Apolyton Communist Party meeting: What is to be done?

[Arrian]

@ Stefu.

But come on, fellas, let the commies have their thread.

-Arrian

[DuncanK]

Yeah, quit trolling our thread. We're suppose to troll your threads

[Az]

BTW, you people do realize that one definition of insanity is doing the samething over and over expecting a different result. How many times does communism have to fail in order for the point to be made to you?

Because it won't be the same thing?

besides, what happened to "If at first you don't succeed, try and try again."?

[DuncanK]

Invention is 10% inspiration and 90% persperation

[ajbera]

Uber:

If everyone receives equal shares of goods (just talking actual material items) regardless of their contribution to the work effort, what incentive is there for someone who is capable of contributing much more than the average person to actually do so?

If I can work 50% longer than my neighbor, and my work is 100% better (numbers yanked from my rectum, but washed before use), yet I will receive the same material rewards (food, clothes, residence, etc.) as my neighbor, why shuld I expend the extra effort to work longer/better?

Self-interest, and by extension self-gain, are the primary drivers of behavior. A certain degree of altruism/self-sacrfice is biologically hard-coded, but a sacrfice is only as appealing as the benefits one would gain from it. The average and sub-par performers have much too gain from such a system, but you must find a way to appeal to the superior.

I think that in order to affect a lasting social change you'll have to indoctrinate children that it is good and right to give your all even if you receive just a small fraction of the fruits of your labor. Religion and education have been the best ways of disseminating doctrine, and you will have to engage in a similar means of social control to trump natural self-interest.

Although I don't agree with your vision (I believe a persons ability and ambition should dictate their eventual station and share of goods), I have a fondness for (true) socialists, as they usually have the best of intentions. Its just unfortunate that those utopian visions clash so jarringly with reality.

For the record, I'm a moderate with libertarian leanings, a compassionate Darwinist. I think we have a duty to make opportunities as open and equal to all people as humanly possible, and then let them sink or swim based on their abilities (Darwinism). Those who sink should be treated compassionately and be given access to decent food, shelter, education and medical care.

[Az]

a compassionate Darwinist

Oh ****.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Azazel

Oh ****.

I'm used to reading so much crap on poly that that one went right past me

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
BTW, you people do realize that one definition of insanity is doing the samething over and over expecting a different result. How many times does communism have to fail in order for the point to be made to you?

Silly DD, it's never really existed. Imaginary 'Poly posting?

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by ajbera
Uber:

If everyone receives equal shares of goods (just talking actual material items) regardless of their contribution to the work effort, what incentive is there for someone who is capable of contributing much more than the average person to actually do so?

If I can work 50% longer than my neighbor, and my work is 100% better (numbers yanked from my rectum, but washed before use), yet I will receive the same material rewards (food, clothes, residence, etc.) as my neighbor, why shuld I expend the extra effort to work longer/better?

Self-interest, and by extension self-gain, are the primary drivers of behavior. A certain degree of altruism/self-sacrfice is biologically hard-coded, but a sacrfice is only as appealing as the benefits one would gain from it. The average and sub-par performers have much too gain from such a system, but you must find a way to appeal to the superior.

I think that in order to affect a lasting social change you'll have to indoctrinate children that it is good and right to give your all even if you receive just a small fraction of the fruits of your labor. Religion and education have been the best ways of disseminating doctrine, and you will have to engage in a similar means of social control to trump natural self-interest.

Although I don't agree with your vision (I believe a persons ability and ambition should dictate their eventual station and share of goods), I have a fondness for (true) socialists, as they usually have the best of intentions. Its just unfortunate that those utopian visions clash so jarringly with reality.

For the record, I'm a moderate with libertarian leanings, a compassionate Darwinist. I think we have a duty to make opportunities as open and equal to all people as humanly possible, and then let them sink or swim based on their abilities (Darwinism). Those who sink should be treated compassionately and be given access to decent food, shelter, education and medical care.

Maybe the idea that humans mean more then materialism is whats important.

I mean, if you are doing a job you really enjoy, you should be happy to do it for free. Artists are the best example of this, a true artist dosn't give a damn for the cash because he is doing omething he loves, which is infinatly more important then how big your TV is, or how thick your wage packet is.

Your incentive point of view is a proime example of Capitalist materialistic propaganda.

[ajbera]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man

Maybe the idea that humans mean more then materialism is whats important.

I mean, if you are doing a job you really enjoy, you should be happy to do it for free.

You still haven't addressed the issue. Perhaps I should want to do it for free - but I don't. I'm sure the same is true for many, if not most, people.

Self-interest is both innate and learned; my question is how do you counter that?

In an ideal world your vision would hold true, but the world is far from ideal. People are selfish, and you have to know how to handle that before you can make any progress towards achieving your utopia.

And I'm not propagandizing anything - I'm pointing out a definite obstacle in your path. I'm curious what your solution is.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by ajbera
Uber:

Self-interest, and by extension self-gain, are the primary drivers of behavior. A certain degree of altruism/self-sacrfice is biologically hard-coded, but a sacrfice is only as appealing as the benefits one would gain from it. The average and sub-par performers have much too gain from such a system, but you must find a way to appeal to the superior.

I think that in order to affect a lasting social change you'll have to indoctrinate children that it is good and right to give your all even if you receive just a small fraction of the fruits of your labor. Religion and education have been the best ways of disseminating doctrine, and you will have to engage in a similar means of social control to trump natural self-interest.

exactly. in another thread i have stated that society has served to cull many of the "adverse" aspects of human thought / action deep rooted in us after millions of year of evolution.

in a civilized society, we no longer kill the alpha male to ascend to power. we don't kill people for food / power / whatever. we don't rape members of the opposite sex to spread our seed. the rejects who do do such things are punished, again by society.

the problem is that greed was overlooked as an evolutionary trait, simply because it pales in comparison to such high-crimes as murder, rape, etc. Greed is a horrible trait to have, and yet we have it, and we refuse to acknowledge that we should have culled it along with the other horrific side effects of evolution.

sigh

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by ajbera
Self-interest is both innate and learned; my question is how do you counter that?

It's not innate. It's learned. If people need to be selfish to survive they will be. If survival doesn't depend on selfishness, selfishness will die out within a few generations.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man



Maybe the idea that humans mean more then materialism is whats important.

I mean, if you are doing a job you really enjoy, you should be happy to do it for free. Artists are the best example of this, a true artist dosn't give a damn for the cash because he is doing omething he loves, which is infinatly more important then how big your TV is, or how thick your wage packet is.

Your incentive point of view is a proime example of Capitalist materialistic propaganda.

let's be honest here, no one really loves being a janitor or poopsmith.

but, with time, people will learn that they can love bettering society by doing whatever is in their power.

[The Andy-Man]

People are selfish,

The human race is flawed to the hilt and dosn't deserve its existence, but that is no reason to give up on it.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by DuncanK


It's not innate. It's learned. If people need to be selfish to survive they will be. If survival doesn't depend on selfishness, selfishness will die out within a few generations.

it's an innate trait that is reinforced by society. in the wild, you have to be selfish in the interest of self preservation. even packs of wolves go wild when you throw 1 piece of meat in the middle of them.

but we have overcome evolutionary traits / urges in the past. it's not impossible.