Why Everyone Hates Communists

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Thats taken into account in the capitilist/altruist model. Of course look out for each other because you never know when youll need someone else to look out for you (welfare, medicare, military, government programs, health care systems, etc.) BUT when you can do much better by being selfish then do that. That seems to be the social/political model most utilized by the human species. The communisit model is ideal but it tends to break down into corruption because of our evolutionary preclivities.

Like I said: it really depends on which social theory you buy into. ::shrug:: There is enough contrary evidence available to suggest that it is not as simple as a altruism/capitalism model. And I never said that these differing social theories were somehow akin to communism. I just stated that it is not necessarily true that capitalism is inherent to our nature.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Like I said: it really depends on which social theory you buy into. ::shrug:: There is enough contrary evidence available to suggest that it is not as simple as a altruism/capitalism model. And I never said that these differing social theories were somehow akin to communism. I just stated that it is not necessarily true that capitalism is inherent to our nature.

Well Id be interested in seeing a breakdown of the various social/political models in percentages of population use. Which other social/political theories did you think are more prevelant among humans exactly?

[BeardofPants]

I-rex, you are missing my point it seems. And I'm too tired to explain myself again, so it'll have to wait for another time. BRIEFLY, there are differing theories on human social patterns. To assume that hominids are/were inherently capitalist is making tremendous assumptions. I'm not making any assumptions one way or another - I am merely pointing out that there have been studies which suggest that individualism may not have been that much of a dominant factor in hominids. That's all. ::shrug::

On that note:
The prisoner's dilemma

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Khamûl
Smurfs are Communists. Don't believe me? Click here for proof.

disturbing ... O_o

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Like I said: it really depends on which social theory you buy into. ::shrug:: There is enough contrary evidence available to suggest that it is not as simple as a altruism/capitalism model. And I never said that these differing social theories were somehow akin to communism. I just stated that it is not necessarily true that capitalism is inherent to our nature.

I agree with this, that capitalism is not necessarily inherent to our nature.

[BeardofPants]

Okay. Wanna gang up on I-rex and tickle him mercilessly? Then when he's all helpless, we can take advantage of him, and steal his pants.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Okay. Wanna gang up on I-rex and tickle him mercilessly? Then when he's all helpless, we can take advantage of him, and steal his pants.

Now that’s how I like to hear a coupla females talking. Take my pants off and gang up on me. Course you know I could handle both of you with one hand tied behind my back. Or both to the bed post…

Originally posted by Ruinel
I agree with this, that capitalism is not necessarily inherent to our nature.

ok nevermind that capitalism is an ECONOMIC theory and not really an anthropological theory but that aside, of course its inherent to our nature. Why would it be so prevalent all over the world if its alien to our nature? You find it in the tiniest remotest markets of India to the fat cat unthinkable wealth and power of wall street tycoons. And everywhere in between. You said yourself before that people specialize and do well by themselves by providing whatever it is they specialize in to other specializers. That’s the heart of capitalism if you ask me. Trade for trade. Service for service. Product for product. And basic reinvestment of the bounty gained by said trade, service and product back INTO the economic and social system. And before you start trotting out definitions and hair splitting economic distinctions here, please just listen to my words. What Im saying here IS what I mean by capitalism. And if you are sitting there thinking oh THAT’S not capitalism well then what is it?

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I-rex, you are missing my point it seems. And I'm too tired to explain myself again, so it'll have to wait for another time. BRIEFLY, there are differing theories on human social patterns. To assume that hominids are/were inherently capitalist is making tremendous assumptions. I'm not making any assumptions one way or another - I am merely pointing out that there have been studies which suggest that individualism may not have been that much of a dominant factor in hominids. That's all. ::shrug::

How is asking you a question missing your point exactly? I really truly would be interested for learnings sake of seeing a percentage break down of this kind of thing. Wouldn’t you? To see what populations it applies to and if there has been change over time and across culture. And anyway its fun to poke you when yer tired. Im too far away to get smacked for being annoying.

I think we MAY be talking about two things though. Im talking about large scale population trends not primitive small scale ones. Its been noted that when humans gather in small tribes they tend to live much differently from when they reach a certain threshold of population density where social interaction changes dramatically. And capitalism in its purest form was probably not much evident in prehistoric tribal societies but it tends to be a more complex system of interaction so the numbers weren’t in its favor until that point in our prehistory where it proved beneficial (to enough at the expense of others of course).

Now, I can think of very few population bases today of any decent size that doesn’t rely on some capitalist TYPE of system to keep its economy pumping and to keep trade flowing within and between populations (and I include even China in that fold actually). And frankly there are very few small scale isolated tribal societies left really. At least compared to the teeming masses within the mass populations all over the world. So when I say “capitalism/altruism” Im talking about capitalism with a lower case “c” really. Not some rigid idealistic use of that term. You could probably use different wording to say the exact same thing Im saying if you find the term capitalist distasteful or troubling. This also brings up the big question of is democracy defined by capitalism. Or vice versa perhaps…Or neither…

EDIT:

Now, I can think of very few population bases today of any decent size that doesn’t rely on some capitalist TYPE of system to keep its economy pumping and to keep trade flowing within and between populations

Hey I just thought of one: North Korea. Kinda the exception that proves the rule dontcha think?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Okay. Wanna gang up on I-rex and tickle him mercilessly? Then when he's all helpless, we can take advantage of him, and steal his pants.

