On human nature-the end of capitalism-communism

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kman....nope...no banning rod for me....but I don't mind that...

Kid - Who gets an income for not working? I'll grantya, there are some kids with wealthy parents and trust funds, but surely you're not saying they're the majority?

-=Vel=-

Profit, interest, rent. Actually what I was talking about is people who get paid so much that they quit working or work less. Usually these people are highly valuable to society too, more skilled or talented than others.

[Kidlicious]

I think a good example of getting paid for not working would be Rock bands. When they first come out they do concerts everywhere, but then as they get rich and famous they do less shows even though they get paid more for doing them. If they spend all their money on drugs and women they will end up doing more shows than they ever did even though they don't get paid **** for doing them.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Profit, interest, rent. Actually what I was talking about is people who get paid so much that they quit working or work less. Usually these people are highly valuable to society too, more skilled or talented than others.

so u want to pay them less to force them to continue working? wow communism is such a nice endeavour.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by yavoon
so u want to pay them less to force them to continue working? wow communism is such a nice endeavour.

The result is more for everyone, so it's hard to say how many people would actually get paid less. What matters is that on the whole everyone has more.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kidicious

The result is more for everyone, so it's hard to say how many people would actually get paid less. What matters is that on the whole everyone has more.

short sighted. just look at ur rock band. the reason they tour their ass off is they see the perks that come at the end. they realize the payoff. if the payoff didn't exist they wouldn't work towards it. u'd have a bunch of ambitionless entertainers. and u would NOT get more work out of them, u'd get less. u'd also get a lot less value. and as happenstance ne entertainers from capitalist countries would own your commie entertainers

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by yavoon


short sighted. just look at ur rock band. the reason they tour their ass off is they see the perks that come at the end. they realize the payoff. if the payoff didn't exist they wouldn't work towards it. u'd have a bunch of ambitionless entertainers. and u would NOT get more work out of them, u'd get less. u'd also get a lot less value. and as happenstance ne entertainers from capitalist countries would own your commie entertainers

There would be something to that except I'm sure they would have put on the shows regardless of future reward. They would have done it for the current reward anyway.

edit: this isn't what I wanted to say. I wanted to say that they would do it anyway for less money.

[Odin]

Originally posted by GePap
The problem with your line of argument si that you continue to give me examples that only apply to civilized and urbane man, a type of existance that is at best only 10,000 years old, but man is at least 100,000 years old. if the notion is human nature, then whatever you say must apply to man in 2000 ad, or 3000 bc, or 50000 bc.
For most of human existance, there was no notion of a better tommorrow, except perhaps by chance of better climate or hunting grounds, certainly not by ne's own hands. Education was not about giving a leg up, it was about survival, teahcing your offsprings what they needed to know to live, period. The idea of a surlu of oods that may last into next year, much less next generation is a new one, one that man has had to adapt into. That man has a very plastic nature is easily seen by how much we have accepted in so short a timeframe as the last 100,000 years.

Exactlly, our mind was fine tunned in communal hunter-gatherer tribes in East Africa. Why do you think people like to go hunting or go camping? it is the most natural to us. Culture cannot change 2,000,000 years of cultural evolution in 10,000 years. I read an scientific article on human evolution that people who live in communal hunter-gatherer societies (the Bushmen of southern Africa for example) do not suffer as much stress-related health problems then people living in an agricultural or industrial society because they live in a setting that is instinctively natural to our minds.

The main advantage of communal living was sharing of risk, basically if you shared a hare you caught with your fellow tribe, they will do the same for you, that behavior has been ingrained in our brains ever since we started actively hunting 1,800,000 years ago (Homo ergaster and Homo erectus).

[Kidlicious]

There's a good argument that hasn't been made yet Odin. Better living

[Kramerman]

Communism is ot built to stagnate. Even if we take the poor examples of communism that have existed, the ones that have stagnated did so do to shortges of markets (if cuba had access to the uS market, it would not stagnate as it does), either imposed from the outside or politically from the inside. Iran was profit motive ased from 1906 to 1979, and it did not go as far as Russia did under "stagnation" communism from 1917-1979.

