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

[Ned]

Commies: capitalism is equivalent to freedom. Communism is slavery, oppression and death of the soul. Communists always try to divert attention by remarking on the differences in wealth in free societies. But to gain economic equality, communism strips all of freedom. Not only does one have universal slavery, one also has universal oppression in communist societies.

[Urban Ranger]

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.

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

Not quite. People in ancient societies were also free to exchange their goods, e.g. China. Would you say, hm, the Qin Dynasty was capitalistic?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
Commies: capitalism is equivalent to freedom. Communism is slavery, oppression and death of the soul. Communists always try to divert attention by remarking on the differences in wealth in free societies. But to gain economic equality, communism strips all of freedom. Not only does one have universal slavery, one also has universal oppression in communist societies.

Thus decreed the Voice from Nedaverse.

[Ned]

Urban, the singular thing about communists is that they will never admit the truth and never fail to lie.

[Ted Striker]

You mean like telling the world you are sure Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?

[notyoueither]

No, that's the singular thing about Ted Striker.

[Whaleboy]

No conscious thought = no logic

Ummm wtf? How is that even possible if you accept unconscious thought, how can it operate on anything other than logic?

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.

Read harder.

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.

No I am not saying that, different things work on different levels in our minds, you're thinking about it in very black and white terms which as you may or may not be aware of, doesn't actually work in real life. Our consciousness merely takes things about us and dresses them up, it is our consciousness that takes something in us (predicated by egoism) and turns it into a delusion.

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

No-one is denying love, with K-selection theory it is unaffected, as is any feelings of love we might ordinarily have... why? Because as I have said two or three times before, my argument is descriptive and not prescriptive. Love is a delusion but for those willing/able to be deluded, it becomes their reality.

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

If you had read my argument then you would know that that is precisely my contention re. your earlier point . Your logic would predict a difference in individual behaviour and evolutionary behaviour.

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?

No because I'm not distinguishing between the individual and the species. Are you asking me if egoism directly refutes the proposition "humans feel altruistic", then no. Egoism refutes the notion that "humans are altruistic", in other words we take actions we feel to be altruistic but aren't. Why we feel that? See ahead...

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

Our potential is in our nature and we are actualised in different ways by our nurture. Life twists us, actions taken for us as individuals/species don't always have that consequence, but this is not a consequential argument. I suspect that same statement will apply for any of the numerous examples you resort to bringing into this debate, without actually addressing what I've said.

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?

A postulation is sex and power (species, individual, where one comprises the other, i.e. sex = power, power = sex). Which leads nicely to...

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.

Yes, where that is contextually called for. All my argument is saying is that survival is not absolutely fundamental, since contexts can and do present themselves for certain lifeforms whereby survival is put at risk for other things, and I am saying that the sex-power equation applies throughout.

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

If you die to save a thousand of each gender of breeding age, I should think that death benefiting the species.

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?

No-one who proposes either egoism or altruism can take that as his premise and then construct a deterministic model of human nature. I am illustrating that this is not a consequential argument, i.e., we take actions with an egoistic intent (subconscious) but the consequences is left to a throw of the dice so to speak.

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.

Egoism transcends the self for the simple reason that the notion of "self" is relative to other people. Perhaps in that light it is best that this be described as lifeform-centric behaviour but that's just semantics. Though of course egoism means "I", hence subconscious when conscious or ego exists, perhaps we should continue using that term for the sake of expedience.

"self" insterest is for the survival of the species.

But you assume there to be a difference there.

"self" insterest is for the survival of the species. Note the "individual" in definition [1].

I'm using definition 1b. Dictionaries publish the vaguest definitions, or multiple variances, in debates like these it is crucial to be precise hence a specific exploration of a given term.

Now you have failed to answer my key question of you. How can a logical machine such as the brain *not* act upon its own premise and for its own interest in the sense that I use it here? How can it possibly act upon a purely external stimulus?

[Kidlicious]

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

No Ned. We are just ignoring your statement.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Now you have failed to answer my key question of you. How can a logical machine such as the brain *not* act upon its own premise and for its own interest in the sense that I use it here? How can it possibly act upon a purely external stimulus?

wtf??? The brain just does. This is like asking if the universe exists or not. There is nothing forcing us to act in our self-interest. We are free to do otherwise.

As far as the philosophical argument I'll leave that to UR so long as you understand that it doesn't really matter who wins. You know when I was taking philosophy I read arguments about crazy things like whether the universe existed. I thought there was some truth in the argument, but philosophy is as far from truth as you can get. It's so abstracted from it that people who rely on it are utterly confused about such simple things.

[Whaleboy]

wtf??? The brain just does.

If he answers in the affirmative (i.e., that the brain can not act upon its own premise) then that supports his argument. I consider that absurd, which supports mine, hence my challenge.

This is like asking if the universe exists or not. There is nothing forcing us to act in our self-interest. We are free to do otherwise.

Wrong, again for the reasons that one distinguishes between conscious and subconscious... it would be like comparing subjective consciousness with categorical neuroscience, one can be shown; one cannot.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
You mean like telling the world you are sure Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?

Ted, you're a real fan of Michael Moore, aren't you?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Kidicious


No Ned. We are just ignoring your statement.

And the original subject of this thread.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Wrong, again for the reasons that one distinguishes between conscious and subconscious... it would be like comparing subjective consciousness with categorical neuroscience, one can be shown; one cannot.

That's the problem. You have to be shown something to believe it. I can understand wanting to be shown, but we can't always see things for ourselves. When we try to use our reason only to discover truth we find it inadequate. We must rely on what others see.

[Whaleboy]

No you misunderstand. This works on the lines of Wittgensteins distinction of what can be said and what can be shown (the "fault line" between subjective and objective).

Does belief in that respect depend upon empirical stimulii? I should say no with a but, or yes with an if. But what others see is irrelevant, since a single person is perfectly capable of empirical study... one must make extra assumptions in order for communication to occur, all layered rather like an onion, with different levels at which certain things such as "consciousness" or "communication" can occur.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


No Ned. We are just ignoring your statement.

Kid, you just do not use the word slave. You admit that people in a communist society have no right to choose anything. They are told what to do in virtually everything: They are told what jobs they can take, how much they are paid, where they have to live, the children they can have, etc. etc. etc. Communism is totalitarianism. The people in a totalitarian society are slaves.