Poland and its schools

[Gorth]

 

Human nature is what it is. The enrichment and care of our families and ourselves is always first.

See, if you had said "survival", I would wholeheartedly agree. "Enrichment", however, means accumulating wealth, which in turn necessitates private property. That is a relatively modern concept. "Human nature", whatever the hell that is, predates any such concepts by ~200,000 years, which is how long ago the first anatomically modern humans (indistinguishable from you and me) appeared.

 

So, no, the right to private property is certainly not "natural". I assure you, nothing in my "nature" compels me to "enrich" myself at the expense of everyone else. I honestly feel sorry for you if that's how you regard yourself first, and everyone else next.

 

edit: I didn't mean for that to sound as condescending as it turned out, but oh well

 

Since someone already brought up Dawkins name, I would recommend reading "The Selfish Gene". Life couldn't care less about individual humans, all that matters is that your genes performs well in the competition with other genes. Individuals don't really matter other than as a carrier

 

Edit: The same theory that rationalises completely illogical things like maternal instincts and selflessness.

[BruceVC]

 

Human nature is what it is. The enrichment and care of our families and ourselves is always first.

See, if you had said "survival", I would wholeheartedly agree. "Enrichment", however, means accumulating wealth, which in turn necessitates private property. That is a relatively modern concept. "Human nature", whatever the hell that is, predates any such concepts by ~200,000 years, which is how long ago the first anatomically modern humans (indistinguishable from you and me) appeared.

 

So, no, the right to private property is certainly not "natural". I assure you, nothing in my "nature" compels me to "enrich" myself at the expense of everyone else. I honestly feel sorry for you if that's how you regard yourself first, and everyone else next.

 

edit: I didn't mean for that to sound as condescending as it turned out, but oh well

 

Property rights and  respecting those rights are one of the core foundations of what defines Western ideology

 

Western countries respect the rule of law and order. GD is right as its irrelevant if we debate if its " natural " or if " communism and sharing is the historical  order  " as this is not the way the world works now  and how we grow and sustain economies 

 

Communism failed for a number of reasons, the main one being an economy based on fundamental  Communist\Socialist principles cannot match the economic output of the free market or a Capitalist system 

 

And no amount of keyboard\forum activism or arguing is going to change the way  economies in the year 2016 work

 

So in summary Communism is an idealistic but naive  way of governing a country, it doesnt work and there is no point in pretending it does work 

Edited November 21, 2016 by BruceVC

[Guard Dog]

 

Human nature is what it is. The enrichment and care of our families and ourselves is always first.

See, if you had said "survival", I would wholeheartedly agree. "Enrichment", however, means accumulating wealth, which in turn necessitates private property. That is a relatively modern concept. "Human nature", whatever the hell that is, predates any such concepts by ~200,000 years, which is how long ago the first anatomically modern humans (indistinguishable from you and me) appeared.

 

So, no, the right to private property is certainly not "natural". I assure you, nothing in my "nature" compels me to "enrich" myself at the expense of everyone else. I honestly feel sorry for you if that's how you regard yourself first, and everyone else next.

 

edit: I didn't mean for that to sound as condescending as it turned out, but oh well

 

Private property became a thing the first time someone put a fence around their house or garden. I'm pretty sure that was a long time ago. Two things though. By enriching myself it does not necessarily mean I'm accumulating wealth. Although that might be the means to an end. It's just refers to improving your situation. I used to live on a small lot in a small house in South Florida. I didn't like it there, did't like that house, didn't like the fact that I had very little land with it. So I saved my money, worked extra hours, a second job, sold that place and bought a big piece of land in another state and built a house I did like on it. I'm not richer afterwards (quite the opposite actually) but I am better off and happier for my trouble. 

 

The second thing is, even if I made a million dollars it does not have to come at the expense of anyone else. If you make a million it does not mean someone else lost a million. That is called Zero Sum Economics and it does not exist in the modern world. Not the free modern world anyway.

 

Nah, you are not condescending. I didn't take it that way. 

[Namutree]

 

 

Human nature is what it is. The enrichment and care of our families and ourselves is always first.

See, if you had said "survival", I would wholeheartedly agree. "Enrichment", however, means accumulating wealth, which in turn necessitates private property. That is a relatively modern concept. "Human nature", whatever the hell that is, predates any such concepts by ~200,000 years, which is how long ago the first anatomically modern humans (indistinguishable from you and me) appeared.

