Why I believe capitalism is morally wrong and evil...

[Jules]

che,
So what happened between precivilized history and now to make greed the norm?

[GePap]

NeOmega:

Who the hell said wars invalidate a communal societal system?
Humams don't live in communities of 6 billion, they live in smaller subgroups. The Us vs. Them disctinction for groups is as crucial to the Me vs. You distinction is for individuals. The thing is, that within the US v. Them, the Me v. You is made subordinate.

Take murder: what does murder mean? just killing a human being? no. It means killing a fellow member of your society with rights in that group, or a foreigner also with recognized rights. Killing another human being who had no 'right' to be there is never illegal (an intruder, an invader, so forth).

I digress, but the point is that your two previou posts make no sense to the arguement. Communal living does not mean peaceful or peaceloving. it means having a system of economic distribution in which the economic needs of the group outweight those of the individual, and in which individual greed is not considered a plus for the group, but a negative as it denies the whole resources which the individual in a sense, wastes to meet their wants, not needs.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Communism may work for 60 nomadic people, but 6 billion Stationary people is a whole different story.

Hence the reason it's referred to as primitive communism. Modern communism is nothing so simple, and in fact requires capitalism as its basis.

What I was saying was everything beyond babyhood is learned nature. This you cannot dispute,

Actually what you said was, that was human nature. What I tried to point out was, human nature is flexible, changable. It is not written in stone.

You cannot possibly think you have a monopoly on human nature, even though I have read some proposterous statements from you before, like Communists understand Human nature, every body else blows wind out of their collective ass.

If you go back and read what I actually wrote, you'll find your paraphrase doesn't quite match. I certainly think I have a much better handle on what human nature is that most libertarians. Libertarians define human nature to fit their politics. Communists fit their politics to human nature.

I know for a fact this is one of the most basic questions of Sociology, is mankind inherently evil or good?

That's actually a philosophical question, not sociological. Sciology deals with how people organize themselves and their lives. From one standpoint, I would aregue that humans are neither inherently good nor inherently evil.

Look at the murder, look at the murders commited by communists, by capitalists. In the end, regardless of the economic system, mankind cares nothing beyond his own community.

Which is why communists declare the world their community. We are internationalists, workers of the WORLD you have nothing to lose but your chains.

The number of murders by Communists in the last century is indeed horrific. In the nice pretty world of theories, that should never have happened. Even the capitalists didn't expect it to happen beforehand. Obviously, something wen't horribly wrong. However, the capitalists cry out so loudly only to distract from the blood pouring of their own clothes. Slavery, colonialism, genocide, horrible working conditions, war, these are the methods by which capitalism has committed its murder. Perhaps there is something in the nature of creating an industrialized society that requires mass murder.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jules
che,
So what happened between precivilized history and now to make greed the norm?

Is greed the norm? Again, examine your normal, everyday dealings with other human beings: the most common are your family, friends, co-workers, fellow parishioners (for some). In how many of these relationships, the most basic and important of mankind, is greed the driving force? It is in these dealings that we see the remnats of basic human interaction, not in the images we see on TV, or what we read in book, about the grand and impersonal dealings of power and economics beyond us.

Oh, and I would say that greed became normal when the possiblity of immense wealth became possible and also socially acceptable, with the rules oif what was acceptable written by those with power(as always).

[Ramo]

So what happened between precivilized history and now to make greed the norm?

Plant and animal domestication.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jules
che,
So what happened between precivilized history and now to make greed the norm?

Agriculture. While food was normally plentiful, it still required the combined efforts of the entire community. Once agriculture was discovered/invented it became possible for less people to support everyone, which allowed for the rise of specialization. Agriculture also necesitates a specialist class of star watchers, who can tell the passing seasons and predict when planting should begin. These specialists became priests, and then priest-kings. At some point after that, when greed becomes supportable by the productive forces of humanity, it becomes the norm. That's in agricultural societies.

