Advertisement
by Chestaan » Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:38 am
by Mavorpen » Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:41 am
The Joseon Dynasty wrote:Mavorpen wrote:I...what?
Where did I say the failure of communal societies is due to technological deficiency? I stated that the failure of Marxist societies is partially due to that.
You didn't say "partially due to that", and even then, you need to explain why.
I'm just a simple man who doesn't know the difference between "Marxist" and "communal" societies, you see. I need an explanation.
by The Joseon Dynasty » Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:45 am
Mavorpen wrote:The Joseon Dynasty wrote:
You didn't say "partially due to that", and even then, you need to explain why.
I'm just a simple man who doesn't know the difference between "Marxist" and "communal" societies, you see. I need an explanation.
No. You're not understanding. I'm stating that we've seen failed attempts at implementing Marxism, due to the fact that it requires a certain advancement in technology, which is why Ethal do not see Marxist societies.
by Mavorpen » Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:45 am
The Joseon Dynasty wrote:Mavorpen wrote:No. You're not understanding. I'm stating that we've seen failed attempts at implementing Marxism, due to the fact that it requires a certain advancement in technology, which is why Ethal do not see Marxist societies.
That's exactly what I thought you meant. What I'm trying to understand is why it requires a certain advancement in technology. What's the reasoning behind that relationship?
I'm only asking because I'd consider it rather unintuitive.
by The Joseon Dynasty » Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:50 am
Mavorpen wrote:The Joseon Dynasty wrote:
That's exactly what I thought you meant. What I'm trying to understand is why it requires a certain advancement in technology. What's the reasoning behind that relationship?
I'm only asking because I'd consider it rather unintuitive.
I have no idea what you're asking.
by Mavorpen » Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:51 am
by The Joseon Dynasty » Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:53 am
Mavorpen wrote:The Joseon Dynasty wrote:
You claimed that there was a causal relationship between technological advancement and the success of Marxism. I'm asking you to explain why that relationship exists. I don't know how to make it any clearer.
Because Marxism calls for it to be.
I thought you were asking something else because honestly, this question is extremely silly.
by Mavorpen » Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:54 am
by The Joseon Dynasty » Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:00 pm
by Ethel mermania » Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:21 pm
Mavorpen wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:
that i think communism in its ideal state would be a good thing?
i have read marx, and i think he has a lot of interesting things to say.
and i have seen the world, and despite the efforts of mnay people i have not seen a true marxist society in action
Well...yes. Because these efforts have usually occurred in technologically deficient countries. That's not how Marxism is supposed to work.
by Trotskylvania » Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:28 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:Mavorpen wrote:Well...yes. Because these efforts have usually occurred in technologically deficient countries. That's not how Marxism is supposed to work.
lenin would disagree.
as to karl, marx wrote in an industrial age, i think he would accept marxism in a post industrial age. preindustrial, i agree he did not think it possible, but i dont remember why.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by Kilobugya » Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:39 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:because i believe in evolution. man is no different than any other species.
by Ethel mermania » Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:24 pm
Kilobugya wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:because i believe in evolution. man is no different than any other species.
Which specie makes art ? Burry their dead ? Walked on the Moon ? Mastered nuclear power ? Have a general purpose language ? Runs the Internet ? Man doesn't have any fundamental difference with other species - but man has such a superior cognitive ability that he is, in fact, way different from all other species. It seems there is a kind of critical threshold, where, when you're above it, you become wholly different. Such phenomena are quite common in nature - just lowers a tiny bit the temperature, and you'll convert water to ice. Just increase a tiny bit the number of uranium in a stack, and you'll make it go BOOM. Just increase a tiny bit the intelligence of apes - and you get general purpose language, art, culture, writing, philosophy, science, Curiosity on Mars and the Internet. And that's way different.
by Ethel mermania » Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:25 pm
Trotskylvania wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:
lenin would disagree.
as to karl, marx wrote in an industrial age, i think he would accept marxism in a post industrial age. preindustrial, i agree he did not think it possible, but i dont remember why.