 

So, no, the right to private property is certainly not "natural". I assure you, nothing in my "nature" compels me to "enrich" myself at the expense of everyone else. I honestly feel sorry for you if that's how you regard yourself first, and everyone else next.

 

edit: I didn't mean for that to sound as condescending as it turned out, but oh well

 

Private property became a thing the first time someone put a fence around their house or garden.

 

Earlier than that. Try when some one decided an area is "theirs". Likely pre-humans. No need for fences when you can just bash the head in of whatever poor creature is foolish enough to trespass on your territory (likely a cave or something).

[Meshugger]

Stupid humans, having a will and all. Shower them with all the material needs that you can think of, but they still can't satisfy their egos.

[213374U]

Private property became a thing the first time someone put a fence around their house or garden. I'm pretty sure that was a long time ago. Two things though. By enriching myself it does not necessarily mean I'm accumulating wealth. Although that might be the means to an end. It's just refers to improving your situation. I used to live on a small lot in a small house in South Florida. I didn't like it there, did't like that house, didn't like the fact that I had very little land with it. So I saved my money, worked extra hours, a second job, sold that place and bought a big piece of land in another state and built a house I did like on it. I'm not richer afterwards (quite the opposite actually) but I am better off and happier for my trouble. 

 

The second thing is, even if I made a million dollars it does not have to come at the expense of anyone else. If you make a million it does not mean someone else lost a million. That is called Zero Sum Economics and it does not exist in the modern world. Not the free modern world anyway.

 

Nah, you are not condescending. I didn't take it that way.

Fences were originally laid down to prevent cattle from wandering off, and to stop predators from eating said cattle and/or crops. The idea that the land itself "belonged" to a particular individual, as opposed to being the territory of the tribe, came later. At the very least, holding the right to landed property would require writing to have been invented, if not a political authority that would be capable of enforcing any such rights. So we're looking at, at most, 7,000 years. As I said, a recent (within the last 5%) development when looking at the time scales over which humans have existed. Definitely not "in our nature", but rather a cultural development.

 

And no, you are certainly richer if you own more land, even if your account balance shows a smaller number or even negative, because that's a tangible, immovable asset, which while not always stable in value, it's nowhere near as volatile as the rest of the make-believe financial economy. If someone makes a million, the only reason why someone else isn't losing a million is because someone in some bank just decided they were going to pull a million from their backside. I don't need to explain to you how fractional reserve banking works. Overnight, your millions may not be worth the paper they are printed on. It has happened before and it may happen again. Again, make-believe. However, if you own, say a mountain that contains a copper mine, then yes, that very much means everyone else has lost collective ownership of that mountain. When talking about real world resources, a "zero-sum economy" is actually how it works. That's the kind of property marxism is concerned with, btw, not the clothes on your back, or your beans.

 

@Gorth Yeah, good book, but disheartening message. Hence my previous comment. It's not funny to discover that you are nothing but an overly complex shell meant to improve the odds of survival of those damned "immortal coils", and that all selflessness is actually selfishness in disguise. Bah.

Edited November 21, 2016 by 213374U

[Meshugger]

If we colonized space, would then space-communism emerge? Because i see no reason why it should if the resources are infinite relatively to the amount of people.

[Namutree]

If we colonized space, would then space-communism emerge? Because i see no reason why it should if the resources are infinite relatively to the amount of people.

In the early phases maybe, but over time we would become more and more independent from other humans that we'd have our own ships and mech crew to do literally everything for us. Basically we'd split up in a zillion different directions and conquer our own part of space.

 

Some people would do better than others and claim more and more territory for their own until the entire universe is controlled by a handful of opposing people. One will be dramatically more advanced than the others and wipe out all independent life in the universe to claim personal control over all energy and matter. 

 

This person will then put itself into a permanent, blissful mental loop of experiencing something pleasant; only to have the memory erased and have the experience repeated eternally. Content that nothing in existence will ever take away the eternal paradise; this final master of creation will be the true end of history.

[Chilloutman]

All hail our God-Emperor!

 

 

We must purge the xenos and heretics

Edited November 21, 2016 by Chilloutman

[Meshugger]

I call dibs on a Bene Gesserit woman, we have program to start after all....

[213374U]

 

If we colonized space, would then space-communism emerge? Because i see no reason why it should if the resources are infinite relatively to the amount of people.

In the early phases maybe, but over time we would become more and more independent from other humans that we'd have our own ships and mech crew to do literally everything for us. Basically we'd split up in a zillion different directions and conquer our own part of space.

