On human nature-the end of capitalism-communism

[GePap]

The point should be (and I think it is) that "human nature" is plastic, and thus no single system is either with human nature or against it. If man were so set in his ways we would not be here were we are.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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 ).

Not necessarily. Having stressfull jobs is a decision that we make as a society. Right now we accept stress at work for the promise of productivity gains. It's a trade off and I think we go overboard. We spend a lot of time at work, and it's important to be healthy. Stress not being healthy for us I think we should not sacrifice our health like we do.

[Kidlicious]

My neighbor just told me that a rich person getting into heaven is like a camel getting through the eye of a needle. Maybe that's why people stop working before they get too rich.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Not necessarily. Having stressfull jobs is a decision that we make as a society. Right now we accept stress at work for the promise of productivity gains. It's a trade off and I think we go overboard. We spend a lot of time at work, and it's important to be healthy. Stress not being healthy for us I think we should not sacrifice our health like we do.

this is how it is tho. u dont have to work hard(lotsa ppl dont!). but the rewards are there for those who do. the system swings both ways. u wna eliminate the option to work hard and gain financial success cuz u think the lazy bums shouldn't have the disgrace of seeing themselves outdone by so much? seems bizzarre, cuz right now our system lets u have it either way. and ur saying thats not fair. seems like ur way is actually the unjust one.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Not necessarily. Having stressfull jobs is a decision that we make as a society. Right now we accept stress at work for the promise of productivity gains. It's a trade off and I think we go overboard. We spend a lot of time at work, and it's important to be healthy. Stress not being healthy for us I think we should not sacrifice our health like we do.

I don't think society forced me to take a stressful job. Thats an individual decision thank you very much. One that I can make for myself.

But perhaps you have too much communism on the brain wherein you expect job selection to be rammed down your throat.

[Berzerker]

GePap -

Laws predate any notion that individual had anything close to rights inherently

Ahem...rights emerged as the expression of inherent and ~universal desires. No one, even murderers, want to be murdered without extenuating circumstances altering their situation, i.e., an elderly person dying a painful death from cancer. Now, did the law pre-date the desire to be left alone?
Did the law pre-date the anger of people enslaved long ago? Did the law pre-date self-defense? Did the law pre-date freedom? The notion of "rights" pre-dates the law...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by yavoon
this is how it is tho. u dont have to work hard(lotsa ppl dont!). but the rewards are there for those who do. the system swings both ways. u wna eliminate the option to work hard and gain financial success cuz u think the lazy bums shouldn't have the disgrace of seeing themselves outdone by so much? seems bizzarre, cuz right now our system lets u have it either way. and ur saying thats not fair. seems like ur way is actually the unjust one.

Oh, yeah baby. Give me that stressfull job. Yeah!

[Meldor]

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.

No, I still stand by my statement. Under any system one of man's base drives is to make things better for himself and his offspring. Even your primative hunter-gatherer wanted to be the top dog, and to make his children top dogs as well. He learned to use tools, developed bow, slings, learned to keep fire and start it, all to better himself and increase the potential for his offspring to survive and do better. This has driven us from the time that the first person picked up a rock and hit something to it, to the ggod folks working on the space station. It is a drive of human nature, no matter the system, no matter the time. Are those examples old enough for you? Sorry I only used ones from more modern times. BTW, this has nothing to do with profit, but it does have to do with increasing production and passing moroe on to your children. Two things that are totally against the tenants of communism. It is why one of the first steps of the communist revolution was supposed to be "re-educating" (read brain washing) everyone to go along with the program and against their nature.

Originally posted by GePap
Laws predate any notion that individual had anything close to rights inherently, as opposed to earning status, status from the whole. Take the notion of Honor for example. Today we think people have Honor inherently. In Homers tie, honor was given to you by society, and could thus also be taken from you. As i said above, one can not argue human nature by giving examples of a very limited time span.