In nomadic herding societies it is rather more difficult to pin down when the change occured, but it is believed to coincide with the discovery that sex has something to do with creating children. I'm not as versed on nomadic herders, so I won't write much more.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

What I was saying was everything beyond babyhood is learned nature. This you cannot dispute,

Actually what you said was, that was human nature. What I tried to point out was, human nature is flexible, changable. It is not written in stone.

"Natural Human nature is to cry when you want food, attention, or your buttocks are messy and stink. Every thing from there on out is learned behavior. "

Is exactly what I said. I am sorry you misinterepereted what I said, but look up a few posts and you will find this exact quote.

You cannot possibly think you have a monopoly on human nature, even though I have read some proposterous statements from you before, like Communists understand Human nature, every body else blows wind out of their collective ass.

If you go back and read what I actually wrote, you'll find your paraphrase doesn't quite match. I certainly think I have a much better handle on what human nature is that most libertarians. Libertarians define human nature to fit their politics. Communists fit their politics to human nature.

???I'll admit Libertarians define human nature to define fit their politics if you admit communists do it too. That statement was rediculous. If "human nature" were communist, why isn't the world Communist? And, BTW, I don't know if you noticed, but Communism was tried, and failed, so how can your politics fit?

Which is why communists declare the world their community. We are internationalists, workers of the WORLD you have nothing to lose but your chains.

>I see it more like they declare the World their community because that makes it their domain, and in the end they are just power hungry.

The number of murders by Communists in the last century is indeed horrific. In the nice pretty world of theories, that should never have happened. Even the capitalists didn't expect it to happen beforehand. Obviously, something wen't horribly wrong. However, the capitalists cry out so loudly only to distract from the blood pouring of their own clothes. Slavery, colonialism, genocide, horrible working conditions, war, these are the methods by which capitalism has committed its murder. Perhaps there is something in the nature of creating an industrialized society that requires mass murder.

>Once again, notice I included capitalism in this as a murderous force. But it doesn't matter what the economic policy is, it matters who the people in charge are. I prefer those who would allow freedom. Most communists do not have this mind set, they are in essence, misguided people who think, as fascists and statists, that they have a monopoly on the truth, and every one else must be cleansed for this utopia to work.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by GePap


Is greed the norm? Again, examine your normal, everyday dealings with other human beings: the most common are your family, friends, co-workers, fellow parishioners (for some). In how many of these relationships, the most basic and important of mankind, is greed the driving force? It is in these dealings that we see the remnats of basic human interaction, not in the images we see on TV, or what we read in book, about the grand and impersonal dealings of power and economics beyond us.

This has already been gone over, but human greed, or as I would call it, genetic survival instinct, can be usurped for a family or community. But realistically, when is the last time you saw a man work to feed someone elses kid voluntarily? Adoption?
What about a family who will put their neighbors kid through college before their own?
How about a nation that would make a pair of nuclear reactors for another nation for almost nothing? Oops.

Oh, and I would say that greed became normal when the possiblity of immense wealth became possible and also socially acceptable, with the rules oif what was acceptable written by those with power(as always).

Gonna have to try harder than that. When did the people with power decide to grab it? Power is a form of greed.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega
???I'll admit Libertarians define human nature to define fit their politics if you admit communists do it too. That statement was rediculous. If "human nature" were communist, why isn't the world Communist? And, BTW, I don't know if you noticed, but Communism was tried, and failed, so how can your politics fit?

Human nature isn't communist. It's not capitalist either. The difference is, the theoreticians of communism looked at science before making their criticisms of capitalism and their arguments that people could live in a communal manner in industrial society. Libertarians on the other hand created a philosophy that justifies being greedy and selfish. It isn't based on actual science but on morality.

Yes, communism failed. Why did it fail? Well, we seem to have eliminated the "it's contrary to human nature" argument. The totalitarian dictatorship argument doesn't work either, because Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Fascist Spain, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, etc. all did very well under their respective totalitarian governments.

There are several concrete reasons for the failure of communism.

