On human nature-the end of capitalism-communism

[Kidlicious]

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

Huh?

[Kramerman]

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.

I see. I galnced over the arguements about wheich is more natural earlier in the thread. I think it is really hard to make a case for either. For me, the concept that an economic system might be more 'natural' is kinda crazy. The only economic system that comes natural to humans is an economic system. As i learned in sociology, humans spend their lives performing exchanges, sometime material, sometime intangible, but always exchanging something (money, love, affection, gifts, etc). This is what comes natural to humans, not specifically how they go about exchanging...

[Kidlicious]

Nice post Kramerman.

[Berzerker]

Kramerman -

For me, the concept that an economic system might be more 'natural' is kinda crazy. The only economic system that comes natural to humans is an economic system. As i learned in sociology, humans spend their lives performing exchanges, sometime material, sometime intangible, but always exchanging something (money, love, affection, gifts, etc). This is what comes natural to humans, not specifically how they go about exchanging...

So if a communist came up to you and demanded you hand over your stuff to enrich his group, regardless of his rationalisations about "communism" and what he will allocate to you as a new member of the collective, you'd comply because how we exchange goods doesn't matter? Freedom is natural, and the freedom of association is natural - these are why capitalism is natural.

Kid -

Huh?

You agreed that communism requires a wealthy society. Why not poor societies? If capitalism can create the greatest economy from an agrarian system (as it did in the USA), why didn't communism produce the same? What is it about a wealthy society that creates the right environment for communism to blossom? Nothing! Communism will only last a while longer before central planning does what it always does, increase inefficiency to the point of implosion.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Communism will only last a while longer before central planning does what it always does, increase inefficiency to the point of implosion.

Is this right? You think that the poor countries who used central planning went backwards from where they were with a market system?

[Berzerker]

Is this right? You think that the poor countries who used central planning went backwards from where they were with a market system?

Is there something wrong with I wrote? I'm not sure why you needed to change what I said. No, I think they failed within a few decades thereby refuting your argument that communism is more stable than capitalism. I'm not the one who said poor countries are not suitable for communism. As for these "backward" systems with a market economy, specifics? It's no coincidence that the west got so far out in front of everyone as capitalism became the dominant system. Now, can you answer my questions?

[Sikander]

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.

So you're planning on building upon our success at keeping people from smoking, drinking, doing drugs, beating their children, screwing their children, etc. ad nauseum to build your communist state. Your own words, "It only requires people to be rational." You might have added that it also requires them to share an idea of what exactly is rational.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious

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

Sarcastically says the guy who is arguing for communism in the 21st century.

[Meldor]

Originally posted by GePap
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.

We go in circles on this one. You are now agrueing what I stated to start with. That they reached an equalibrium, either naturally or not and their society and culture stagnated. Even if that stagnation was a healthy choice or not, they did indeed stagnate. And left to themselves would have eventually died out when a disaster struck that their society was unequiped to handle. What would have happened if a new bug came on the island that took out most of the trees. They had nothing in place to prevent the loss of needed raw materials. They had not looked for any alternatives. They had no incentive to do so. That some societies and cultures burn out is natural. It is social evolution much as we ahve natural selection. There has to be a drive and some have too much drive , some have too little. Balance is needed as in everything. Communism doesn't seek balance, it seeks an extreme. Capitalism is self balancing. If one person accumulates too mush wealth. His children and grandchildren will spend it. Even if it is put into trusts to protect it from idiots, eventually it will have more decendants attempting to live off of it than it can support. The people entittled will increase exponentially, the money won't.

Originally posted by GePap 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.

I never said that humans and animals don't use co-operation, my statement is to what the drive behind it would be. No individual is going to co-operate unless it advances that individuals cause. Wolves developed pack behavior but not at the expense of the benefit to the individual. Each wolf still retains the desire to be the top dog, for it is the top dog that gets to eat the best parts of the kill, mate with the best mates and determine where to go and how long to stay. you seem to gbe argueing that co-operation somehow negates the drive of the individual, that just isn't true. As I say here and I said earlier, man and other animals co-operate so as to extend the benefits and advance their individual cause, even through the group.

Originally posted by GePap 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.