Again, I must disagree, you are trying to play semantic games and I won't fall for it. One of the very first rights that man conceptualized was property. The concept of "mine" and "yours". While the rights of man where crude and not as well defined, for every early example of law, I can give you the example of what "right" the people gave up to have it. For example, the right of the strongest to take what they want was given up by the law or taboo against stealing. While again, these were probably crudely defined until we got larger groupings and maybe even permanent settlements, but they were there.

Originally posted by GePap
Better medices, suntan lotion? How much wood is on this island? what is the replenishment rate? At some point in any upward development they would have run right smack into resource porbles: they either overfish local fusheries, or they run out of trees for more fule, more and bigger ships, more housing, more tools to feed a growing population. Once they run out of trees, they are screwed and soceity falls. That is what happened in easter Island. Only upward climbs that are sustainable make sense. One that leads only to the eventuall collapse and destruction of everything is nonsensical, and has nothing to do with communal living. They had little incentive to advance very far becuase they could have never supported such a climb for long.

Sorry, first you assume that they had the concepts of "over-fishing" and "forest magement", it wasn't even until modern times (when biologists pointed it out to them) that they understood the connection between deforestation and the health of the corral reefs the fish depend on. They had no basis on which to build the complex ideas because they didn't have the scientific base. Just like the other posters claim that his South African tribesman lives a less stressful life. The porblem for himm is he doesn't live as long and currently a large part of them have aids. Not exactly where I would want to be. You will ahve to find a better utopian society to hang your hat on. That one has too many holes to even bother to talk about. What is missing is that these people have no drive to even advance the things that would have been renewable. Things like medicine (look at how many we are pulling out of the plants that they ignored), and better boats to extend the range of the fishers and maybe settle other islands. We really don't know what happened on Easter island. I sholdn't ahve brought that one up. It is a strange case.

Also, if we accept your statements then you just proved the case that communism would indeed stagnate. Where would your people get the drive to improve? Why would they do it if it meant nothing to them and the current system was sustainable? Would they not slop back down the tech ladder to the lowest sustainable level? Doesn't bode well for you and your communist buddies being the one to populate the stars.

Originally posted by GePap
Then you ignore the point of capitalism. The profit motive is far lder than capitalism. The profit motive existed in 1400 bc, and no one in thier right mind would think of calling the situation in 1400 bc capitalism. Capitalism goes well beyond just profits or the profit motive, even if one states that this is at the bottom. For capitalism, the profit motive is a tool, useful most of the time, a negative to be controlled some of the other time.

No I made a statement of where the two system where the same, in the delievery of goods and services. I then stated why capitalism would have us strive to improve on the goods and services and make it more profitable to get them where they are needed. Communism on the other hand would be perfectly happy with the old less efficeint design because it is all they needed.

Originally posted by GePap
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.

First, no system is designed to stagnate. Marx didn't nvision that when he proposed his first change. However, when communism mets reality, the plain fact is that it reverts to two things. High levels of corruption, because those that are in charge of the re-education become more equal than those that need to be re-educated. Then the second one kicks in, in that the motive to improve is squahed (can't have other people deciding they might be more equal as well). These leads to stagnation, no if ands or buts. The Russian had a big burst of help for the allies during WWII and from the tech they gained from Germany after the war. On top of that they stole other tech from the west. But even this was not enought to keep the system from stagnating. Look at the condition of the Russian inustry today. It is 20 and 30 years behind. That is what communism combined with humans gives you.

As for Cuba it is a prime example. Even though it can not trade with the US it trades with the rest of the Americas. Mexico, the islands, central and south America as well as Canada. Mexico should be a mroe natural partner for trade with Cuba than the US. They share more culture and language. yet Cuba still stagnated. It is on its last legs. The cars it has are 40 years old. Its industries have all but been wiped out. The only thing that has kept it going this long is that it was a welfare state suported by the soviet Union. Now that the USSR no longer pays the bills, its rotten underbelly is exposed. It has nothing to generate hard cash. Tourists you say? Canadians flock there in droves during the winter. Cancun? It is better because it is run on the strength of people trying to make things better for themselves and their families. Tour guides pop up, and they get to keep the money, not turn it over to a corrupt state. Taxis show up. eateries, sightseeing and other things. Beer makers and others. All things that woldn't show up under communism or if they did would be run by corrupt and vastly wasteful systems, well regulated and totally deviod of any reason to improve.