A) Communism depends on capitalism having developed the productive forces of society prior to coming into existence. All Communist countries so far (with one exception) have been in non-industrialzed societies. This meant that rather than being a society of universal plenty, they were societies of universal want. Because of this. . . .

B) Scarcity led to the rise of a bureaucracy to plan production and distribution. This bureucracy then usurped power for itself and in typical bureaucratic fashio, used blunt force to remove obstacles to their power (i.e., they killed off all opposition).

C) Because of the prestege of being the worlds first successful workers revolution, Soviet Russia was in a position to teach other revolutionaries around the globe by creating an international. As the aforementioned bureaucracy usurped power in Russia, it did so in the international as well, replacing leaders around the world who were more in tune with Moscow's needs. This meant that the same power structure that had strangled the revolution in Russia would strangle it everywhere they came to power.

D) The capitalist powers of the world never left them alone. Russia was invaded from the beginnig of the revolution, blockaded, starved, invaded again, and surrounded, threatened, and terrorized by the most powerful countries in the world. This meant that an inordinate amount of the national budget had to be spent on defense, rather than on building the economy and on consumer goods.

In fact, despite all the hurdles and odds, Communism took a war ravaged third world country and made it into the of worlds leading countries in science and technology in the 1950s. Even up to the 1980s, the USSR was just as important a contributor to human knowledge as the US. And we had a major head start (granted, they stole a lot of knowledge, but so did we). Looked at this way, Communism was extremely successful.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega
How about a nation that would make a pair of nuclear reactors for another nation for almost nothing? Oops.

The Soviet Union did this frequently, actually.

Gonna have to try harder than that. When did the people with power decide to grab it? Power is a form of greed.

Not really. Greed can lead to someone taking power, but having power doesn't mean you are greedy. If you have power in your society because you can tell the farmers when the best time to plant their crops, there is no greed involved. You simply have knowledge power. That power can then be used to satisfy greed, and if the society is productive enough, the greed can be satisfied without detriment to the functioning of society. When that line is crossed, the society will collapse, like say, 18th Century France or 20th Century Russia (twice).

[Felch]

I love Sava. He makes personal attacks about people's education and intelligence to refute clear and concise arguments that disagree with his position. Then he demands that everybody pose intellectual responses, and says that everything so far has been swatting flies.

I swear, that boy is so full of **** his eyes are brown.

[Ramo]

I'd like to add that [capitalist] libertarianism has been tried and failed. Eventually, libertarian capitalist societies are undermined by the rich using the state to try to preserve wealth disparities or the poor using the state to try to gain redress for them. The only libertarian societies that have a chance at lasting are socialist.

[Felch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In fact, despite all the hurdles and odds, Communism took a war ravaged third world country and made it into the of worlds leading countries in science and technology in the 1950s. Even up to the 1980s, the USSR was just as important a contributor to human knowledge as the US. And we had a major head start (granted, they stole a lot of knowledge, but so did we). Looked at this way, Communism was extremely successful.

I for one, have never claimed that Communism doesn't work. I just feel that it takes a great deal more for Communism to work. The Soviet Union's success came at the price of millions of dead Ukrainians, the utter destruction of virtually all personal freedoms under Stalin, and dire poverty at a personal level. It was good at fighting wars and making big things like dams and rockets, but it was piss poor at providing people with a comfortable lifestyle like America did.

If America had turned to Communism and Russia became capitalist (Czarist Russia was not what people would consider capitalist by the way), the situation may have been different. I really don't know though. I would expect that American Communism would be more comfortable than Russian, but in the end it would run into the same problems of bloat and inefficiency. People would still be greedy and lazy, they would just be greedy and lazy with more money.

[Arrian]

Yes, communism failed. Why did it fail? Well, we seem to have eliminated the "it's contrary to human nature" argument.

Umm... maybe you eliminated it to your satisfaction, but not mine. I agree to disagree, though, because I don't have the time or energy to keep arguing about basic human nature. Adios.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Felch X
The Soviet Union's success came at the price of millions of dead Ukrainians,

American success came at the price of millions of dead Indians and Africans.