Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
And you're so caught up in your prejudice that you make assumptions about what we do and don't know.

Extolling the virtues of altruism does not address the argument that it is a delusion... and the question of whether or not altruism is not a delusion has great importance in the issue of communism and capitalism, since both would depend upon human nature. It is that nature that we are attempting to describe. And we can, and do, get far .

Welcome to the Real World ©.

No no no. I'm not judging you at all. You are judging others. You say that they only help others when it helps themselves. I'm sure that billions of people make the same claims, but you say they are just delusional. You are judging.

[Whaleboy]

I'm not judging others, at least I'm not prescribing them, I'm merely describing them, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that so the "judge not lest ye be judged" mentality is also irrelevant.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I'm not judging others, at least I'm not prescribing them, I'm merely describing them, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that so the "judge not lest ye be judged" mentality is also irrelevant.

There isn't anything wrong with it. It's natural for some people. The thing is that each individual is only a part of the universe. You are not equal to the universe by any means.

Believe it or not I actually thought a lot more like you once. I only believed what I had seen for myself and what I figured myself. Experience in life has shown me that there is truth outside of myself. Everyone in the world isn't just trying to bull**** me.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Sounds like Chile under Pinochet. Or China today.

What it sounds like is communism.

[Berzerker]

che

Both Ireland and India were and are capitalist countries. The famines occured within capitalists systems. In fact, in Ireland, even during the worst of the famine, the Irish landlords were exporting food to England for sale.

Exporting food was British policy, not free peoples exchanging goods. The Brits ordered American colonists to produce and "sell" certain things too, one of the reasons for the Revolution. Ireland (and India) was a caste system, and caste systems are typically employed or manipulated to govern. Not surprisingly, Britain was still suffering from a caste system imposed by earlier invaders.

India, while it had massive state interference, was a capitalist economy, where the majority of production in that country was made to be sold, not used by its makers. That is the hallmark of capitalism, and what seperates it from all other economic systems.

Sheesh! You mean socialism or communism requires I use what I make? I'd be living in a cave sharpening sticks to kill animals for food... Forget it, che, that massive state interference is called "central planning", not capitalism. Even now India is near the bottom of the economic freedom index, below even China, and it was even worse in the 80's. Just because India isn't communist doesn't mean its capitalist...

Of course, with the libertarian BS definitions of socialism and capitalism, which no one other than members of your deluded sect accept, you'll simply disagree.

It ain't capitalism when politicians or royalty are deciding if you can have land, what you can do with it, and what happens to your labor and production. As for bogus definitions, you're equating capitalism with castes and that's just ridiculous...

[Dis]

it would be nice if we could have a real communist society. But it's just impossible to implement. This is why I chide Commies so much. Don't take it personally. It's just silly to support an ideology that doesn't work. If it could work, I would support it. Capitalism disgusts me, but it's the best system out there.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
But has to sacrifice logical consistency to do it, as well as go against human nature which adds instability.

What logical inconsistency?

[Whaleboy]

What logical inconsistency?

Altruism

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dissident
it would be nice if we could have a real communist society. But it's just impossible to implement. This is why I chide Commies so much. Don't take it personally. It's just silly to support an ideology that doesn't work. If it could work, I would support it. Capitalism disgusts me, but it's the best system out there.

Nah, its just the current kid on the block. Capitalism hasn't been around as long asFeudalism. Heck, at the pace we are going, capitalism will be lucky to last as long as Feudalism.

One can have a free barter market- that has nothing to do with capitalism. In fact Capitalism was built with a lot of constraints on markets.

[Berzerker]

For eons people practiced "capitalism" without alot of those constraints. But how does one have a free barter market and have nothing to do with capitalism? A free barter market assumes people are free to exchange what they own with others.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I believe I did.

How about once again, in less opaque terms? Sometimes it's really hard to figure out what you are trying to say because you just weave all over the place.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
As I said earlier, you need to get away from this notion of conscious thought.

No conscious thought = no logic

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I am dealing with a more basic side, of course consciously we dress things up and dilude ourselves... love, altruism and the rest of it but to consistently bring it into your argument is to fudge the question.

You are saying that love and altruism do not orginate from the subconscious? I mean, you don't need to think through it to fall in love with somebody, it's just hormones surging around in your body.

