On human nature-the end of capitalism-communism

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Suicide is often caused by economic conditions, principally job loss. We have been through this, and I have already shown the statistics.

I know I know its been covered before, But your explanation and slant on things is too confining. It is not necessarily from job loss etc. it speaks more towards feeling of self worth of which a host of contributing factors may be at fault. And we'll not rehash that discussion that you and Vel keep going over.

In any event I still maintain there is some subconscious trigger that gets people thinking of suicide once discussions of communism get going.

[Meldor]

Originally posted by GePap
That is actually not true. For a great deal of time estate law was different than it was now. For example, in the Middle Ages, only the oldest son got anything, every other offspring either lived on the dole of the oldest, who legally owned it all, or they made their own fortunes, or they died. The notion of passing on to the kids was not common, specially since the likelyhood was that there was nothing to leave for the kids anyway, and kids were an economic aid, sionce you needed them out on the farm, so in a sense what you made was also what they made. Examine stone age peoples; there are no estates whatsoever. For most of human existance there has been no surplus, so the notion of "passing on to the kids" is not a basic human motivator. In fact, while you wanted your offspring to grow to full term and reproducvtive age, after that you wanted them out, since they might be a drain on resources needed for the next generation of kids you plan to have.

I said nothing of property and wealth. What I said was to pass on the fruits of your labor, to make your childrens start better than the one you had. To better educate them, to give them more tools or skills to get high. No one ever said "I have a High School education, and I want my children to be ignorant. Even slaves wanted their children to be free. Even the poorwest man wanted to give their children more, even if it was the smallest thing. It is a common trait, it has been there from the beginning. The communist system goes against that. One of the first things that Marx wanted was to totally do away with anything you might gain from parents. All children raised by the state. It doesn't matter who the parents were, they are all the same and taught the same. It is a noble thought that we all start life equal. We would get equal educations and equal opportunaties. But it goes in direct conflict with our nature to better us and our immortality through our children.

Originally posted by GePap
So it is the safety of the whole that matters, not the needs of any indvdual when it ocxmes to crime, no?

Yes, laws protect the common good, but we give up the individual rights for that common good. It is because they protect us as individuals (and our family) that we except the limits they place on our behavior. When they no longer do so or we don't feel they do so we discontinue obeying them. Hence the fact that the majority ignore the speed limits, within reason. The same applies to the drug laws. The younger folks don't see the good for them in the drug laws. As they get older, nost tend to start seeing the good in them. Thus we get a conflict in our society over the good gained by them. We have some who ignore them totally and some who feel the users should be locked away for good. If it were simply a question of societal good, we wouldn't have the conflicts.

Originally posted by GePap
I have never said anything of the such whatsoever. The reason they have not advanced is not that they don't compete. How would comeptition help them at all? Being isolated and without refrigeration, ctacghing lots more fish is a waste of energy. What can't be eaten will be wasted, since they can't possibly trade it, if they are sufficiently isolated. At their economic level competition is counterproductive, not helpfull at all, since none of them have enough capital to get labor saving devices nor enough to hire fellows, and as I said, any surplus is wasted, and hence the manpower to get it was also a waste.

But the island was large enough that some of them could have caught extra fish and then freed up others to invent more advanced tools to farther multiply both the production and the comfort of all involved. Surely you don't think their was no need for better medicine? Or the need for better clothes? Sunscreen? A better boat? The fact is that they didn't. They had no motivation to go beyond what they had, no advancement beyond where they wree and no means to support it. Why? because there was no incentive to do so.

Originally posted by GePap Actually, the aim of communism is NOT the maximizing of efficiency to max out the output of wealth. Marx himself states that capitalism is the best system in doing so. The aim of communism is to end the alienattion of man in modern society. It is utopian, not merely utalitarian like capitalism, and the final aims is a mankind free to do whatever they want beyond the economic struggle.

I said nothing about either of them maximizing wealth. I said "It's purpose is the same as that for capitalism, to get the resources and goodsto where they are needed." Any system that can't get the goods and resources to where they are needed fails right off the bat. What capitalism has over communism is the reward that capitalism gives to get things done better (profit). There is no profit motive in communism. There is no drive to better yourself and your family. The system is built to stagnate. Just like the natives of Fiji. It will reach equlibrium and if anything changes to upset it to can not recover. It doesn't have the built in means or excess. We see a lot of those islands were people used to live but were gone, the Easter Islands as one example. The went out of balance and are now history.

