How do you raise a child to be a Good Communist?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Agathon
I've grown tired of being polite. The political right are simply immoral. They pretend they aren't, and hide behind arrguments about economic means, but they are, wittingly or no, at odds with basic human decency.

Not that they care.

Actually that again is the left. In this world, you either support capitalism, or you support a wrong non-functional system which you call communism. Communism is the opposite of prosperity, self-respect and decency.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd



Then why is it the first and only time it has happened in the history of the universe (as we know it)?


EDIT: Oh, are you a creationist?

I'm an atheist. And the reason it isn't an anomaly is the same as the reason the sun going nova isn't an "anomaly" - it is a natural stage in the progression of mankind (or in the case of the sun, stars).

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Actually that again is the left. In this world, you either support capitalism, or you support a wrong non-functional system which you call communism. Communism is the opposite of prosperity, self-respect and decency.

Gian, this is Agathon we're talking about. He makes his living off of dead, out-moded systems of thought, so it stands to reason that he's a Communist... and an angry one at that. So, why bother?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
When you look at Marx's writings, it is clear he doesn't advocate a society where we are like bees or cogs in a machine. He wants to create a society where every person is able to develop all aspects of themselves to the utmost. But capitalism requires min-maxing (to use game terms). This is most efficient in a society that is geared towards winning. But it makes for being a very poor and anti-social human being otherwise.

What's the matter with that, though? Those who care enough about gaining wealth, and are capable of doing so, will. Those who don't or aren't won't.

[Arrian]

Trite answer: the same way we raise them to be anything: indoctrination, with the threat of punishment.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

The history of humans for >99% if their existance, is nothing like you assume 'human nature' to be.

A majority of human existance has been under some form of dictatorship. So I think the point about human nature stands.

So you agree with his point, or not?

To nitpick, in human bands there are no dictators.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich


What's the matter with that, though? Those who care enough about gaining wealth, and are capable of doing so, will. Those who don't or aren't won't.

Since society defines wealth, I say we just change the definiton and screw all those who spent their whole lives accruing now worthless things! That would be sucha fun game!

IF wealth and political power could be sepaarted fully, I would have no problem with people playing the game of monopoly real-life style at all-but money and politics are one-and hence this is a problem.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you agree with his point, or not?

I don't.

To nitpick, in human bands there are no dictators.

Yet in tribes with a chief, the chief is close enough to one.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich


I'm an atheist. And the reason it isn't an anomaly is the same as the reason the sun going nova isn't an "anomaly"

Suns go nova all the time.

it is a natural stage in the progression of mankind (or in the case of the sun, stars).

But this is a one of a kind event.

If it is a natual stage why are we the only species to have gone through it? Because it's an anomaly - an unusual occorance, a break from the rule.


Unless you believe humans are seperate from all other life and have some sort of pre-determined 'evolutionary' destiny. In which case, I really don't think you're an athiest.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Unless you believe humans are above all other life and have some sort of pre-determined 'evolutionary' destiny. In which case, I really don't think you're an athiest.

If he believed that, he would still be an atheist. That sounds something like Secular Humanism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yet in tribes with a chief, the chief is close enough to one.

Depends. In many Amerind bands, the chief was no more than a wise advisor. Free to be ignored. Among the Seneca, they could even be impeached by the women. Not to say this was a universal or necessarily the norm. Among African bands, chiefs seemed to weild considerable authority.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yet in tribes with a chief, the chief is close enough to one.

Tribes are much bigger, and unlikely to have existed for much of human existence. so as I said, no dictators in bands, and bands made up the mayority of human existence.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by General Ludd
If it is a natual stage why are we the only species to have gone through it? Because it's an anomaly - an unusual occorance, a break from the rule.