No thanks, I will stick with our bad, bad system, were even though I am born poor and without, I can dare to leave my offspring the riches bought by my toil and sweat and not have to turn it all over to those "more equal".

[GePap]

Several point Meldor:

On the Island scenerio. Who is talking about environment science? There are dozens of examples around the world in which a society overan their resource based and died of, like in Easter Island. People in a small island have no hope, even if they are the most competative and profit-based people on earth, ot compete and advance, becuase they do NOT have the resource base to do so. The island could not support the growing popualtion and the even faster growth for resources. Wood would run out, deforestation might lead to degredation of soils, ruining farmng, and local fisheries would be strained. Competiotn DOES NOT always make economic sense. Sometimes it can be the way to a downfall.

Even your primative hunter-gatherer wanted to be the top dog, and to make his children top dogs as well. He learned to use tools, developed bow, slings, learned to keep fire and start it, all to better himself and increase the potential for his offspring to survive and do better.

Man (the homonid species) did this over millenia, and for millenia man's reality did not change much. himps also have systems of being top dog. So do wolves. That does not stop wolves from being deeply social creatures whose economic livelyhood (as it were, eating) depends on cooperation. Competiton over mates and status does not have to intersect with the economic realm, and usually did not.

It is why one of the first steps of the communist revolution was supposed to be "re-educating" (read brain washing) everyone to go along with the program and against their nature.

Re-education means just that, a new form of education. If you whish to spin it, go ahead, but that ain't an arguement. You would have to re-educate, if you think people have been taught lies for a long time.

One of the very first rights that man conceptualized was property. The concept of "mine" and "yours".

Mine and yours is an offshot of 'I' and 'You'. Look at primitive groups of people. They do think of 'mine' when it comes to personal effects, tools perhaps. To make the leap to a pieec of land, speically one you may not even be on, could be "yours", that is a huge conceptual leap, which is NOT "norma"l or "natural"

As for Cuba it is a prime example. Even though it can not trade with the US it trades with the rest of the Americas. Mexico, the islands, central and south America as well as Canada. Mexico should be a mroe natural partner for trade with Cuba than the US. They share more culture and language

Culture and language have nothing to do with which states are your best trade partners. It is a fucntion of what you offer to sell vs. what the ohter guy needs to buy, and vice versa. The US is the best market for Cuban goods of all types, and what cuba needs the Us is the best supplier it could get.

Bezerker:

Ahem...rights emerged as the expression of inherent and ~universal desires. No one, even murderers, want to be murdered without extenuating circumstances altering their situation, i.e., an elderly person dying a painful death from cancer. Now, did the law pre-date the desire to be left alone?
Did the law pre-date the anger of people enslaved long ago? Did the law pre-date self-defense? Did the law pre-date freedom? The notion of "rights" pre-dates the law...

Rigths are a legal term. And they were not seen as universal. The very fact of slavery is the best proof against this. What rights do you have vi a vi nature, the gods? none. Desire to be left alone? Alone in a small tribal group? When?

Anger, urge not to be dominated: these might be basic huamn feelings, but the most normal solution to them is not rights, but your own domination of others. if you rule them, they do not rule you. Or leave society and be a hermit. Yet another way to be totally free.

As I said, since "rights' is a legal term, it could not possibly predate the law. Before laws, the notion would have been meaningless.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by GePap

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.

Oh, i agree entriely that cuba has huge economic potential, but I entirely disagree that it could recognize it under a communist system. As I said before, trade with the US would indeed help, but Cuba would be nowhere near what it could be if it were a capitalist state.

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.

I know this, I must have just misread your post... I thought you said Iran was capitalist.