Sorry, this was made very clear. You may try and make it sound as innocent as you like but it was and is still espoused as the forced brainwashing of the masses. Sort of like what Hitler did. Like what the Russians did, what Castro has tried to do. Understand, I am not trying to say that capitalism is any more natural than communism in its pure form. We don't have a pure form of anything. We aren't a pure democracy, no mater how much we say it. We aren't a pure republic either. What we have is a mixture of what works. The current system, based loosely on what we term capitalism developed naturally. In some form or another it has existed throughout time. Anytime one person gets an excess, they try to trade it to someone else for something they need. They also try to get the best trade they can. No matter what you call that, it is our nature. Communism in it base goes against that nature.

Originally posted by GePap
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"

Sorry, but even your wolves are territorial. Even your wolves have an instinctual concept of property. A give piece of land is theirs. Even your ancient hunter-gathers had these concepts. You want to make rights an intellectual invention. That isn't what "natural rights" are, they are the basic rights of the individual which are part of our very nature. Just because they may not have been waxed poetic over until later doesn't mean they weren't there. That is what the whole concept of natural rights is about. One other example, if you are standing on the street by yourself, and a person comes up and stand right next to you. almost touching but not quite. You will either tell them to back away (if you are felling agressive) or you will move away from them (if you are feeling more polite). That person just "invaded your space". Violated your right to a comfort zone, the idea that you "own" the space in a certain area around your body. We have had that long before there was any law on harrassment.

Originally posted by GePap
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.

Sorry, I don't buy it. While Cuba would have benefitted greatly by the hard cash America could provide, it would have been because Cuba was dealing with America in capitalistic ways. That whole barter for profit thing. Cuba, as a communist nation was supposed to be able to feed itself first (They ruined and destroyed what agriculture they had), then it was to worry about the other things like trade. And Cuba has been trading with the other countries the whole time. Even with the outright cash support coming from Russia, they could not make a go of it. The reason you keep trying to say it was the lack of American trade that made Cuba sink is because America was so successful. Other countries had the same markets. One example, most of the sugar used in America used to be raised and refined in Cuba. It was the major industry. Cuba revolted and the trade stops. What does America do? It starts raising its own sugar cane and repoaces the lost industry. It even inovates new sources of sugars and to top that creates artificial sweetners. The hundreds of millions of dollars that used to be the Cuban sugar industry now goes to those that can do it better and more efficiently. What happened in Cuba? They people that ran the industry were either killed or they fled the country. People were out in charge who had no idea how to run it, but were higher up in the revolution. Instead of keeping the production going, and switching the produce to other markets, such as mexico and South/Central America (which by the way, the shipping cost would be any higher), they "re-educated" the workers to produce food stuff poorly. The farms in Cuba are massive failure. They not only no longer have the sugar to export like they used to but they can't even feed themselves. They are backward in every way. This isn't the fault of America, it is the fault of Cuba and its bankrupt system. But, like the good folks in Hollywood that want to idolize Castro. Keep turning your blind eye to the system there. Funny, but we don't have a problem with people trying to escape from Miami and get to Cuba on rafts. The fact that someone would send their children on a rickety raft, with the string likelyhood of death, just to get out of Cuba, speaks more than your words can ever say.

[Az]

I thought that stagnation means lack of change? That's not what happened on Easter Island.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sikander
You might have added that it also requires them to share an idea of what exactly is rational.

There's only one rational. You might like to say you will choose the gulag, but I doubt it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Is there something wrong with I wrote? I'm not sure why you needed to change what I said. No, I think they failed within a few decades thereby refuting your argument that communism is more stable than capitalism. I'm not the one who said poor countries are not suitable for communism. As for these "backward" systems with a market economy, specifics? It's no coincidence that the west got so far out in front of everyone as capitalism became the dominant system. Now, can you answer my questions?

There's no increased inefficiency like you say. The economies were already inefficient. You want to keep comparing apples to oranges and I just can't do it.

[GePap]

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...

It requires a very rich society becuse to be able to fully porvide for epoples needs and the resources to allow them to do even more, you do need much wealth. Think of what Diss said, that you need money to play. In a sense, you do.