As a Marxist, I have to agree with young Skywalker. It is a natural stage of human progress. It is not the only stage, nor is it a necessary stage, but it is a natural stage, in that it is something that evolved out of human relations. It is the societal equivalent of being a teenager.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Unless you believe humans are above all other life and have some sort of pre-determined 'evolutionary' destiny. In which case, I really don't think you're an athiest.

If he believed that, he would still be an atheist. That sounds something like Secular Humanism.

I don't understand how someone could believe humans to be some sort of "chosen ones" and have a pre-determined path to follow without believing in some sort of god. Although i could see it being a 'religon of arrogance' where they believe themselves to be gods.

Although, if that's the case, I I still don't see how they could accept evolution - the notion that a species has a pretermined path contradicts everything about it

[General Ludd]

EDIT: er, nevermind.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Depends. In many Amerind bands, the chief was no more than a wise advisor. Free to be ignored. Among the Seneca, they could even be impeached by the women. Not to say this was a universal or necessarily the norm. Among African bands, chiefs seemed to weild considerable authority.

Yes, I think the strong chief combined with later strong leaders (in the West and East) shows the tendancy to go to strong leaders. Not saying it is 100% universal, but there is a tendancy there.

as I said, no dictators in bands, and bands made up the mayority of human existence.

Are we speaking of pre-historical, pre-homo sapien sapien humanity?

I don't understand how someone could believe humans to be some sort of "chosen ones" and have a pre-determined path to follow without believing in some sort of god. Although i could see it being a 'religon of arrogance' where they believe themselves to be gods.

There can be a belief that humanity is chosen by the evolutionary process, since it is the only species to be given the gift of logic and reasoning and that makes humans special. It doesn't require a God.

I still don't see how they could accept evolution - the notion that a species has a pretermined path contradicts everything about it

Communists believe in evolution and also that humanity has a predetermined, Hegelian path. The path is based on observations of humanity and predictions made on society and how they will act to certain changes in their society.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Tp an extent yes. But mans needs are such that they never are completely fulfilled. Hence my point re: his need to have high self esteem. In many cases, that is derived from his sense of competition and doing well at the expense of others.

All one needs do is look at the amount of I win, you lose posts on this board to see that.

It is not natural to want people to lose. In actuality it's anit-social, but it's encouraged too much in our sick society. It's definitely an unnecessary, and trained, biproduct of capitalism due to competition for resources. In a better future society men will not pursue such goals.

[Kidicious]

Ogie,

Saying that men want other men to lose spits in the face of good economic theory, and such an argument is an argument against the only economic theory to show the error in Marxist thought.

Man is an economic animal. He doesn't care about other people's well being so much as he cares about his own. He will not want to see people lose if it doesn't benefit him economically, and of course it doesn't benefit him. If you think so you know absolutely nothing about economics. Economics is a social science. How do you think Microsoft does when no one can afford windows? How do you think GM does when no one can afford a car? You are so wrong about thinking that men want to see other men lose. If that were true humans would never have made it as far as we have. Not even close.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Communists believe in evolution and also that humanity has a predetermined, Hegelian path. The path is based on observations of humanity and predictions made on society and how they will act to certain changes in their society.

I would accept that explanation, adding the caveat that societal evolution is not fatalistic nor necessarily always progressive. We can take backwards and sideways steps as well a move foreward, and that the direction we take depends on the choices and actions we take (or don't).

[Berzerker]

Agathon - Communities evolved, not out of a desire to share in the communistic sense (forced "sharing"), but out of self-interest. Members made the decision to give up some autonomy for a variety of reasons all doing with self-interest - enhanced security, social relationships with family and friends, greater economic activity, etc... But while capitalism is based on self-interest, communism is based on a human emotion - envy. The capitalist walks by a really nice home and they decide they want to own such a home one day while the communist walks by and decides that rich bastard should have to live like the communist because it just isn't fair for one person to be happier than another.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Agathon - Communities evolved, not out of a desire to share in the communistic sense (forced "sharing"), but out of self-interest.