Can you, however, convince me that communism is as effective as capitalism? As efficient? I am convinced it is not. It lacks incentive for the majority of people. Every single large scale communist state that I know of has been/is a relative failure. You can blame it on one thing or another, but the bottom line is communism is not any good. A bonafide person who lived under communism himself said it sucked (saras).

[GePap]

Can you, however, convince me that communism is as effective as capitalism? As efficient? I am convinced it is not. It lacks incentive for the majority of people. Every single large scale communist state that I know of has been/is a relative failure. You can blame it on one thing or another, but the bottom line is communism is not any good. A bonafide person who lived under communism himself said it sucked (saras).

As I said, the point of communism is NOT to be a better form of resource allocation or wealth creator than capitalism. Marx himself knew that capitalism was the best method of wealth creation and efficiency, at leats given the reality of his day. Which is why for communism to come cpaitalism must run its course, becuase only a very rich society, like one would be at the end of capitalism, could afford communism.

as for the failed communist experiements. I beleiev they failed becasuse instead of waiting for the end of capitalism thay jumped the gun. Lenin believed that a political vanguard from above could somehow speed up the process. I think they were wrong form the start. they could not. And they failed. None of the coutnries in which pre-mature revolution was carried out were rich enough and advanced enought to make it work.

As for Cuba. It is hard to tell. The question would have to be, which way would cuba have gone? like someplace like the D.R.? or what? cuba is poor and isolated, but the communists have laid down (or did lay down until the 90's) the foundations of a better place. In a way the revolution in Cuba has served a purpose, at making Cuba more independent and created a solid base to work with, but Cuba would have ben better of it castro had gone back in 1990. this last 13 years have been wasted.

As I said, I am neither a communist nor a capitalist. I simply have a huge porblem with the notion that capitalism is somehow "natural". its as artificial as communism.

[Berzerker]

GePap -

Rigths are a legal term. And they were not seen as universal. The very fact of slavery is the best proof against this. What rights do you have vi a vi nature, the gods? none. Desire to be left alone? Alone in a small tribal group? When?

You didn't read my post closely enough, I am speaking about the "notion" of rights pre-dating the law. The fact some people long ago violated the rights of others doesn't prove the notion of rights was invented relatively recently any more than Hitler, Stalin and Mao slaughtering millions means the notion of a right to life came to exist only after they were gone. To re-iterate, just as no one wants to be murdered, no one wants to be enslaved - that's the universality I spoke of.

Anger, urge not to be dominated: these might be basic huamn feelings, but the most normal solution to them is not rights, but your own domination of others.

These basic human feelings are where the notion of rights ultimately originated.

As I said, since "rights' is a legal term, it could not possibly predate the law. Before laws, the notion would have been meaningless.

Actually, the term "rights" came from the enlightenment and the people who advanced that agenda spoke of "natural" rights in a political system that refused their agenda. Rights that are ours by virtue of nature and existence, the law merely came to reflect some of these rights after the enlightenment thanks to people who believed rights don't come from governments. The notion of rights was "invented" the first time one person murdered, robbed or raped another person... In the Bible, it was when Cain slew Abel and he was punished by God for taking what did not belong to him - Abel's "right" to live...

[Berzerker]

only a very rich society, like one would be at the end of capitalism, could afford communism.

That speaks volumes, and what happens to that rich society then? It becomes poor again... I certainly am curious as to why communism requires a rich society? Almost sounds parasitic...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker


That speaks volumes, and what happens to that rich society then? It becomes poor again... I certainly am curious as to why communism requires a rich society? Almost sounds parasitic...

Because when you divide up the income you have to be able to provide well for the citizens. That ability to provide for your citizens is absolutely necessary for the long term success of your govt.

[Berzerker]

Because when you divide up the income you have to be able to provide well for the citizens. That ability to provide for your citizens is absolutely necessary for the long term success of your govt.

But if a system collapses because it cannot provide, why would a rich society flourish simply because it takes longer to collapse?