Antifa: need to know

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-21-2017, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: You present this sort of personal competition and resentment as "human nature" then, and not the result of socialization into a form of bureaucracy specific to advanced capitalist countries?

I sure do, comrade.  Human beings are wired to compete against each other if for no other reason than simple biology.  The strongest, dominant males got the first crack at any food and got the most desirable mates.  The most desirable females were protected by these males and ensured their offspring would have a better chance of survival.  Telling someone who busts their ass all day that the get the exact same share of "X" that the guy who completely half assed it gets is a recipe for a bunch of people who half ass it and is completely at odds with every instinct we possess.  What incentive is their to achieve under communism?  Answer, there is none.  

But, in good news tractor production has reached record levels for the fifth year in a row!

[Dill]

(08-21-2017, 10:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I sure do, comrade.  Human beings are wired to compete against each other if for no other reason than simple biology.  The strongest, dominant males got the first crack at any food and got the most desirable mates.  The most desirable females were protected by these males and ensured their offspring would have a better chance of survival.  Telling someone who busts their ass all day that the get the exact same share of "X" that the guy who completely half assed it gets is a recipe for a bunch of people who half ass it and is completely at odds with every instinct we possess.  What incentive is their to achieve under communism?  Answer, there is none.  

But, in good news tractor production has reached record levels for the fifth year in a row!

"Simple biology" hardly accounts for the historical diversity of human behavior and social organization. Offhand I cannot think of any recorded human society in which "the strongest, dominant males got the first crack at any food and the most desirable mates." Maybe you know of some, or at least one, and can cite an example. Maybe you have also heard the term "social Darwinism," which, back in the 19th century, projected an oversimplified conception of "survival of the fittest" into the human social world to justify corporate power and oppose redistribution of wealth.  It was then that people began imagining the stronger caveman taking food and women away from the weaker like animals--all biology, no culture.

I think most contemporary anthropologists and ethnologists would agree that cooperation and sharing offered humans a better chance of survival than a bunch of atomistic individuals competing against each other. Why couldn't one say that letting some people live off the labor of thousands without themselves working, while others who do work starve, is "completely at odds with every instinct we possess"? That claim would square better with current ethnology and social history.

I wonder where you learned that there is "no incentive to achieve" under Communism. Was it in a US public school? You may not remember. Would it be fair to say that at some point you could "see for yourself" that Communism does not work? I am guessing you learned about all the "hard wiring" more recently.

[GMDino]

(08-22-2017, 11:05 AM)Dill Wrote:
"Simple biology" hardly accounts for the historical diversity of human behavior and social organization. Offhand I cannot think of any recorded human society in which "the strongest, dominant males got the first crack at any food and the most desirable mates." Maybe you know of some, or at least one, and can cite an example. Maybe you have also heard the term "social Darwinism," which, back in the 19th century, projected an oversimplified conception of "survival of the fittest" into the human social world to justify corporate power and oppose redistribution of wealth.  It was then that people began imagining the stronger caveman taking food and women away from the weaker like animals--all biology, no culture.

I think most contemporary anthropologists and ethnologists would agree that cooperation and sharing offered humans a better chance of survival than a bunch of atomistic individuals competing against each other. Why couldn't one say that letting some people live off the labor of thousands without themselves working, while others who do work starve, is "completely at odds with every instinct we possess"? That claim would square better with current ethnology and social history.

I wonder where you learned that there is "no incentive to achieve" under Communism. Was it in a US public school? You may not remember. Would it be fair to say that at some point you could "see for yourself" that Communism does not work?  I am guessing you learned about all the "hard wiring" more recently.

Weird to people still talk about "survival of the fittest" in 2017.  As if we haven't evolved to the point where science has allowed even the "weak" to reproduce.

If we could get past our primal urge of greed perhaps we could learn to help each other and make it a better world for all.

I know that's a nirvana pipe dream...but still better than just accepting that there are aholes and so we to all be aholes.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-22-2017, 11:05 AM)Dill Wrote:
"Simple biology" hardly accounts for the historical diversity of human behavior and social organization. Offhand I cannot think of any recorded human society in which "the strongest, dominant males got the first crack at any food and the most desirable mates." Maybe you know of some, or at least one, and can cite an example. Maybe you have also heard the term "social Darwinism," which, back in the 19th century, projected an oversimplified conception of "survival of the fittest" into the human social world to justify corporate power and oppose redistribution of wealth.  It was then that people began imagining the stronger caveman taking food and women away from the weaker like animals--all biology, no culture.

The amount of literalism present in this analysis borders on the deliberately obtuse.  I was speaking to the thousands of years of biology that took place prior to humans forming anything resembling modern society.  That kind of instinct, built on hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, does not wholly disappear in the around three thousand years of modern human society.  Men are still drawn to attractive healthy females, this hasn't changed at all.  Woman are still drawn to powerful men, whether physically or otherwise.  Like I stated in the beginning, willful obtuseness.