There is a reason why (this may sound far off, but it is a good example), somehting like the Federation in Trek is communist. Given the fact that resources are basically infinite, what is the point of the market? Anything you want, you get instantly, created by a machine (no exploitation anywhere) at the tiome of your choosing. And sicne your access to information is alsmot limitless also, you can instantly know what is the best thing for whatever you want to do at such times, and thus have it. At such a level, capitalism makes little sense at all.

[GePap]

Even if that stagnation was a healthy choice or not, they did indeed stagnate. And left to themselves would have eventually died out when a disaster struck that their society was unequiped to handle. What would have happened if a new bug came on the island that took out most of the trees. They had nothing in place to prevent the loss of needed raw materials. They had not looked for any alternatives.

And they simply could not have gotten to such a position as to prevent it. You seem to think that somehow they coudl start a medical industry on this little Island, if only they were capitalists..nonsense. It taes a certaint amount of resources to do somehting. if you do not have those resources, YOU CAN NOT DO IT, PERIOD. Peoples on small isolated islands do not have the resources base to get very far, no matter what their ideology or drive. You also ignore the fact that ceratinly peoples on those islands have plenty of internal drive, like any other peoles. Unless you tell me they do nothing for excitment and just stay home. There are more than one way to channel your drive than to try to become wealthy.

As I say here and I said earlier, man and other animals co-operate so as to extend the benefits and advance their individual cause, even through the group.

Their individual cause make sense only in the group. There is no point of being "top dog" outside of the group, for if there are no other wolves, then being at the top or bottom are meaningless notions. The group your are in sets the parameters of what "top" means, not the toher way around.

Sorry, this was made very clear. You may try and make it sound as innocent as you like but it was and is still espoused as the forced brainwashing of the masses

Sorry, it was NOT. I would like you to find me, and quote, where excatcly, when Lenin spoke about the revolutionary vanguard, does he say: "brainwashing". Go look, you won't find it. Brainwashing is a loaded term, which you use with loaded meaning. I personally don;t care to use your loaded meanings, for I think they are of little use in real debate.

The current system, based loosely on what we term capitalism developed naturally.

No such thing as "natural development" of human systems. Capitalism as it exist today is the result of the work of thinkers and philosophers and economists, just as communism was. Had those ideas not come up, there would be no capitalist system in the world. If sucha development were "natural" it would be universal accross man kind. I isn't.

Sorry, but even your wolves are territorial. Even your wolves have an instinctual concept of property. A give piece of land is theirs. Even your ancient hunter-gathers had these concepts. You want to make rights an intellectual invention. That isn't what "natural rights" are, they are the basic rights of the individual which are part of our very nature.

There are no rights in nature. Wolves may feel and act, as a group, that an area is theirs, but if they are weak, they lose it. Nature grants you no such things as rights,. You have no right to keep anything, to live, to eat, if you are not strong enough to get it and keep it for yourself. A right is a privalege, and nature does not give privaleges.

Just because they may not have been waxed poetic over until later doesn't mean they weren't there. That is what the whole concept of natural rights is about. One other example, if you are standing on the street by yourself, and a person comes up and stand right next to you. almost touching but not quite. You will either tell them to back away (if you are felling agressive) or you will move away from them (if you are feeling more polite). That person just "invaded your space". Violated your right to a comfort zone, the idea that you "own" the space in a certain area around your body. We have had that long before there was any law on harrassment.

Personal space is not property rights. You feel a notion of personal space even in public property. It does not actually mean you own it. And the use of that feeling is for protection (something that close in nature is likely to be there to ingest you).
capitalism is built on a complex notion of property laws, a human invention. as of yet, you have given no arguemnt that such property laws are inherently human. Nor could you really.

On your rant about Cuba: you failed to answer the question of why Latin America would be a better market for Cuba than the US, speically given the fact that when Cuba was 'so well run" as you claim it was pre-1959 (hmm, I wonder why there was a general revolution there if it was?) the US was it's biggest (by far, far) market for all Cuban producst and goods, when Cuba had the ability to trade with anyone else as well.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
On your rant about Cuba: you failed to answer the question of why Latin America would be a better market for Cuba than the US, speically given the fact that when Cuba was 'so well run" as you claim it was pre-1959 (hmm, I wonder why there was a general revolution there if it was?) the US was it's biggest (by far, far) market for all Cuban producst and goods, when Cuba had the ability to trade with anyone else as well.

Yeah, revolutions always occur when things are going great.