For Marx it's pretty simple. If there's not much surplus being produced by society, there's no way to equitably distribute it. So, to even talk about equitable distributions of social surplus, you need advanced levels of productive forces, so you don't have subsistence level production. That means advanced technology, and thus better communication systems as well as higher population densities, which are important to facilitating democracy and egalitarianism.
by Kilobugya » Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:29 pm
Reichsland wrote:Because that is natural, we have arrived precisely where nature has led us. When mankind starts to tamper with its innerworkings, it becomes artificial.
Reichsland wrote:Who would be choosing what is the best?
Reichsland wrote:Like I stated, humanity will never agree on a set ideology.
Reichsland wrote:If you give a government the technology to alter human nature to support its ideology, it would be quite possible for them to continue altering its citizens nature to support its advancing goals.
Reichsland wrote:It stands as a possibility that for every change in a human's nature, that another problem would arise to take its place.
Reichsland wrote:Thus our individual choice making begins to deteriorate.
by Obamacult » Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:36 pm
Trotskylvania wrote:Obamacult wrote:Your diatribe is Orwellian and ridiculous.
First you make an absurd fallacious statement that:
Predictably, you have misunderstood everything about my argument.Obamacult wrote:What kind of nonsense is this? By your definition it is 'greed' that I engage in trade with someone else in a free, voluntary and peaceful society that makes us both better off or the exchange wouldn't have been undertaken in the first place!
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's nonsense.
For one, I was characterizing a common appeal to human nature argument. You seem to have totally disregarded everything, both in the characterized argument as well as my own response.Obamacult wrote:Why is that anything that communists want they have to get by coercive means? Why is it that you should have any business meddling in my life and the life of those I trade with in a free, voluntary and peaceful transaction that has nothing to do with you?
See above. For one, you ignored that it is the traditional anti-communist appeal to nature argument that categorically denies that humans can live in a minimally coercive (i.e., communist) society. They attribute this to greed, and that man's rapacious nature will prevent free, voluntary societies.Obamacult wrote:Mind your own business, moreover if you want to live in a collectivist hell hole anywhere in a free society -- then within a free society you have the right and privilege to do so. Indeed, within a free society all things are possible. I won't tread on you, you don't tread on me. Presumably, if your world view is so effective at producing growth and increased living standards -- then you should welcome a free society in which to practice it and juxtapose its success against the 'squalor and decay' of my capitalist society!!!
Your mistake is believing that private property has anything to do with freedom. Private ownership of the means of production is not conducive to freedom. It is in fact a means by which the bourgeoisie exercise their dictatorship over society. So long as this state of affairs exists, people are not free.Obamacult wrote:What kind of bullshit is this!
You want to tinker on your brain and physiology, by all means do so, but I advocate freedom from this kind of nonsense. Presumably, you would prefer to make this mandatory and managed by the 'state'?!!
Indeed, where do you come by these barbaric positions?
Public school?
Again, you've charged in here, totally misunderstanding the whole point. The point I was making is that by making the "human nature" argument, you concede the moral correctness of your opponents position, and are left in our modern age, if you want to be internally consistent, with the logic of the argument pushing you to advocating changing human nature.
by Kilobugya » Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:42 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:But should we change human nature? At what point would such changes render us something other than human? Is there no value in being human?
by Conserative Morality » Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:48 pm
Kilobugya wrote:When we educate and teach children, they change, to the point they are no longer humans.
Is there no value in childhood ? Humanity as a whole is still in childhood. Very creative children, but still unruly children, who still believe in fairy tales, who spend so much energy showing they are the strongest kid of the block that they let thousands of their own die from hunger and postpone indifinitely the exploration of space. Humanity is improving, slowly, with time. We don't feed people to lions like the romans did. In most of the world, we don't even have the death penalty anymore. In most of the world, we take care of disabled instead of casting them out of the city.
