On human nature-the end of capitalism-communism

[Velociryx]

I disagree. It is historically accurate. The REASON that it evolved into something else is because it stopped functioning (ie began "falling apart"). It stopped functioning because beyond the micro-level, communal societies don't work.

One need only look at the few communal tribes in existence today (completely marginalized, living in remote areas, effectively stone age technology) to see the limitations of the system.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Essentially though, we said the same thing. Evolution does not occur "just because." It occurs because there is a deficiency. Had there been no deficiency with the communalized approach to societal living, then no such evolution would have occurred.

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

A couple of points.

1) Its easy to have the appearance of civilized beahvior when times are relatively prosperous. Sure many laws have been incorporated to reduce the barbaric nature of man. Laws of decency as we know them. Remove the civlized compnonent of man transport into a system where they don't exist and he is no different than the man of 20,000 years past, 10,000 years past, 1000 years past etc.

2) The cataclysm/revolution that would precipitate a massive change in government would IMO be the same as stripping away this veneer of civilization (perhaps I've seen to many Mad Max movies)

3) Whoever pointed out rightly that compensation is a weak motivator in the work force is correct. It is a weak motivator but an extremely strong demotivator. A person feeling wronged in appreciation be it monetarily or in actions will be much more demotivated than a corresponding increase in pay. Money is a weak motivator studies show (once above the poverty level that is) yet a strong demotivator. Which brings about those forces also mentioned as strong motivators.
All of these are contributors to a sense of self worth. part of teh problem though is we are speaking within the context of now and not of a apocolyptic setting.

Studies show normal motives start with Self preservation, (once that is secured) then self preservation of the family unit. Once those two have been locked down, the n and only then do the motives turn towards build of self worth.

Now included in build of self worth include all those ugly dominance games that man has been accused of.

I'm sorry I missed this thread earlier as I must have gotten GePap spun up enough to start a special thread on the nature of man arguements.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I disagree. It is historically accurate. The REASON that it evolved into something else is because it stopped functioning (ie began "falling apart"). It stopped functioning because beyond the micro-level, communal societies don't work.

It didn't stop functioning. Something else just functioned better. There is a difference. It functioned better because of the division of labor. But even up until the 17th Century, communal nomadic societies could still take out a more civilized one. So they weren't all that inferior. It's only been a little more than three hundred years since the Manchus conquered the Chinese. Even in the 19th Century, communal nomads occassionally defeated larger countries in war: the Zulus and the Souix-Cheyanne-Arapahoe alliance, for example.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And here I thought Che was advocating a return to slavery because it was more efficient than communism.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Your examples can be used to demonstrate that man has not changed.

Killing for honor was forbidden under the threat of death by monarchs who prefered to keep those guys for killing in war, and not given up by choice.

I don;t hink that monarchs wish to have more warm bodies for the lines was the sole reason. This does not exlain why, now that monarhc is gone and war has changed, it did not just come back into norm.

Slavery was criminalized when it became economically less efficient that paid workers.

Slavery was first criminalized in the 16th century by states such as Spain, which did nothing to actually enforece that law, but still had it on the books. The Brits outlawed slavery in their empire when it was still eocnomically sound to have used it, as the Southern slave states showed in the US.

Blood sports still exist; the success of F1 racing or rallies competitions is partly due to the danger for pilots or spectators.

I seriously doubt danger to spectator has ever been a draw, to any sport, including gladatorial fights. As for the chance of death, that is a big difference form the {i]expectation[/i] of death had before. Plus, what you see in a car flipping or a plane crashing: a machine's demise. The reality of a human being inside can be igonred for a bit of time. NOt the same as seeing someones throat cut open in front of you. And what aout dogfights, bulfights, or cokfights, all in which death is expected, if only for animals? Why are they so darn popular were you or I live? (only bullfights are still considred a valid sport omewhere)

Razing of cities … Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki …

Done from a distance, with utterly impersonal weapons, and the people doing it rationalized that they were saving lives long term by doing so. Vaslty different from going door to door and slaughering the population, for the aim of slaughtering the population as punishment.

Decimation of units: although not representing 10%, soldiers were shot in 1917 for the example. Who could tell that after 3 years of war in the future, it will not occur again.

I seriously doubt it will ever happen again, in any western military unless the end of civilization is upon us.

The little things, as you said, were what they were for exemplarity and information. They are no longer necessary because the information is much better (not the Man).

torture was not just a method of extracting info. What info do you get by burning someone? Or having them torn into pieces by animals? And have they lost the power of example? If man has not changed, the first portion of your agrument would still be valid: make an example of people by burning them alive, and publicly.

If Man had improved, it would take more that 6 months to transform 20 years old civilized guys in killers, as all armies are able to do anywhere.

I did not ever say that the potential still exsts deep down for man to act as he has always. The question should be, why do armies need to transform anyone into killers? Unless, killer was just one part of man, not his entire being.

Ogie

2) The cataclysm/revolution that would precipitate a massive change in government would IMO be the same as stripping away this veneer of civilization (perhaps I've seen to many Mad Max movies)

So you admit that radical change is necessary to get at this "core" of man? As I asked DAVOUT, if it is so common, why is radical change needed to make such behavors acceptable?

Vel:

EDIT: And you misunderstand me, I think. Sure, the desire for, the striving for success is a basic human drive, but "success" does not have a singular definition, and in and of itself is not a basic human drive....the desire for it (in whatever form it takes for the individual) is.

And what you still don;t see from my point is that even if success does not have one definition, the set of definitions is set by society. Change the set of likely definitions and you channel man elsewhere.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Ogie

2) The cataclysm/revolution that would precipitate a massive change in government would IMO be the same as stripping away this veneer of civilization (perhaps I've seen to many Mad Max movies)

So you admit that radical change is necessary to get at this "core" of man? As I asked DAVOUT, if it is so common, why is radical change needed to make such behavors acceptable?

