Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Anyone out there with leftist special interests?

Page 2 of 7 [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

09 Nov 2012, 4:16 pm

Are you sure that's what Marx said or is that how you're interpreting historical materialism? I think expecting a shift in society because of the change in the means of production makes good sense. There isn't any faith about humanity in it.

Calling Marx a Utopian fantasy while appraising Ayn Rand's philosophy as being closer to human nature is just staggering. Are you sure you aren't Poeing the entire message board? :lol: Can there be a time to believe that human nature is rooted in behavior that helped propagate success and that Ayn Rand is bunk?



Last edited by DancingDanny on 09 Nov 2012, 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

09 Nov 2012, 4:18 pm

Aspie_Chav wrote:
Tragedy of the commons applies to most shared resources not only money. But money example is easy for anyone to understand.
IF my own PRIVATE toilet was clogged, I would unclog it or pay someone to do it. If it is shared in the community like the public sewage. I aint touching it. Image

In a money less system the only way to get someone down there is by force,fear or let the toilets turn to squealer.



Was it trotsky who said you could judge the morality of a society by the state of their public restrooms?

I think most moderate socialist states have very beautiful public restrooms, but I don't find them very moral. On the far end of the collectivist end, you have the above picture, and on the opposite end in America, we don't have very many at all, most are private and require the purchase of the most cheapest item on the menu for access, and depending on the venue will range anywhere from something slightly above what you see in that picture to dressed in gems, ornately beautiful!


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

09 Nov 2012, 4:35 pm

DancingDanny wrote:
Are you sure that's what Marx said or is that how you're interpreting historical materialism? I think expecting a shift in society because of the change in the means of production makes good sense. There isn't any faith about humanity in it.


To expect a shift in society because of changes to the means of production is obviously not the issue, it's obvious. However, seeing as the only meaningful shift would be from private hands to public hands, it either requires that the "common good" also be the individual best interests of each member of the collective, or for each member of the collective suppress their individual best interests in favor of the collective best interest. Number 1 is a pipe dream, number 2 is lunacy and would require either bribery or force, possibly both.

DancingDanny wrote:
Calling Marx a Utopian fantasy while appraising Ayn Rand's philosophy as being closer to human nature is just staggering. Are you sure you aren't Poeing the entire message board? :lol: Can there be a time to believe that human nature is rooted in behavior that helped propagate success and that Ayn Rand is bunk?


I wasn't saying that Ayn Rand's entire philosophy was closer to human nature, but that her view of human beings as being mainly motivated by rational self interest is more accurate than that of Marx who created a philosophy which requires either a system in which the collective best interest is also the best interest of the individual or that each individual view their own interest as being subservient to the collective best interest (the approach often seen in Asian collectivism).

This belief in the nature of human beings is what makes Marxists religious.



DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

09 Nov 2012, 5:46 pm

TM wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Are you sure that's what Marx said or is that how you're interpreting historical materialism? I think expecting a shift in society because of the change in the means of production makes good sense. There isn't any faith about humanity in it.


To expect a shift in society because of changes to the means of production is obviously not the issue, it's obvious. However, seeing as the only meaningful shift would be from private hands to public hands, it either requires that the "common good" also be the individual best interests of each member of the collective, or for each member of the collective suppress their individual best interests in favor of the collective best interest. Number 1 is a pipe dream, number 2 is lunacy and would require either bribery or force, possibly both.

DancingDanny wrote:
Calling Marx a Utopian fantasy while appraising Ayn Rand's philosophy as being closer to human nature is just staggering. Are you sure you aren't Poeing the entire message board? :lol: Can there be a time to believe that human nature is rooted in behavior that helped propagate success and that Ayn Rand is bunk?


I wasn't saying that Ayn Rand's entire philosophy was closer to human nature, but that her view of human beings as being mainly motivated by rational self interest is more accurate than that of Marx who created a philosophy which requires either a system in which the collective best interest is also the best interest of the individual or that each individual view their own interest as being subservient to the collective best interest (the approach often seen in Asian collectivism).

