and education have been the best ways of disseminating doctrine, and you will have to engage in a similar means of social control to trump natural self-interest.
Although I don't agree with your vision (I believe a persons ability and ambition should dictate their eventual station and share of goods), I have a fondness for (true) socialists, as they usually have the best of intentions. Its just unfortunate that those utopian visions clash so jarringly with reality.
For the record, I'm a moderate with libertarian leanings, a compassionate Darwinist. I think we have a duty to make opportunities as open and equal to all people as humanly possible, and then let them sink or swim based on their abilities (Darwinism). Those who sink should be treated compassionately and be given access to decent food, shelter, education and medical care.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Andy-Man
|
 |
Tory Party of 'Poly
Jul 2001
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ajbera
Uber:
If everyone receives equal shares of goods (just talking actual material items) regardless of their contribution to the work effort, what incentive is there for someone who is capable of contributing much more than the average person to actually do so?
If I can work 50% longer than my neighbor, and my work is 100% better (numbers yanked from my rectum, but washed before use), yet I will receive the same material rewards (food, clothes, residence, etc.) as my neighbor, why shuld I expend the extra effort to work longer/better?
Self-interest, and by extension self-gain, are the primary drivers of behavior. A certain degree of altruism/self-sacrfice is biologically hard-coded, but a sacrfice is only as appealing as the benefits one would gain from it. The average and sub-par performers have much too gain from such a system, but you must find a way to appeal to the superior.
I think that in order to affect a lasting social change you'll have to indoctrinate children that it is good and right to give your all even if you receive just a small fraction of the fruits of your labor. Religion and education have been the best ways of disseminating doctrine, and you will have to engage in a similar means of social control to trump natural self-interest.
Although I don't agree with your vision (I believe a persons ability and ambition should dictate their eventual station and share of goods), I have a fondness for (true) socialists, as they usually have the best of intentions. Its just unfortunate that those utopian visions clash so jarringly with reality.
For the record, I'm a moderate with libertarian leanings, a compassionate Darwinist. I think we have a duty to make opportunities as open and equal to all people as humanly possible, and then let them sink or swim based on their abilities (Darwinism). Those who sink should be treated compassionately and be given access to decent food, shelter, education and medical care. |
Maybe the idea that humans mean more then materialism is whats important.
I mean, if you are doing a job you really enjoy, you should be happy to do it for free. Artists are the best example of this, a true artist dosn't give a damn for the cash because he is doing omething he loves, which is infinatly more important then how big your TV is, or how thick your wage packet is.
Your incentive point of view is a proime example of Capitalist materialistic propaganda.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ajbera
Uber:
Self-interest, and by extension self-gain, are the primary drivers of behavior. A certain degree of altruism/self-sacrfice is biologically hard-coded, but a sacrfice is only as appealing as the benefits one would gain from it. The average and sub-par performers have much too gain from such a system, but you must find a way to appeal to the superior.
I think that in order to affect a lasting social change you'll have to indoctrinate children that it is good and right to give your all even if you receive just a small fraction of the fruits of your labor. Religion and education have been the best ways of disseminating doctrine, and you will have to engage in a similar means of social control to trump natural self-interest.
|
exactly. in another thread i have stated that society has served to cull many of the "adverse" aspects of human thought / action deep rooted in us after millions of year of evolution.
in a civilized society, we no longer kill the alpha male to ascend to power. we don't kill people for food / power / whatever. we don't rape members of the opposite sex to spread our seed. the rejects who do do such things are punished, again by society.
the problem is that greed was overlooked as an evolutionary trait, simply because it pales in comparison to such high-crimes as murder, rape, etc. Greed is a horrible trait to have, and yet we have it, and we refuse to acknowledge that we should have culled it along with the other horrific side effects of evolution.
sigh
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
Let me start by saying, a wonderful, wonderful, thoughtful post UberX. I am pleased that we seem agree so throughly.
quote:
I believe that if a socialist movement focused mainly on the economic aspects, it would gain a stonger foothold in the community and move on a bit quicker. |
I agree strongly, and feel that this could be one of the most effective ways to gain prominence.