Besides, who's to say egoism is more basic than love? Without love the species is dead, at least for K-strategists.

BTW, the word you are looking for is "delude."

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Further to your confusion of conscious and subconscious is your confusion of individual instincts and evolutionary instincts.

How do you distinguish "evolutionary instincts" (whatever those are) from individual instincts? I posit that is impossible.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
To what end are they respectively performed? Does it make sense for an individual to have a sex drive except in the context of evolutionary instinct?

As I said, what is "evolutionary instinct" and how is it different from "individual instinct?"

As for your question, you may know that there are some species that have sex other than for making babies, with Homo Sapien Sapien being one of them.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Consider this piece: http://salmonriver.com/commentary/ca...nourgenes.html and what I said earlier about us having evolved for social behaviour, but it is still in our self-interest as a species, even though (again as I said earlier) there may not be any discernable material gain to the subject (rushing into the burning car to save a stranger).

Wait a minute here, you are moving the goal post. You used to say that individuals can't be really altruistic because of egoism, but you are now claiming that self-interest is for the species. Are you admitting that individuals can be altruistic, i.e. placing the welfare of others above one's own?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Draw the line between the individuals behaviour and that to propagate the species. Can't be done imo.

What about religious fanatics such as suicide bombers? How do they relate to this propagation of the species?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I do not agree that survival is a fundamental instinct, I agree that egoism is the fundamental "instinct", or at least a consequential function of the fact that our brains obey the laws of physics, upon which instincts are premised relative to the appropriate context, i.e. survival can be put on the shelf WRT the burning car.

If the survivial of the individual is not the most fundamental instinct, on what is this so called "egoism" based? How does this make somebody willing to die?

At any rate, what you submitted is not observed in nature. Any animal strives to survive: to find food, to fight back when cornered, and to find a mate when the time comes.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Logical behaviour for the propagation of the species.

Propagation of the species is not benefitted by individuals dying. It is better served by individuals surviving and creating offspring.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Needless to say the human factor, and that our nurture can sometimes distort our psychological nature means that such actions are performed arbitrarily... i.e. it's conceivable that someone could give his life to save a stranger who is a post-menopausal woman (IOW someone of limited evolutionary value).

So you are saying that you can't explain how behaviour occur because of egoism, but you are positing it as the primary motivating factor?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Egoism is here simply the premise for all of our actions because we can only perceive through a given set of senses that feed into our brains, it is our minds that think and our individual subconscious' that process information and act instinctively, so there is something always rooted in us whenever we take what may appear as the most selfless action.

On what level does "self" appear? It appears that only humans and perhaps a few other species have the ability to recognise the self, yet the survival instinct is there in all animals. Therefore, it seems that the claim that seemingly altruistic actions are based on egoism does not have basis in fact.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
(From Websters)
Main Entry: ego·ism
Pronunciation: 'E-g&-"wi-z&m also 'e-
Function: noun
1 a : a doctrine that individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action b : a doctrine that individual self-interest is the valid end of all actions
2 : excessive concern for oneself with or without exaggerated feelings of self-importance -- compare EGOTISM 2

This appears to be in conflict with your assertion above, i.e., "self" insterest is for the survival of the species. Note the "individual" in definition [1].

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
For eons people practiced "capitalism" without alot of those constraints.

Your definition of "capitalism" is very strange.

[Berzerker]

Capitalism - An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

A fancy way of saying people free to exchange their goods.

an economic system based on private ownership of capital [syn: capitalist economy] [ant: socialism]

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Capitalism - An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Corporations are very new devices (only about 400 years old), and what you speak of needs currency to even be a possiblity, and currency itself was invented about 3000 years ago tops.

A fancy way of saying people free to exchange their goods.

A, NO, its not just that. There is a massive difference between a capitalist and an indentured farmer capable of going to market to trade his chicken for a hammer.

an economic system based on private ownership of capital [syn: capitalist economy] [ant: socialism]

So for capitalism you need the concept of capital, and that concept is relatively current in the history of man.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dissident
it would be nice if we could have a real communist society. But it's just impossible to implement. This is why I chide Commies so much. Don't take it personally. It's just silly to support an ideology that doesn't work. If it could work, I would support it. Capitalism disgusts me, but it's the best system out there.

Dissident, real? Even the commies here admit that communism is slavery. What is attractive about being a slave?