This belief in the nature of human beings is what makes Marxists religious.


The shift from capitalism to socialism looks like an unprecedented leap of faith in humanity if you only look at that part. What about the change from primitive communism to slave society? Did Marxes faith in humanity have a decline when he made slave society a step in historical materialism? I agree with your assessment that bribery and coercion will happen in the era between stages because that's what happened in the era between primitive communism and slavery and there isn't alot religious about expecting what happened before to return in different colors.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

09 Nov 2012, 5:58 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Why would one believe such a murderous ideology?


More people have died as a result of Neo Liberalism than Socialism and Fascism put to together.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

09 Nov 2012, 5:59 pm

DancingDanny wrote:
The shift from capitalism to socialism looks like an unprecedented leap of faith in humanity if you only look at that part. What about the change from primitive communism to slave society? Did Marxes faith in humanity have a decline when he made slave society a step in historical materialism? I agree with your assessment that bribery and coercion will happen in the era between stages because that's what happened in the era between primitive communism and slavery and there isn't alot religious about expecting what happened before to return in different colors.


There is a massive difference between primitive communism and communism on a grand scale, that's the difference. Primitive communism requires no leap of faith, because it was in the self-interest of the individual to aid in the survival of a family group, numbering between 20 and 30 individuals. Even in todays society I'd happily share my food, home, or whatever else with members of my immediate family or people whom my life depends on.

Marx system requires one large cohesive group where this self-interest is not present or if present not active. That's the leap of faith, or alternatively the leap of faith that billions of people can live as a group of 20 - 30 members of the same family.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

09 Nov 2012, 6:00 pm

DiscardedWhisper wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Why would one believe such a murderous ideology?


Its not really a murderous ideology in itself. Its really good on paper, but when you get into handing all economic and political power over to one centralized entity, there's really no reason to believe that it'll truly represent the will of the people it governs over. Its much more likely it'll just represent the will of itself. Its a form of ideological extremism and misses the nuance in the world. It was an almost superstitious belief that history could be broadly predicted and that a classless society would be the necessary next step after capitalism. Its a one-size fits all assumption too, the idea that if we just have the perfect system, everything will naturally fall into place, which just isn't true. A functioning and affective society can only be achieved if one is able to make decisions based on context and situation. Some things work in some situations but not in others. Sometimes government intervention is good, and sometimes its not. Sometimes business is good for some things, and sometimes its not. Finding the proper balance in anything requires critical thinking and reason, where ideology, of any kind, is just an excuse not to think and to blindly follow an extreme.


Tell that to a Ukrainian. Specifically the 7 million dead ones that Stalin starved to death.


I see that and I raise you the 19 000 children that capitalism is starving to death every day, as we speak.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

09 Nov 2012, 6:05 pm

The promise of immortality makes communism an attractive proposition even from a self interest point of view.



DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

09 Nov 2012, 6:06 pm

TM wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
The shift from capitalism to socialism looks like an unprecedented leap of faith in humanity if you only look at that part. What about the change from primitive communism to slave society? Did Marxes faith in humanity have a decline when he made slave society a step in historical materialism? I agree with your assessment that bribery and coercion will happen in the era between stages because that's what happened in the era between primitive communism and slavery and there isn't alot religious about expecting what happened before to return in different colors.


There is a massive difference between primitive communism and communism on a grand scale, that's the difference. Primitive communism requires no leap of faith, because it was in the self-interest of the individual to aid in the survival of a family group, numbering between 20 and 30 individuals. Even in todays society I'd happily share my food, home, or whatever else with members of my immediate family or people whom my life depends on.

Marx system requires one large cohesive group where this self-interest is not present or if present not active. That's the leap of faith, or alternatively the leap of faith that billions of people can live as a group of 20 - 30 members of the same family.


I think I get it now.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

09 Nov 2012, 6:09 pm

thomas81 wrote:

I see that and I raise you the 19 000 children that capitalism is starving to death every day, as we speak.