Hell yay!

You get his pants and I'll [Edited for PG-13 content]

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Now that’s how I like to hear a coupla females talking. Take my pants off and gang up on me. Course you know I could handle both of you with one hand tied behind my back. Or both to the bed post…

ACK!! Quit putting these naughty ideas into my sweet, pure, innocent head.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

ok nevermind that capitalism is an ECONOMIC theory and not really an anthropological theory but that aside, of course its inherent to our nature. Why would it be so prevalent all over the world if its alien to our nature? You find it in the tiniest remotest markets of India to the fat cat unthinkable wealth and power of wall street tycoons. And everywhere in between. You said yourself before that people specialize and do well by themselves by providing whatever it is they specialize in to other specializers. That’s the heart of capitalism if you ask me. Trade for trade. Service for service. Product for product. And basic reinvestment of the bounty gained by said trade, service and product back INTO the economic and social system. And before you start trotting out definitions and hair splitting economic distinctions here, please just listen to my words. What Im saying here IS what I mean by capitalism. And if you are sitting there thinking oh THAT’S not capitalism well then what is it?



I think we MAY be talking about two things though. Im talking about large scale population trends not primitive small scale ones. Its been noted that when humans gather in small tribes they tend to live much differently from when they reach a certain threshold of population density where social interaction changes dramatically. And capitalism in its purest form was probably not much evident in prehistoric tribal societies but it tends to be a more complex system of interaction so the numbers weren’t in its favor until that point in our prehistory where it proved beneficial (to enough at the expense of others of course).

Now, I can think of very few population bases today of any decent size that doesn’t rely on some capitalist TYPE of system to keep its economy pumping and to keep trade flowing within and between populations (and I include even China in that fold actually). And frankly there are very few small scale isolated tribal societies left really. At least compared to the teeming masses within the mass populations all over the world. So when I say “capitalism/altruism” Im talking about capitalism with a lower case “c” really. Not some rigid idealistic use of that term. You could probably use different wording to say the exact same thing Im saying if you find the term capitalist distasteful or troubling. This also brings up the big question of is democracy defined by capitalism. Or vice versa perhaps…Or neither…


Hey I just thought of one: North Korea. Kinda the exception that proves the rule dontcha think?

If you say that 'now' most nations and peoples are part of a capitalist system, I'd have to agree.

But I think to define as 'capitalist' as any system where someone in the population is doing some amount of buying and selling is stretching it too far- you might just as well say the US is a socialist country because of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

To call a society capitalist I think you'd have to say that
a) the means of production are in private hands
AND
b) the main mechanism of the economy is the marketplace, with goods and sevices (including land and labour) being freely bought and sold.

In most societies throughout history, even if you exclude the tribal level (which covers a good section of those who would have to be included in any discussion of what is 'inherent' in human nature), the predominant economic system was that of peasants bound to the land with an obligation to hand over part of their production in the form of feudal dues/rents/taxes to the upper classes- nothing free about it.

The market system was basically peripheral- a few necessities for the peasants, some luxuries for the nobles.

There were some exceptions- Athens, Venice, Samarkand- where due to siting on trade routes or some especialy valuable (and easily carried ) product the free-market played a much larger role.,
but they were not the majority.

You could just as easily say socialism, or some form of communitarianism is engrained in human nature.

[Janny]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Hell yay!

You get his pants and I'll [Edited for PG-13 content]

At least you three have got the notion of mature debate going!

[Hemel]

It's also the case that you need to have a particular mindset before you can even start thinking of trade, or of being in a place long enough to create goods, or of having the concept of specialisation in what you produce. There are some very complex understandings and thinkings going on just to get to that stage, and although it's very familiar to us now, so much so that it seems natural, I'd suggest that way back in prehistory that wasn't the case at all. That to me puts in great doubt the idea that capitalism was inherent. Or any other -ism come to that. What it does demonstrate in my opinion is that our species has and has developed an immense flexibility of mind and ability to adapt, such that we are able to function under a great number of systems and understandings.

[The Gaffer]

I like the idea of a pants-driven debating system. A bit like the talking thing they used to pass around in Native American get-togethers. Take your pants off and hold them above your head if you want to say something.

* takes pants off *

*debating chamber empties *

I agree with everyone, but especially graymouser.

- Just because a system is prevalent, that doesn't mean that it's right;
- All "capitalist" systems have some sort of central control; it's a question of what's controlled, by whom and to what ends;
- Global capitalism has made hay while the sun shone. However, we are turning our inheritance into greenhouse gases and we may find that, 50 years from now, we need a lot more "command economy" style interventions if we want to get by.