 

Some people would do better than others and claim more and more territory for their own until the entire universe is controlled by a handful of opposing people. One will be dramatically more advanced than the others and wipe out all independent life in the universe to claim personal control over all energy and matter. 

 

This person will then put itself into a permanent, blissful mental loop of experiencing something pleasant; only to have the memory erased and have the experience repeated eternally. Content that nothing in existence will ever take away the eternal paradise; this final master of creation will be the true end of history.

 

Asimov fan, huh?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I call dibs on a Bene Gesserit woman, we have program to start after all....

 

Out of billions of humans, I'm sure it's your genome they would be after...

[HoonDing]

Wishful thinking, considering the Stellar Empire of Man in Dune stems from a human history where the Roman Empire never fell.

Edited November 21, 2016 by HoonDing

[Meshugger]

 

I call dibs on a Bene Gesserit woman, we have program to start after all....

 

Out of billions of humans, I'm sure it's your genome they would be after...

 

 

Shush dear, a Bene Gesserit should be seducing and welcoming, not spiteful and passive aggressive. Report to your Reverend Mother for further counseling.

[Guard Dog]

Wishful thinking, considering the Stellar Empire of Man in Dune stems from a human history where the Roman Empire never fell.

I never knew that

[Guard Dog]

t.

 

Private property became a thing the first time someone put a fence around their house or garden. I'm pretty sure that was a long time ago. Two things though. By enriching myself it does not necessarily mean I'm accumulating wealth. Although that might be the means to an end. It's just refers to improving your situation. I used to live on a small lot in a small house in South Florida. I didn't like it there, did't like that house, didn't like the fact that I had very little land with it. So I saved my money, worked extra hours, a second job, sold that place and bought a big piece of land in another state and built a house I did like on it. I'm not richer afterwards (quite the opposite actually) but I am better off and happier for my trouble. 

 

The second thing is, even if I made a million dollars it does not have to come at the expense of anyone else. If you make a million it does not mean someone else lost a million. That is called Zero Sum Economics and it does not exist in the modern world. Not the free modern world anyway.

 

Nah, you are not condescending. I didn't take it that way.

 

And no, you are certainly richer if you own more land, even if your account balance shows a smaller number or even negative, because that's a tangible, immovable asset, which while not always stable in value, it's nowhere near as volatile as the rest of the make-believe financial economy. If someone makes a million, the only reason why someone else isn't losing a million is because someone in some bank just decided they were going to pull a million from their backside. I don't need to explain to you how fractional reserve banking works. Overnight, your millions may not be worth the paper they are printed on. It has happened before and it may happen again. Again, make-believe. However, if you own, say a mountain that contains a copper mine, then yes, that very much means everyone else has lost collective ownership of that mountain. When talking about real world resources, a "zero-sum economy" is actually how it works. That's the kind of property marxism is concerned with, btw, not the clothes on your back, or your beans.

 

When you say the public has lost the ownership of the copper mine you are presuming they ever had it. If I bought the mountain all I did was transfer it from one private owner to another. In the US at least the Government is not in the habit of selling public land. Leasing it maybe but Uncle Sam does not give anything up. But actually it does come back to the beans though. Are the beans I produce on the land I own mine to do with as I please or not? If I need my roof fixed I'd rather sell some beans to pay the carpenter to do that one job rather than give him beans every day when i don't need his service. 

 

I know, we are not going to see eye to eye on this and it's cool.

[213374U]

When you say the public has lost the ownership of the copper mine you are presuming they ever had it. If I bought the mountain all I did was transfer it from one private owner to another. In the US at least the Government is not in the habit of selling public land. Leasing it maybe but Uncle Sam does not give anything up. But actually it does come back to the beans though. Are the beans I produce on the land I own mine to do with as I please or not? If I need my roof fixed I'd rather sell some beans to pay the carpenter to do that one job rather than give him beans every day when i don't need his service. 

 

I know, we are not going to see eye to eye on this and it's cool.

 

 

Well, no. The public didn't really own it before someone appropriated it, but they could all use it if they wanted because, well, it's there. The whole concept of private property exists essentially to deprive everyone but the proprietor of the object in question. Whether the owner decides to keep it for himself or share it freely is immaterial, what matters is that property puts him a position to make that decision. Think about it. What would be the point of declaring ownership over anything if you were the only person in the world?

 

Saying that the state owns it and not individuals is a cop-out. The state is the state, not the people. And if the state owns it and leases it, it's functionally, if not legally, the same as if someone owns it privately.