Post proof of that claim please.



adb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

09 Nov 2012, 6:12 pm

TM wrote:
thomas81 wrote:

I see that and I raise you the 19 000 children that capitalism is starving to death every day, as we speak.


Post proof of that claim please.

I was just about to post something like that. I'm really curious where that is happening.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

09 Nov 2012, 6:12 pm

So capitalism is the solution to the problem of children starving?



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

09 Nov 2012, 6:17 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
So capitalism is the solution to the problem of children starving?


The question is under which system do children starve less. Pretty much all of the EU have moved more towards capitalism since the 80's in terms of how much of their GDP is made up of state spending. Traditionally socialist states who have rigidly opposed a market economy doesn't exactly have a stellar record of feeding the masses, especially children. That you intend to feed the poor doesn't necessarily mean that you will.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

09 Nov 2012, 6:26 pm

Anyway the Libertarian Capitalists say that poor children have no entitlement rights which means zilch and are totally dependent on voluntary contributions. At least in ancient Israel there were gleaning laws that gave the poor some form of entitlement but the Libertarians call this dumpster diving.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

09 Nov 2012, 6:28 pm

TM wrote:
thomas81 wrote:

I see that and I raise you the 19 000 children that capitalism is starving to death every day, as we speak.


Post proof of that claim please.


Lets be clear, we aren't talking about Socialist Cuba, Venezuela, Laos, China, or even North Korea here. No no, we are talking about places where the verminous economists, bankers, financial speculators, economic hitmen and their neo liberal leckeys in government very much have a hand to play in the day to day affairs of ordinary people.

Free market economics, the dominant ideology of the developing world is the spearhead factor behind poverty in sub saharan africa, ergo they are the primary cause of preventable childhood deaths.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factshee ... index.html

Quote:
Children: reducing mortality

Fact sheet N°178
September 2012
Key facts

6.9 million children under the age of five died in 2011.
More than half of these early child deaths are due to conditions that could be prevented or treated with access to simple, affordable interventions.
Leading causes of death in under-five children are pneumonia, preterm birth complications, diarrhoea, birth asphyxia and malaria. About one third of all child deaths are linked to malnutrition.
Children in sub-Saharan Africa are about 16.5 times more likely to die before the age of five than children in developed regions.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 110813.htm

Quote:
bout 90 percent of child deaths worldwide occur in just 42 countries -- and about one-fourth of these deaths occur before age 5 in the poorest countries, such as Angola and Niger.


Yet, 8 million of the 11 million childhood deaths worldwide each year could easily be prevented, says a Cornell University expert, writing in the authoritative medical journal The Lancet . That's because almost 60 percent of deaths of children under 5 in the developing world are due to malnutrition and its interactive effects on preventable diseases.

"Every single day -- 365 days a year -- an attack against children occurs that is 10 times greater than the death toll from the World Trade Center," says Jean-Pierre Habicht, professor of epidemiology and nutritional sciences at Cornell. "We know how to prevent these deaths -- we have the biological knowledge and tools to stop this public health travesty, but we're not yet doing it."

Habicht is a member of the Bellagio Child Survival Study Group, made up of leading child-health researchers, that has authored a series of five articles in The Lancet on how to prevent the global toll on young children. The first article is published in the June 28 issue; the other four will follow in the next four consecutive issues.



Last edited by thomas81 on 09 Nov 2012, 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

09 Nov 2012, 6:32 pm

thomas81 wrote:

Quote:
Children: reducing mortality

Fact sheet N°178
September 2012
Key facts

6.9 million children under the age of five died in 2011.
More than half of these early child deaths are due to conditions that could be prevented or treated with access to simple, affordable interventions.
Leading causes of death in under-five children are pneumonia, preterm birth complications, diarrhoea, birth asphyxia and malaria. About one third of all child deaths are linked to malnutrition.
Children in sub-Saharan Africa are about 16.5 times more likely to die before the age of five than children in developed regions.


Malnutrition may be a bad bug. Emphasis on "may be"


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.