quote:
eh... i concur to a degree. We shouldn't just "divorce" ourselves from some of the most inpired writings of the socialist ideals. Sure, we shouldn't "bank" on them just because we think they're awe inspiring, but we shouldn't abandon them.
we should do as you said, and create modern works relating to forms of socialism. perhaps we could even address many of the faults / failures in some of the past systems, and present ideas on how to avoid / remedy them.
we should attempt to make socialism relate to the people's lives at hand, so they know exactly what the system is supposed to be. we've carried the "evil empire" label for far too long. Socialism is about brotherhood. |
I agree, I think you describe how I effectively feel that Marxist literature should be treated. It should reside mostly in the background, but still highly respected. And I agree that creating modern works that people could relate to is something of great importance.
quote:
one thing that would help to a degree, is the dropping of the word Communist. |
Now this is an EXCELLENT idea, I have been thinking along similar lines for a long time. The stigma attached to communism is very powerful, and would be difficult to overcome. Even socialist is slightly tainted, as you said. But what would be our new euphemism? This would be a great subject for Apolyton to tackle. If we could effectively create one that sounded nice, and didn't conjure images of Stalinism, we would be in a much stronger position. The one problem is that some current socialists and communists may object in the short term, but I think that the postives definitely outweigh the negatives here.
quote:
when someone hears commie, it's like someone called me "target". and everybody who thinks they know something is all over me. to quote one girl "you're a communist? how could you like hitler!?!?". I began to state how ignorant her question was (a bit more eloquently than i am now), that hitler opposed commies in germany, but she defended her position that Hitler was a commie, and i just walked away. |
 This is very true. When my girlfriend's parents first found out I was a commie, her mom soon after asked if I was into devil worship. 
I still have not "come out of the closet" to my own family, who are very similar to your own "better dead than red" father. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
|
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
[Voice from the back, shouting harshly]
The fact is, what y'all are peddling is just another oppressive religion. And who's buying? Have we spent the past 400 years trying to shake the more oppressive chains of Christianity just to take up the shackles of the Communists? |
I think that your objection is very fair John, the past so-called communists have been very oppressive, as you imply. However, there is a far greater communism coming that does not rely force to accomplish it's means. It is built on a society that that follows Jesus' "love your neighbor as yourself" to it's logical conclusion. It is a society built around true brotherhood, rather than the "brotherhood at the point of a sword" of our Bolshevik past. Once we achieve this, that will be true freedom, a greater freedom than this world has ever seen.
quote:
quote:
The average person couldn't hope to decipher one of Marx's works in a million years. |
|
Marx has very difficult works, perhaps you have not tried to read one of them in your lifetime, but I can assure you that the average person would have a great deal of trouble. 
quote:
does little to enhance your appeal in the real world. So go ahead and use the internet as your monastary, parsing words until they can no longer be parsed, in languages increasingly disconnected from the world outside: we'll be out here living our lives, changing, growing, evolving.
|
One of the purposes of this meeting is to make socialism relevent to everyone, and not having to rely on the archaic dialogue that you seem to be criticizing. I am sorry John that for whatever reason past socialists have brushed you the wrong way, and that, therefore, you do not agree with us. For what it is worth, I can promise you that one day you shall, and that day will likely be sooner, rather than later.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
|
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
If you want these burdens, become a Christian. There is no way you can add this onto communism without rendering the term completely meaningless. The fact that you want to add this merely reinforces my conviction in the bankruptcy of communism.
John T is spot on. 
Stefu: lol , especially with all those coming attractions. |
Obi wan my friend, the communism that you envision is nothing like the communism that is soon coming. In fact, you make an excellent case for why we need to drop the term "communism". It obviously carries with it certain assumptions that are neither correct nor productive to our cause. In reality, to be a christian (that is, to be one that follows the teachings of Jesus) is to be a "communist", the natural conclusion of Christ's teachings would inevitably lead to a state of de facto communism. The communism that is coming is built on love, brotherhood, compassion, and everything else that Jesus encouraged. But you make a good point, maybe we shouldn't call it commmunism anymore, that's a bad word. 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-03-2003 21:05
|