 

At some point in the past, some clever mother****er figured that if he could own land, animals and all sorts of stuff, it was only "natural" that he could own people as well. A few thousand years later, it was finally understood* that the notion was not only morally unsound, but also economically inefficient. And so it was scrapped. Why not own the atmosphere? Sunlight? Earth's magnetic field? It's completely arbitrary.

 

Regarding beans? I don't know. I guess they would be yours to do with as you please. But remember, it wouldn't be that many, because you couldn't employ others and then appropriate the fruits of their labor. I'm not a marxist. I don't really know how he envisioned that would work, but I do know the idea was to get rid of money as well, so no "selling" them off to pay the plumber or whatever. We're also fast approaching the point where all manual (and a good chunk of white collar) work will be done by machines, too. Robots don't eat beans.

 

And no, we probably won't see eye to eye, but who cares. I'm not trying to sell you on marxism, because for starters, I'd need to buy into it myself, heh.

 

*after killing a whole bunch of people who didn't "get" it, ofc. Par for the course.

Edited November 23, 2016 by 213374U

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't really know how he envisioned that would work, but I do know the idea was to get rid of money as well, so no "selling" them off to pay the plumber or whatever.

From what I, likely erroneously, understand communities(aka communes) would collectively work out of self-interest to make sure the beans were harvested and processed and then shared with the community similarly to the primitive tribes of ancient times. Vague though to be fair Marx spent more time analyzing Capitalism and theorizing about revolution than he did laying out what communism look like. Today most leftists see communism as decentralized post-scarcity utilizing some sort of automation to do the bulk, if not the entirety, of the work.

 

Of course Bakunin was right about Marxism and it will devolve into the ML state because the hierarchy enforced by states tends toward some form of private control.

[Guard Dog]

Wow, we really wandered off topic didn't we?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Wow, we really wandered off topic didn't we?

Well if you guys want to invade poland you could probably pull it off woth five guys.

[Ben No.3]

 

I don't really know how he envisioned that would work, but I do know the idea was to get rid of money as well, so no "selling" them off to pay the plumber or whatever.

From what I, likely erroneously, understand communities(aka communes) would collectively work out of self-interest to make sure the beans were harvested and processed and then shared with the community similarly to the primitive tribes of ancient times. Vague though to be fair Marx spent more time analyzing Capitalism and theorizing about revolution than he did laying out what communism look like. Today most leftists see communism as decentralized post-scarcity utilizing some sort of automation to do the bulk, if not the entirety, of the work.

 

To be honest, I'd say Marx is one of capitalism's most perceptive critics, and all te points he made are pretty valid, although his views were very extreme. But remember: Marx is going against 19th century industrial revolution capitalism.

 

So, in the spoiler a quick summary of what I understand of Marx's criticism of capitalism

 

 

 

- Alienation (Entfremdung) from the things you produce, even though specialisations is much more efficient. Marx argues the specialisation of production (everyone in a factory does one very specific thing to produce a good rather than simply do the entire thing) makes the workers disconnect with their work. It steals the creative aspect of production.

- Modern workers can be replaced: in modern work, every single human is just a small factor that can be replaced by other humans or machines if the need arises. But, we don't want to be let go. We want there to be a place for us. A human desire to be needed, to say so.

- Workers get paid little, while capitalists get rich. Marx calls this "primitive accumulation". (ursprüngliche Akkumulation). An known problem, Marx takes it one place further: He says profit means paying one person to produce something, and selling it at a higher price to another. Marx says this (making a lot of profit) is not being intelligent, profit is in his opinion simply a fancy term for exploitation, and what is being exploited is the labour of the workers.

- Capitalism is very unstable: Marx says that crises are not a failure of capitalism, but rather the product of it, and that they are caused by something somewhat weird: Before capitalism, crises were caused by having to little (for example to little food to feed the population). But capitalism produces far more than we need, leading to crises of abundance rather than crises of need. And here is what enraged Marx and gave him hope at the same time: We are so efficient as a society that we could easily dive every person on the planet a house, a car, decent education and healthcare. Going even further, Marx says unemployment is actually freedom. Because our own efficiency can support every life on the planet, Marx argues the goal should be for everyone to work as little as possible and enjoy their new free time. To support this lifestyle, Marx demands that the wealth is spread equally.

