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

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Agathon
I've grown tired of being polite. The political right are simply immoral. They pretend they aren't, and hide behind arrguments about economic means, but they are, wittingly or no, at odds with basic human decency.

Not that they care.

Actually that again is the left. In this world, you either support capitalism, or you support a wrong non-functional system which you call communism. Communism is the opposite of prosperity, self-respect and decency.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd



Then why is it the first and only time it has happened in the history of the universe (as we know it)?


EDIT: Oh, are you a creationist?

I'm an atheist. And the reason it isn't an anomaly is the same as the reason the sun going nova isn't an "anomaly" - it is a natural stage in the progression of mankind (or in the case of the sun, stars).

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Actually that again is the left. In this world, you either support capitalism, or you support a wrong non-functional system which you call communism. Communism is the opposite of prosperity, self-respect and decency.

Gian, this is Agathon we're talking about. He makes his living off of dead, out-moded systems of thought, so it stands to reason that he's a Communist... and an angry one at that. So, why bother?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
When you look at Marx's writings, it is clear he doesn't advocate a society where we are like bees or cogs in a machine. He wants to create a society where every person is able to develop all aspects of themselves to the utmost. But capitalism requires min-maxing (to use game terms). This is most efficient in a society that is geared towards winning. But it makes for being a very poor and anti-social human being otherwise.

What's the matter with that, though? Those who care enough about gaining wealth, and are capable of doing so, will. Those who don't or aren't won't.

[Arrian]

Trite answer: the same way we raise them to be anything: indoctrination, with the threat of punishment.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The history of humans for >99% if their existance, is nothing like you assume 'human nature' to be.

A majority of human existance has been under some form of dictatorship. So I think the point about human nature stands.

So you agree with his point, or not?

To nitpick, in human bands there are no dictators.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich


What's the matter with that, though? Those who care enough about gaining wealth, and are capable of doing so, will. Those who don't or aren't won't.

Since society defines wealth, I say we just change the definiton and screw all those who spent their whole lives accruing now worthless things! That would be sucha fun game!

IF wealth and political power could be sepaarted fully, I would have no problem with people playing the game of monopoly real-life style at all-but money and politics are one-and hence this is a problem.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you agree with his point, or not?

I don't.

To nitpick, in human bands there are no dictators.

Yet in tribes with a chief, the chief is close enough to one.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich


I'm an atheist. And the reason it isn't an anomaly is the same as the reason the sun going nova isn't an "anomaly"

Suns go nova all the time.

it is a natural stage in the progression of mankind (or in the case of the sun, stars).

But this is a one of a kind event.

If it is a natual stage why are we the only species to have gone through it? Because it's an anomaly - an unusual occorance, a break from the rule.


Unless you believe humans are seperate from all other life and have some sort of pre-determined 'evolutionary' destiny. In which case, I really don't think you're an athiest.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Unless you believe humans are above all other life and have some sort of pre-determined 'evolutionary' destiny. In which case, I really don't think you're an athiest.

If he believed that, he would still be an atheist. That sounds something like Secular Humanism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yet in tribes with a chief, the chief is close enough to one.

Depends. In many Amerind bands, the chief was no more than a wise advisor. Free to be ignored. Among the Seneca, they could even be impeached by the women. Not to say this was a universal or necessarily the norm. Among African bands, chiefs seemed to weild considerable authority.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yet in tribes with a chief, the chief is close enough to one.

Tribes are much bigger, and unlikely to have existed for much of human existence. so as I said, no dictators in bands, and bands made up the mayority of human existence.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by General Ludd
If it is a natual stage why are we the only species to have gone through it? Because it's an anomaly - an unusual occorance, a break from the rule.

As a Marxist, I have to agree with young Skywalker. It is a natural stage of human progress. It is not the only stage, nor is it a necessary stage, but it is a natural stage, in that it is something that evolved out of human relations. It is the societal equivalent of being a teenager.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Unless you believe humans are above all other life and have some sort of pre-determined 'evolutionary' destiny. In which case, I really don't think you're an athiest.

If he believed that, he would still be an atheist. That sounds something like Secular Humanism.

I don't understand how someone could believe humans to be some sort of "chosen ones" and have a pre-determined path to follow without believing in some sort of god. Although i could see it being a 'religon of arrogance' where they believe themselves to be gods.

Although, if that's the case, I I still don't see how they could accept evolution - the notion that a species has a pretermined path contradicts everything about it

[General Ludd]

EDIT: er, nevermind.