Im not totally up to date on Cuba's situation, but cant they trade with most european countries, africa, and asia? Surely they can trade with China, one of the largest markets in the world. Im sry, but i dont buy that if the US opened itself to Cuba, they would be much better off. A little, thats for sure, but nothing significant. Shoot, until Clinton the US never traded much with china, yet we were doing pretty well without that huge market.

As for Iran, i dunno much about it from that time period, but im sure capitalism had little to do with it being a ****hole. If I were to take a guess, i would say it was a **** hole for the same reasons many capitalistic nations today are **** holes (take a look at a lot of south america) - a ton of corruption............... ****! i gotta go, emergency... finish later

[Kidlicious]

Cuba does do better than most Central American countries. Maybe all of them. They certainly would do better if they were allowed trade.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kramerman


Im not totally up to date on Cuba's situation, but cant they trade with most european countries, africa, and asia? Surely they can trade with China, one of the largest markets in the world. Im sry, but i dont buy that if the US opened itself to Cuba, they would be much better off. A little, thats for sure, but nothing significant. Shoot, until Clinton the US never traded much with china, yet we were doing pretty well without that huge market.

The question is not whom you can trade with, but with whom you can trade profitably. What can Cuba sell to Africa and Asia? Sugar, and the US is one huge closed sugar market right next door so the cost of exporting swould be very cheap. Same with cigars. And the ban on S tourism does lower the overall potential. Imagine all those kids that go to Cancun going to Havana for spring break. The US is a natural market for Cuba, not Angola.

As for Iran, i dunno much about it from that time period, but im sure capitalism had little to do with it being a ****hole. If I were to take a guess, i would say it was a **** hole for the same reasons many capitalistic nations today are **** holes (take a look at a lot of south america) - a ton of corruption............... ****! i gotta go, emergency... finish later

They were not ca[pitalist: this is the problem. You seem to call any system in which people can make porfits capitalist. That is not so. You can get rich in a feudal system, you can get rich in a mercantalist system. Both have the porfit motive, nether are capitalism. To equate capitalism just with the "profit motive" as some people do is wrong. Capitalism is a lot more than that, it is a large system.

What do you want, GePap? I don’t see you giving older examples either….perhaps because we have no written accounts? Sheesh.

There are plenty of human communities that stiull live pre-urbane and civilized existances in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. You can use them as example of pre-urbane man. You also have recorded history. As I said, many of the assumptions people make today were not assumptions of man back in 1000bc, so it seems obvious then that such assumptions are NOT normal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why do you think people like to go hunting or go camping?

Ugh... not many that I know of! Camping sucks

I read an scientific article on human evolution that people who live in communal hunter-gatherer societies (the Bushmen of southern Africa for example) do not suffer as much stress-related health problems then people living in an agricultural or industrial society because they live in a setting that is instinctively natural to our minds.

They do say ignorance is bliss . With more information and innovation, there is more responsibility and much more to think about. Naturally that'll lead to problems. It has nothing to do which society is considered more 'natural'. I bet modern communism would have similar stress levels, simply because of everything we have now that the hunter-gatherers didn't (ie, they didn't have to try to keep power generators running 24/7, etc ).

[Odin]

Irman, all I am showing is that communal living comes naturally to us, the article was SCIENTIFIC, not political. If you don't like camping youi have a problem.

[GePap]

I hate camping.

[Imran Siddiqui]

all I am showing is that communal living comes naturally to us, the article was SCIENTIFIC, not political.

But you haven't. All you've proven is a scientific article says that primitive hunter-gathers are more stress-free. Yes, but they are also less technologically adept. I don't care if you have a commune state, but in with this technology, there is going to be stress among those that have to keep the lights, cable, and internet, as well as water, etc., running 24/7.

It didn't prove that all communal societies are less stressful, only hunter-gatherer ones.