How do you raise a child to be a Good Communist?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You raised an interesting point though Ogie. You could also assume that people are primarily concerned with equality as opposed to individual economic benefit, however I think that whether or not you prefer inequality to equality depends on how much economic benefit the individual will get from any particular system with inequality. Poor people in a system with inequality will be more inclined to prefer equality, and rich people in a system with inequality will be more inclined to prefer inequality. However, in a system with equality I'm certain that the vast majority of people will prefer equality, because when you seperate equality from economics it is in itself desirable where inequality is not.

Your beginning to understand the conservative morality here. When you describe equality it is a philosophy we agree to. But where we part ways is how that equality is defined/approtioned etc.

Equality to us means an equal chance. No one is due anything except for that equal chance. (Now you may argue, appropriately so, that under capitalism and through its failings that equal chances are impossible). Further a conservative thinks the best means to be fair is to give as much opportunity as possible and not restrict those chances to win. So by luck, shear determination, sweat and tears one can win and deserves to do so. It is largely a matter of individual responsibility to make it happen.

So we do have our notions of equality and do agree that is is a mandate it is our perceptions of what equality is tho' that differs.

In as much as we ascribe to this view, anything that prevents indivudal opportunities or removes the individual from his freedom to make those decisions is in our minds the largest infringment on equality of choices as those who have the potential to do more are prevented from doing so in the name of equality for the whole.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hunter-gatherers have existed in historical times, and even exist today, you know.

Dictatorships have a longer span, and hunter-gatherer societies had a least some minimal heirarchies (which may be have been based on strength of the members).

[Ramo]

Hunter-gatherer societies have been stable for many thousands of years (which is much more than you can say for dictatorships). And were the most egalitarian of just about any human society (and no, the hierarchies were very rarely based on physical strength).

[Ramo]

A lot of people get caught up in the math. Economics doesn't always work out perfectly in math, because of the nonscience nature of it. Much of it must be discovered dialectically, and economists have to know when the math doesn't help. All this is determined unfortunately by ones ideological bias, and more conservative people usually come to the wrong conclusions because they were more concerned with the math that the reasonability of the problem and solution.

That's because a lot of economists still hold onto the the fantasy that macro is more than a bunch of half-assed generalizations about massively nonlinear systems. Micro is really the only valid facet of econ, and as long as the scope is reasonable, mathematical modelling can be effective.

[General Ludd]

I'm not... I 100% contradicted your point.. and you're dead wrong

Hum. let's see... I said that you can't say a species is capable of developing technology untill it already has. And you said that once a species has developed technology, it's safe to say it's capable of doing so.

Where's the contradiction?

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by General Ludd
So are monkeys.

Not to the extent that any humans are... not to the point of making spears and stuff.

So it has to be a specific kind of tool?

What are the qualifications... being human-made?

Monkeys do use specialized tools adapted to specialized taskes. They'll manipulate twigs and grass to create a tool that's suitable for fishing out termites from a mound, for instance.

They use spears and axes, don't they? QED.

I think some of them might even have ak-47s these days, now that I think about.

And yet they haven't followed their predicable evolutionary path and insist on remaining hunter gatherers.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
So it has to be a specific kind of tool?

What are the qualifications... being human-made?

Monkeys do use specialized tools adapted to specialized taskes. They'll manipulate twigs and grass to create a tool that's suitable for fishing out termites from a mound, for instance.

They bend natural items and stuff to create tools. Humans worked stone and stuff. There actually is a definition of "tool" that evolutionary biologists use when talking about these things (it was part of a big debate). Rest assured, there is a qualitative difference between human tools and other primates' "tools".

I think some of them might even have ak-47s these days, now that I think about.

And yet they haven't followed their predicable evolutionary path and insist on remaining hunter gatherers.

Not evolutionary, societal. And you know what? The reason is because the societies that survive are the ones that do change. Every other one dies out, eventually.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

HUnter Gatherers had little time for socio-political heirarchies as they were bent on survival and following game.