No not necessarily. Man in todays western societies frame of reference is mostly motivated by the build of self worth. Included in those motivations are the ugly ones that result in dominance games in one form or another.

If for some reason there was a cataclysm then the motivations would change to being more centric to self preservation of self and the immediate family unit.

Either set of motivations though are centered around the ME.

As for acceptability of "immoral" actions it is a frame of reference issue. As long as we are fat dumb and happy and hve the luxury of civilization we intellectually accept these as codes of behavior. Desperate times call for desperate measures otherwise. Regardless though in the fat dumb and happy times man's motivators are still builds of self worth.

[GePap]

No not necessarily. Man in todays western societies frame of reference is mostly motivated by the build of self worth. Included in those motivations are the ugly ones that result in dominance games in one form or another.

And what constitutes self worth? A notion of self-worth implies a measurement of what is worth in man, even one purely left to each individual. If so, what is the scale, and hwta constitues being worthy? Now, if the sacel were truly utterly individualistic, would one not expect clashes and misunerstandingsd all the time, given the alien nature of one scale to another?

If for some reason there was a cataclysm then the motivations would change to being more centric to self preservation of self and the immediate family unit.

Suicide is the ultimate method of self-destruction, nuless motivated by religious belief which shifts the plane of self-preservation to another reality, which is a big change form one centered in the self of here and now.

[DaShi]

I have a question. If I was a communist, could I have a corvette?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap

And what constitutes self worth? A notion of self-worth implies a measurement of what is worth in man, even one purely left to each individual. If so, what is the scale, and hwta constitues being worthy? Now, if the sacel were truly utterly individualistic, would one not expect clashes and misunerstandingsd all the time, given the alien nature of one scale to another?

Excellent point. What is the measure? There is no objective scale to say one is successful. So what happens is people look to peer groups and attempt to one up their peers.

Suicide is the ultimate method of self-destruction, nuless motivated by religious belief which shifts the plane of self-preservation to another reality, which is a big change form one centered in the self of here and now.

Suicide is normally associated with severe depression wherein brain chemistry is altered dramatically. The onset of which is normally due to a feeling of failure and low levels of self worth.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi
I have a question. If I was a communist, could I have a corvette?

If you buy it from a cooperative venture in which all the profits made by the sale go directly to those that actually made the car? Yes. If those that made the car gave it to you as a gift? Yes. If it was given to you as a gift from the whole of society? Yes.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DaShi
I have a question. If I was a communist, could I have a corvette?

Are you a party leader?

[Velociryx]

Gepap: No, I understand what you're saying, and from the sound of it, we agree. Society (generally) sets bounds by creating the broad-based rules (usually by stating what's not allowed, and anything not explicitly forbidden is within the range of acceptable choices). Ultimately, within that framework (we're agreeing! ), the human imagination sets the limit.

Che: Still disagree. And the Mongols might have been communally organized before the rise of the great Khan, , but there can be absolutely no argument that WHEN China was invaded, they were led by a highly centralized power. His might....his rule was absolutely unquestioned, and his orders carried out by an essentially feudal heirarchy.

As to the other, I also still disagree based on the fact that we have seen no examples of large-scale (large population) successful communal societies. We haven't because they don't work. HAD they worked (had they worked even half as well as the "other approach" then the evolution would have been dramatically slowed, and perhaps not happened at all. But as populations began banding together....as tribes began coalescing into ever-larger tribes, the simple communal system began breaking down under the strain and was replaced bit by bit by other systems.

And it should be noted that specialization began in those communal societies. Had everyone been entirely self sufficient, there would have been scant need for the community at all, but as it was, everyone had a specific task to attend to, in order to ensure the survival of the tribe (rock scraper, hunter, medicine woman, etc).

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Excellent point. What is the measure? There is no objective scale to say one is successful. So what happens is people look to peer groups and attempt to one up their peers.

"The peers" are society in general, when it comes to setting down values by which to meausre any sort of self-worth. As for one-upsmanship, I don"t see it as universal. Not everyone tries to one-up thier peers all the time: this would not even make full sense with the notion of self-worth. At some point you reach a point when you think you are worthy,a dn ocne you reach this point, why do anything based on the actions of others?
Endless competition, with others or yourself is not needed, perhaps not even healthy. If you think endless competition is needed for self-worth, certainly you must have a sense of endless unworthyness at some leve, which you endless strive to overcome.

Suicide is normally associated with severe depression wherein brain chemistry is altered dramatically. The onset of which is normally due to a feeling of failure and low levels of self worth.

Normally, not always.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


"The peers" are society in general, when it comes to setting down values by which to meausre any sort of self-worth. As for one-upsmanship, I don"t see it as universal. Not everyone tries to one-up thier peers all the time: this would not even make full sense with the notion of self-worth. At some point you reach a point when you think you are worthy,a dn ocne you reach this point, why do anything based on the actions of others?
Endless competition, with others or yourself is not needed, perhaps not even healthy. If you think endless competition is needed for self-worth, certainly you must have a sense of endless unworthyness at some leve, which you endless strive to overcome.

Agreed and disagree. Peer groups can be more narrowly defined than the entire society. It could be for example the Jones next door or could be an internal monologue.

Yes a person can achieve a sense of self worth which such that he no longer feels the need to compete with others, but you'll find this person still has drives to maintain his sense of worth else he/she wouldn't feel love would they?

My point is this is that there is a significant portion of the population that still is in the self worth fullfilling mode. Like it or not that segment appears to be a nondiminishing eventuality.

Normally, not always.

Also agreed and hence the reason I qualified it.