[EDIT] Fixed the quotes.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I want to make another point. The "human nature" espoused by promulgated by capitalists does not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, researches found that greedeconomic rewards plays a very small part in motivating people.

those researchers are idiots. work around nething where lots of money is at stake and just see how motivated ppl get.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Actually there is evidence to support UR's claims.

After basic needs are met (rent, groceries, etc)

Rewards of money to workers usually yield a very short term positive response.

Monetary penalties or suspensions of pay OTOH have devastating effect on worker morale.

Its known to have a weak positive effect and a very strong negative effect.

Strong postive work place motivators include job challenge (advancement), Praise and recognition, anything that helps build a feeling of involvement and making a difference, in essence anything that helps build self worth.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I know I know its been covered before, But your explanation and slant on things is too confining. It is not necessarily from job loss etc. it speaks more towards feeling of self worth of which a host of contributing factors may be at fault. And we'll not rehash that discussion that you and Vel keep going over.

In any event I still maintain there is some subconscious trigger that gets people thinking of suicide once discussions of communism get going.

Why don't you show some statistics?

You guys really have blinders on. This debate is getting old.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Actually there is evidence to support UR's claims.

After basic needs are met (rent, groceries, etc)

Rewards of money to workers usually yield a very short term positive response.

Monetary penalties or suspensions of pay OTOH have devastating effect on worker morale.

Its known to have a weak positive effect and a very strong negative effect.

Strong postive work place motivators include job challenge (advancement), Praise and recognition, anything that helps build a feeling of involvement and making a difference, in essence anything that helps build self worth.

so u can pay someone ass if u praise them? doubtful. and if u told me u could pay me **** if u praised me I"d be insulted. my guess is u r working in the general minimum wage worker area. ppl who do have low self worth or who have no opportunity of advancement. ever think about ppl who really work w/ money variations like small business owners? when what you do really affects how much u make, especially if things like innovation are rewarded u can get some insanely motivated ppl.

[Kidlicious]

Communism doesn't require perfect people as one right winger put it. It only requires people to be rational. It does however condition peoples thinking just like capitalism, except instead of greed you get a greater willingness to cooperate.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Communism doesn't require perfect people as one right winger put it. It only requires people to be rational. It does however condition peoples thinking just like capitalism, except instead of greed you get a greater willingness to cooperate.

capitalism doesn't prohibit cooperation. communism prohibits greed. therein lies a problem. (shame on me for perpetuating a difference between cooperation and greed? oh well)

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by yavoon


so u can pay someone ass if u praise them? doubtful. and if u told me u could pay me **** if u praised me I"d be insulted. my guess is u r working in the general minimum wage worker area. ppl who do have low self worth or who have no opportunity of advancement. ever think about ppl who really work w/ money variations like small business owners? when what you do really affects how much u make, especially if things like innovation are rewarded u can get some insanely motivated ppl.

No your missing the point.

Pay rate is meaningful if it is considred a fair wage. Suppose market rate on a job is $50,000. You hire accordingly. The difference in a merit raise of 3% verses the difference of a merit raise of 7% on that person's productivity will be a weak effect. OTOH dock that person 5% pay and you damn sure will have a disgruntled employee. The net effect is you still have to treat people fairly and pay fairly otherwise the negative aspects of poor compensation come into play. (You as much indicate so with praise but don't pay comment that actually comes with two deletrious effects. The insult that you aren't paid enough and the overall feeling that praise wasn't genuine)

When it comes to rewards for innovation thats a different story because you've already set the ground work for an work atmosphere that encourages change, worker engangement in establishing work practices, and a reward system that builds self worth.

As for small business owners again a different stroy. Small business owners are in a almost self preservation mode wherein their stake in a business defines their actions. (no corporate safety net to hold onto.).

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


No your missing the point.