My generally optimistic nature leads me to believe that humans have intelligence, and ought to be capable to deciding how they run their affairs in a humane and sensible way.

By the way, do you American mooters even know what "pants" are?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Hell yay!

You get his pants and I'll [Edited for PG-13 content]

ok but if you [Edited for PG-13 content] then I might have to [Edited for PG-13 content]. And maybe if yer REALLY lucky Ill [Edited for R content].

Originally posted by GrayMouser
If you say that 'now' most nations and peoples are part of a capitalist system, I'd have to agree.

Yeah that’s pretty much what ive been saying. But my feeling is that its true NOW because our population density and distribution allows it to be the ideal form to take place. So if its in us NOW its ALWAYS been in us it just hasn’t been manifested as such until “relatively” recently. I think of it kind of like molecular chemistry (bare with me. Don’t look so incredulous). The ideal “molecular structure” for a given substance can be one thing under certain conditions. But reach a certain point where the conditions change enough and bingo the ideal structure suddenly flips to another quite different one. Water for example. I think when humans reached a certain threshold in population and proximity of neighbors then a capitalist-LIKE system became the standard. Sure there are still people out there who buck the system and live on a sheep farm in some remote highland raising their own food and living off the land but Id say these are the extreme exceptions wouldn’t you?

you might just as well say the US is a socialist country because of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

that’s covered under the altruistic part. Again, feel free to call this something else if you don’t like it starting with the word “capitalism”. It just seemed to make sense to me as a simple label and people seem to be reacting to it with distaste.

In most societies throughout history, even if you exclude the tribal level (which covers a good section of those who would have to be included in any discussion of what is 'inherent' in human nature), the predominant economic system was that of peasants bound to the land with an obligation to hand over part of their production in the form of feudal dues/rents/taxes to the upper classes- nothing free about it.

so are you saying our species is defined by a feudal system then? And that land owners were entirely self sufficient and never traded with other land owner groups or even outside kingdoms? And does it follow that any form of slavery could not have been part of a capitalist system then? By the way was it absolutely illegal for a peasant to make something of himself somehow albeit as difficult as that was?

You could just as easily say socialism, or some form of communitarianism is engrained in human nature.

It is too. Its quite useful when your world is a small collection of extended family members and their spouses who hunt wilderbeasts or something on the savannah. But it doesn’t work out well when youre a member of a population of millions (or billions) in which you live almost on top of each other in some areas. It breaks down long before that into corruption and strife. And the capitalist/altruist molecular structure kicks in.

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I like the idea of a pants-driven debating system. A bit like the talking thing they used to pass around in Native American get-togethers. Take your pants off and hold them above your head if you want to say something.

me too. Its hard to be a blowhard when you aren’t wearing any pants. And no one cares how many spelling errors you make when all you’ve got is a shirt on.

- Just because a system is prevalent, that doesn't mean that it's right;

true. And in fact this originally started because I was bemoaning the fact that pure socialism seemed, at least at this point in our evolution, out of our grasp to perfect on a large scale. Please don’t think I was trumpeting the virtues of a capitalistic society where so many people suffer and have to go without while others have way too much.

My generally optimistic nature leads me to believe that humans have intelligence, and ought to be capable to deciding how they run their affairs in a humane and sensible way.

hmmm…. I suppose we could have quite a lively discussion on this assumption alone. But let me just say I think “humane” is a very relative term.

By the way, do you American mooters even know what "pants" are?

what! You mean I took mine off and we aren’t even talking about the same thing! *looking indignant in my boxers*

[Janny]

Hmmm... I've just got into that US English mindset. *Wonders why he didn't leave with everyone else on the Gaf's removal of pants...

Also, I think capitalism was probably inherant in man. I mean the inherant desire for fairness is going to make primative people want some kind of payment for a service. That comment will be two lima beans please... or whatever the mootish currency is.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
ok but if you [Edited for PG-13 content] then I might have to [Edited for PG-13 content]. And maybe if yer REALLY lucky Ill [Edited for R content].

Then I hope I'm REALLY lucky, because I could use a little [Edited for R content], and it would be nice to [Edited for PG-13 content].

what! You mean I took mine off and we aren’t even talking about the same thing! *looking indignant in my boxers*

hmmmm...

[Katt_knome_hobbit]

And, of course, all politics end in someone getting screwed.

I still think that humans are inherently greedy and they got too much technology too fast, so when they are able too they grossly over consume.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
what! You mean I took mine off and we aren’t even talking about the same thing! *looking indignant in my boxers*

* looking embarrassed with my scrotum blowing in the breeze *

There's been an interesting series on telly lately about medieval systems. Seemingly, it took your average peasant farmer about 50 days to work off their tithe to the feudal lord. After that, everything was their own.

This compares unfavourably with the current situation: seemingly, your typical Brit has to work for about 80 days to pay their rent/mortgage and taxes.

Where's Guillaume le Marischal got to? He'd love this.