But we still have a lot of growing up to do. And if we can use a bit of genetic engineering or something else to speed up then great. Sure we have to be careful. Very careful. Very very careful. But yet, every passing hour, about one thousand of children die from starvation - while we have the technology to grow food for everyone and more. If by refusing to use genetic engineering we postpone by one year the eradication of starvation, we killed 6 millions of children. That's what the bets are.
by Kilobugya » Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:49 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:even if you were right, and humans were unique, we are still a prisoners of our evolutionary biology, which is my point
by Mavorpen » Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:01 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:Mavorpen wrote:Well...yes. Because these efforts have usually occurred in technologically deficient countries. That's not how Marxism is supposed to work.
lenin would disagree.
as to karl, marx wrote in an industrial age, i think he would accept marxism in a post industrial age. preindustrial, i agree he did not think it possible, but i dont remember why.
by Kilobugya » Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:10 pm
Obamacult wrote:Communism is a joke.
Obamacult wrote:It is based on a system that discentives merit and rewards sloth.
Obamacult wrote:communism would still suck because there is no incentive to work hard since you are not directly rewarded for your effort.
Obamacult wrote:Similarly, there is every incentive to kiss ass and/or sit on your ass because you still get an equal portion of an ever diminishing pie.
Obamacult wrote:The only genetic manipulation that will make capitalism as inefficient as any statist system
Obamacult wrote:is to make people irrational so they do not respond to societal incentive in a rational and self-interested manner.
Obamacult wrote:INdeed, the genetic engineering that you are proposing would turn man into an automaton who cares little for his self-interest.
Obamacult wrote:And why would anyone want to surrender his freedom and his life's goals to satisfy the warped ideological fantasies of some despot?
by Kilobugya » Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:16 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Hm, yes, childhood's end.
Conserative Morality wrote:What part of genetically modifying human beings has to do with starvation?
by Mavorpen » Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:17 pm
Obamacult wrote:
Communism is a joke.
It is based on a system that discentives merit and rewards sloth.
Obamacult wrote:It wouldn't matter how you tinkered with the genetic make-up of a species -- communism would still suck because there is no incentive to work hard since you are not directly rewarded for your effort. Similarly, there is every incentive to kiss ass and/or sit on your ass because you still get an equal portion of an ever diminishing pie.
Mavorpen wrote:Anthropologists have recounted the societies of communities such as pygmy tribesman, who live in very similar ways to our ancestors. One of these tribesman lived by the belief that selfishness is of the highest morality. The man, Cephu, was actually stealing the meat hunted collectively by his fellow tribesman.At an impromptu trial, Cephu defended himself with arguments for individual initiative and personal responsibility. “He felt he deserved a better place in the line of nets,” [the anthropologist Colin] Turnbull wrote. “After all, was he not an important man, a chief, in fact, of his own band?” But if that were the case, replied a respected member of the camp, Cephu should leave and never return. The Mbuti have no chiefs, they are a society of equals in which redistribution governs everyone’s livelihood. The rest of the camp sat in silent agreement.
Faced with banishment, a punishment nearly equivalent to a death sentence, Cephu relented.
Obamacult wrote:The only genetic manipulation that will make capitalism as inefficient as any statist system is to make people irrational so they do not respond to societal incentive in a rational and self-interested manner.
Obamacult wrote:INdeed, the genetic engineering that you are proposing would turn man into an automaton who cares little for his self-interest. And why would anyone want to surrender his freedom and his life's goals to satisfy the warped ideological fantasies of some despot?
by Conserative Morality » Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:24 pm
Kilobugya wrote:Ooops sorry that was a typo, I meant "they are no longer children". Thanks for pointing it, I edited my post.
Sorry I don't get the reference.
Lowering aggression and selfishness,
improving cooperation, altruism and long-term planning.
Or improving intelligence.
by Norstal » Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:26 pm
Trotskylvania wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:But should we change human nature? At what point would such changes render us something other than human? Is there no value in being human?
This is a gotcha argument. I don't accept any of the premises. It has no other purpose than to make the people who do accept the premises by making appeals to human nature feel uncomfortable and contemplate their navels.
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Infected Mushroom, Roman Khilafa Al Cordoba, Tungstan
Advertisement