Pay rate is meaningful if it is considred a fair wage. Suppose market rate on a job is $50,000. You hire accordingly. The difference in a merit raise of 3% verses the difference of a merit raise of 7% on that person's productivity will be a weak effect. OTOH dock that person 5% pay and you damn sure will have a disgruntled employee. The net effect is you still have to treat people fairly and pay fairly otherwise the negative aspects of poor compensation come into play. (You as much indicate so with praise but don't pay comment that actually comes with two deletrious effects. The insult that you aren't paid enough and the overall feeling that praise wasn't genuine)

When it comes to rewards for innovation thats a different story because you've already set the ground work for an work atmosphere that encourages change, worker engangement in establishing work practices, and a reward system that builds self worth.

As for small business owners again a different stroy. Small business owners are in a almost self preservation mode wherein their stake in a business defines their actions. (no corporate safety net to hold onto.).

praise is only genuine if its backed w/ money anyway. otherwise its lipservice, and only the inanely stupid fall for that. if u have a 50,000 job and give someone a menial raise yes its unlikely that they will change. their environment/responsibility/attitude nothing else has changed. its just the human condition. that doesn't preclude money as a large motivator for where capitalism really works. businesses. when large fluctuations of money are at stake you really see how motivating it is.

u were right in saying the safety of the corporation and the anonimity of the beaurocracy provides a shield against capitalism. so you have to leave the minimum wage corporate sector. there u can see the real engine.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious




Why don't you show some statistics?

You guys really have blinders on. This debate is getting old.

I already said I'm not going into a rehash of what Vel already taught you.

Agreed it is old, so move on.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by yavoon


praise is only genuine if its backed w/ money anyway. otherwise its lipservice, and only the inanely stupid fall for that. if u have a 50,000 job and give someone a menial raise yes its unlikely that they will change. their environment/responsibility/attitude nothing else has changed. its just the human condition. that doesn't preclude money as a large motivator for where capitalism really works. businesses. when large fluctuations of money are at stake you really see how motivating it is.

Your talking large fluctuations of money. Which means that it takes lots of bucks to make an impact. Thats all I was saying before. It is a weak motivator. It's response coefficient is rather low. Most times it's more efficient to throw additional money at headcount than at individuals salary for improved productivity.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Your talking large fluctuations of money. Which means that it takes lots of bucks to make an impact. Thats all I was saying before. It is a weak motivator. It's response coefficient is rather low. Most times it's more efficient to throw additional money at headcount than at individuals salary for improved productivity.

the safety of a salary from a large corporation and the possiblity that ur job is menial to begin w/(how do u improve at being a teller really? even if u got a raise?). is not where the heart of capitalism is. so ur nearly comparing apples w/ oranges. it doesn't have to be a large amt, it just has to be subject to more effective competition. the ppl employed w/ salaries in large corporations are shielded from competition to a much larger extent then say small business owners. who are very exposed.

it is that mechanism which causes the motivation. because it discards the unmotivated(as well the unintelligent, unlucky, and irrational).

[monkspider]

Well I said I would comment on this thread, so for what it's worth, hear it goes.

As far as the question of human nature goes, the truth of the matter is that there is no human nature, that is, there are no biological tendencies that force humans to act this way or that way. Human nature is only what we make of it. It can be benevolent and understanding, or it can be hateful and greedy. So, you see, human nature does not necessarily favor communism or capitalism, it only favors the one that we choose. Capitalism has the advantage of being quicker, and more seductive. Communism, however, has the advantage of being our ultimate goal, our end point of sorts. Of course, when I say communism, I am not referring to any exact system but rather the abstract concept of humanity working towards the benefit of all, the philosophy of loving others as yourself, or even more than yourself.

Once you see "the real world", everything about capitalism seems so illogical, so against the grain of everything. It cracks me up. People just get so immersed in the system, so dependent on it, that they become blinded to what they should really be doing. It's a tragedy of epic proportions, but fortunately even those who most adamantly disagree with this "idealist nonsense" will discover the truth themselves within the years to come. There are certain things that will transpire that will help steer it toward a better world. Exciting times, indeed. Hopefully Apolyton will still be here.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Yes we are talking apples and oranges. I am talking primarily to those folks the commies are trying to endear themsleves to. And to those blue collar and white collar corps. the above applies.

I agree that small business owners and folks with much more vested interests in a business success act in much more passioned ways, but again the individual (in most circumstances) at this point has tied his sense of worth to the success of the business hence his passion about its success (i.e. it's money making ability).

Regardless, I agree that the communist system does not reconcile either the need to succeed through competition nor the need to achieve individual self worth.