- Capitalism is bad for capitalists: Marx didn't say capitalists were evil, rather they were victims of their own system. For example, Marx was perfectly aware of the fact that many rich marry not because of love, but for financial reasons. Marx argues that capitalism puts economics at the heart of everyone's lives, so everyone loses their affection for deep emotions (such as love). He called this "commodity fetishism". (Warenfetischismus) and said it makes us value things that have no objective value. He said that without this mindset, the people could start making sensible choirs for nothing but their personal good (rather than financial reasons)

- Marx said that capitalism was a economic system that makes us adapt a few strange ideologies: That leisure is bad, that being wealthy makes us happy, that having free time essentially us a bad thing (aside from a few weeks a year) and that it should be the aim of people to make money. Marx said all of these were untrue.

 

 

The conclusion he drew from these problems, communism as a solution, is not a good one though (in my opinion). Marx got a very bad reputation since a lot of totalitarian systems and poorly planned economies were build on it. However, I don't think we should completely throw away Marx.... As I said, most of his criticism is very valid in my opinion, only his solution is not.

[Namutree]

 

 

I don't really know how he envisioned that would work, but I do know the idea was to get rid of money as well, so no "selling" them off to pay the plumber or whatever.

From what I, likely erroneously, understand communities(aka communes) would collectively work out of self-interest to make sure the beans were harvested and processed and then shared with the community similarly to the primitive tribes of ancient times. Vague though to be fair Marx spent more time analyzing Capitalism and theorizing about revolution than he did laying out what communism look like. Today most leftists see communism as decentralized post-scarcity utilizing some sort of automation to do the bulk, if not the entirety, of the work.

 

To be honest, I'd say Marx is one of capitalism's most perceptive critics, and all te points he made are pretty valid, although his views were very extreme. But remember: Marx is going against 19th century industrial revolution capitalism.

 

So, in the spoiler a quick summary of what I understand of Marx's criticism of capitalism

 

 

 

- Alienation (Entfremdung) from the things you produce, even though specialisations is much more efficient. Marx argues the specialisation of production (everyone in a factory does one very specific thing to produce a good rather than simply do the entire thing) makes the workers disconnect with their work. It steals the creative aspect of production.

- Modern workers can be replaced: in modern work, every single human is just a small factor that can be replaced by other humans or machines if the need arises. But, we don't want to be let go. We want there to be a place for us. A human desire to be needed, to say so.

- Workers get paid little, while capitalists get rich. Marx calls this "primitive accumulation". (ursprüngliche Akkumulation). An known problem, Marx takes it one place further: He says profit means paying one person to produce something, and selling it at a higher price to another. Marx says this (making a lot of profit) is not being intelligent, profit is in his opinion simply a fancy term for exploitation, and what is being exploited is the labour of the workers.

- Capitalism is very unstable: Marx says that crises are not a failure of capitalism, but rather the product of it, and that they are caused by something somewhat weird: Before capitalism, crises were caused by having to little (for example to little food to feed the population). But capitalism produces far more than we need, leading to crises of abundance rather than crises of need. And here is what enraged Marx and gave him hope at the same time: We are so efficient as a society that we could easily dive every person on the planet a house, a car, decent education and healthcare. Going even further, Marx says unemployment is actually freedom. Because our own efficiency can support every life on the planet, Marx argues the goal should be for everyone to work as little as possible and enjoy their new free time. To support this lifestyle, Marx demands that the wealth is spread equally.

- Capitalism is bad for capitalists: Marx didn't say capitalists were evil, rather they were victims of their own system. For example, Marx was perfectly aware of the fact that many rich marry not because of love, but for financial reasons. Marx argues that capitalism puts economics at the heart of everyone's lives, so everyone loses their affection for deep emotions (such as love). He called this "commodity fetishism". (Warenfetischismus) and said it makes us value things that have no objective value. He said that without this mindset, the people could start making sensible choirs for nothing but their personal good (rather than financial reasons)

- Marx said that capitalism was a economic system that makes us adapt a few strange ideologies: That leisure is bad, that being wealthy makes us happy, that having free time essentially us a bad thing (aside from a few weeks a year) and that it should be the aim of people to make money. Marx said all of these were untrue.

 

 

The conclusion he drew from these problems, communism as a solution, is not a good one though (in my opinion). Marx got a very bad reputation since a lot of totalitarian systems and poorly planned economies were build on it. However, I don't think we should completely throw away Marx.... As I said, most of his criticism is very valid in my opinion, only his solution is not.

 

WHAT A SURPRISE!!!

[Ben No.3]

Can't see the video... What is it?

[Pidesco]

Iago the parrot, feigning surprise.

[Ben No.3]

Well... I see