That being said there was ususally some form of leadership that established when the time to move was required.

Once societies were formed that wer more or less stationary (i.e. agriculture) then the fun began. War against neighboring societies slave raiding etc.

Lots of good stuff in the mid-east and in south america prehistory. Man always had the urge when time permitted to dominate the neighboring tribes steal possession and the like.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I said that you can't say a species is capable of developing technology untill it already has. And you said that once a species has developed technology, it's safe to say it's capable of doing so.

No, you said that you can't say a group of a species is capable of developing technology if another group of the species has.

Remember what you were saying about the African bushmen?

[PeteH]

You haven't contradicted my point yet... if it is detrimental to us, we shouldn't do it, otherwise it's an a-OK.

Earlier, you said:

Us becoming this way is a predictable result of the evolution of intelligence! In fact, it's probably one of the biggest reason intelligence was so evolutionarily successful!

The point I have been trying to make is that 'this way' is *not* successful. In fact, it is as near a total failure as I can imagine. In an evolutionary time frame, civilization is an experiment (or mutation if you prefer)by one group which will collapse like other failed mutations.

The fact that there have been thousands of groups of equally bright humans who did not take this path (and were exterminated because they dared stand in our way) seems to me to be a good indicator that this was in no way an 'inevitable path' and if you are really concerned about the well being of other humans, you would do well to learn how to improve your landbase instead of destroying it for your short-term benefit

[Kuciwalker]

Hmmm... I think that we qualify as "successful" right now, only slightly less so than bacteria.

We're the only ones with a chance of getting off this rock.

[General Ludd]

Remember what you were saying about the African bushmen?

I didn't say anything about the bushmen. I was just asking why they haven't followed the human destiny.

I was worried that maybe they'd been left behind and where still proto-humans.

[PeteH]

HUnter Gatherers had little time for socio-political heirarchies as they were bent on survival and following game.

Actually, they spent far less energy acquiring food than a farmer ever did, and had much in the way of leisure time. this has been known in anthropological circles since at least the 50's. There is a collection of essays that escapes me right now, published in the last few years, which contains "The original Affluent Society" and other more recent work relating to it

Lots of good stuff in the mid-east and in south america prehistory. Man always had the urge when time permitted to dominate the neighboring tribes steal possession and the like.

This again is a mischaracterization of what was the more common general practice. The raiding and warfare of pre-civlized groups has very little resemblence to the warfare of settled agrarian society.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I was just asking why they haven't followed the destiny of humanity.

I was worried that maybe they'd been left behind and where still proto-humans.

You contradict yourself. They are of the same species and thus have the same capabilities of other members of the species. Simply because they haven't done it yet, doesn't mean they not capable.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by PeteH


Actually, they spent far less energy acquiring food than a farmer ever did, and had much in the way of leisure time. this has been known in anthropological circles since at least the 50's. There is a collection of essays that escapes me right now, published in the last few years, which contains "The original Affluent Society" and other more recent work relating to it

Yeah I've read it as well. Not that I agreee with it. The more appropriate near day records tho' are of native americans. In those, the Indians were nomadic and did indeed have to endure elements and famine until such time as game could be found. If and when game was not to be found it was hard times immediately. Feast or famine as it were. Hence the reason agriculture become envogue. Granary anyone?

This again is a mischaracterization of what was the more common general practice. The raiding and warfare of pre-civlized groups has very little resemblence to the warfare of settled agrarian society.

Only to the extent that societies typically didn't bump into each other. As soon as they did to any meaningful exten watch the fun.

[General Ludd]

You contradict yourself. They are of the same species and thus have the same capabilities of other members of the species. Simply because they haven't done it yet, doesn't mean they not capable.

I didn't say that they wheren't capable or not a member of the species, or whatever.

Jesus, if you're still stuck on my saying 'First of all, you can't say something is capable of developing technology untill it has." I was just correcting the logic-loop in Kucinich's poor definition of intelligence.