This and all the rest of your post are BS. Humans aren't solitary creatures that wandered around until someone had the brilliant idea to gather a group. In fact, if we weren't social creatures from the begining, ideas wouldn't be a possibility, since idea require language, and language requires social groups.

Since before we were human, we have been living in social groups. Look at all our primate relatives. They all exist in social groups. It is the way of our species. It is programmed into our genetic code. We are social creatures. We go crazy in isolation and we die without the aid of other humans (including past aid, aka, teaching).

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
But while capitalism is based on self-interest, communism is based on a human emotion - envy.

Che is right. BS. You haven't made any real distintion between being envious and wanting to benefit yourself. And do you know why? Because there isn't any.

[General Ludd]

Communists believe in evolution and also that humanity has a predetermined, Hegelian path. The path is based on observations of humanity and predictions made on society and how they will act to certain changes in their society.

Didn't you just get done saying communism was a religion in another thread?

[Kidicious]

I give Berzerker a 9/10 for that troll judging by the immediate reaction to it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Kid,

The arguement posed was for the desire to win and in many case win at all costs (competition and all that jazz). In so doing it feeds the self esteem.

This is ultimately a humanistic notion that plays well with capitalism. Success and desire to win.

The flip side is unfortunately with a winner comes a loser. And from that reality comes a darker side to self esteem fulfillment. The "at least I'm not that poor shmuck" sentiment or the "At least I'm better than that group" or when losing the sour grapes "That group is ammoral and dirty stinkin liars and I'm better than them sentiment" (Not that I haven't seen that going around in these threads).

From those sentiments come jealousy, hatred, etc. the lowest forms of human endeavor.

Che,

Your post stands well. I did not mean to imply that we are one set of conditions/desires or the other but moreover a composite. While your points re: capitalistic failing might have merit, the flip arguements for communism and the lack of full incorporation of the human desires make it equally likely to fail IMO.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kucinich
What's the matter with that, though? Those who care enough about gaining wealth, and are capable of doing so, will. Those who don't or aren't won't.

What's wrong with it is that it leads to one-dimensional human beings, rather than being fully-developed multi-faceted individuals.

It would be like have a really powerfully developed forearm, but being a totally flabby person everywhere else. Sure, it's great for masturbation, hand shakes, and thumb wrestling, but don't you want more out of life?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Well Popeye was able to be REAL strong overall, once he ate spinach.

Makes you kinna wonder why he was so squinty eyed tho'?

[Giancarlo]

Communism is based on the fact of violating the free economic will of millions and that in itself is a crime against humanity.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Kid,

The arguement posed was for the desire to win and in many case win at all costs (competition and all that jazz). In so doing it feeds the self esteem.

This is ultimately a humanistic notion that plays well with capitalism. Success and desire to win.

The flip side is unfortunately with a winner comes a loser. And from that reality comes a darker side to self esteem fulfillment. The "at least I'm not that poor shmuck" sentiment or the "At least I'm better than that group" or when losing the sour grapes "That group is ammoral and dirty stinkin liars and I'm better than them sentiment" (Not that I haven't seen that going around in these threads).

From those sentiments come jealousy, hatred, etc. the lowest forms of human endeavor.

Have you ever heard of the American Institutionalists School of economic thought? Thornston Veblen was a famous guy there. He is the economist who discovered what is commonly called conspicuous consumption , which is the theory that consumer's spending is determined by psychological factors. Essentially, it argues that people don't always simply seek pleasure and avoid pain. Unfortunately, using the assumption that human beings are not rational (I mean the way economists use the term rational, pleasure seeking and pain avoiding) does not work well for setting policies except in special cases. That's because the assumption that man is rational works better. That's not to say that all men always behave rationally, but that a significant ratio of men behave rationally a significant amount of the time. Since they do, policy can be made successfully under this assumption.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Makes you kinna wonder why he was so squinty eyed tho'?

"I'm goin' blind!"