Quote:I think most contemporary anthropologists and ethnologists would agree that cooperation and sharing offered humans a better chance of survival than a bunch of atomistic individuals competing against each other. Why couldn't one say that letting some people live off the labor of thousands without themselves working, while others who do work starve, is "completely at odds with every instinct we possess"? That claim would square better with current ethnology and social history.

I think you're incorrectly conflating (quite deliberately incorrectly IMO) the need for human beings to cooperate to survive with the more cerebral concept of communism.  Cooperation is necessary by dint, again, of our biology.  Without it humans would not have survived.  This kind of cooperative survival has never usurped the concept of the powerful (whether intellectually, physically or both) leading and enjoying benefits that the less gifted never achieve.

Quote:I wonder where you learned that there is "no incentive to achieve" under Communism.

By dint of it's very structure.  I produce twenty units you produce two, we both get eleven units.  What incentive do I have to keep producing twenty?  For someone who frequently attempts to claim the intellectual high ground your failure to grasp this simple concept is telling.

Quote:Was it in a US public school? You may not remember. Would it be fair to say that at some point you could "see for yourself" that Communism does not work?  I am guessing you learned about all the "hard wiring" more recently.

Probably when I read Das Kapital and determined how utterly unworkable the concept was.  You see, I'm one of those guys who doesn't slavishly adhere to any one ideology.  Logic would tell a person that no one theory has the answer to every problem, therefore a hybrid idea, gleaning the best, and compatible, concepts from multiple sources has the best chance of succeeding.  Pure socialism has not worked once in any country on the globe under any circumstances.  Of course, every time it fails adherents like yourself always whinge that, "It wasn't done right that time".  Communism doesn't work and will never work beyond small communities of like minded people.  As a form of national governance it is utterly unworkable.

(08-22-2017, 11:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: Weird to people still talk about "survival of the fittest" in 2017.  As if we haven't evolved to the point where science has allowed even the "weak" to reproduce.

It would be weird if that was actually happening.  Reading comprehension fail #4,506,182 for you.

Quote:If we could get past our primal urge of greed perhaps we could learn to help each other and make it a better world for all.

I'd counter that expecting to get more because you produce more isn't greed, it's just.

Quote:I know that's a nirvana pipe dream...but still better than just accepting that there are aholes and so we to all be aholes.

Nope, the spectrum isn't communism and then greedy asshole.  Understanding that would require nuance though.

[GMDino]

(08-22-2017, 11:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: Weird to people still talk about "survival of the fittest" in 2017.  As if we haven't evolved to the point where science has allowed even the "weak" to reproduce.

(08-22-2017, 02:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It would be weird if that was actually happening.  Reading comprehension fail #4,506,182 for you.

So this wasn't about survival of the fittest?

(08-21-2017, 10:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Human beings are wired to compete against each other if for no other reason than simple biology.  The strongest, dominant males got the first crack at any food and got the most desirable mates.  The most desirable females were protected by these males and ensured their offspring would have a better chance of survival.  

Weird.

(08-21-2017, 10:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Understanding that would require nuance though.

"nuance"


Anyway...

(08-22-2017, 02:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nope, the spectrum isn't communism and then greedy asshole. 

(08-21-2017, 10:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I sure do, comrade.  Human beings are wired to compete against each other if for no other reason than simple biology.  The strongest, dominant males got the first crack at any food and got the most desirable mates.  The most desirable females were protected by these males and ensured their offspring would have a better chance of survival.  Telling someone who busts their ass all day that the get the exact same share of "X" that the guy who completely half assed it gets is a recipe for a bunch of people who half ass it and is completely at odds with every instinct we possess.  What incentive is their to achieve under communism?  Answer, there is none.  

But, in good news tractor production has reached record levels for the fifth year in a row!

"nuance"

[StLucieBengal]

Communism is great for my family. In the Lucie house we are communists but as far as outside of our home we are capitalists.

[GMDino]

(08-22-2017, 02:35 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Communism is great for my family.   In the Lucie house we are communists but as far as outside of our home we are capitalists.

Much like those free market capitalists that want government out of their business...unless there is a collapse in the economy or they have a mess they need help cleaning up.  Then it's socialism all the way!  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-22-2017, 02:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: So this wasn't about survival of the fittest?

No, and anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to understand that.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-22-2017, 02:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: Much like those free market capitalists that want government out of their business...unless there is a collapse in the economy or they have a mess they need help cleaning up.  Then it's socialism all the way!  

I am fine with collapse.

[Dill]

(08-22-2017, 02:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The amount of literalism present in this analysis borders on the deliberately obtuse.  I was speaking to the thousands of years of biology that took place prior to humans forming anything resembling modern society.  That kind of instinct, built on hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, does not wholly disappear in the around three thousand years of modern human society.  Men are still drawn to attractive healthy females, this hasn't changed at all.  Woman are still drawn to powerful men, whether physically or otherwise.  Like I stated in the beginning, willful obtuseness.

Nope, the spectrum isn't communism and then greedy asshole.  Understanding that would require nuance though.

In your previous post, it was not very clear exactly what you were speaking to. You described people as "hard wired" to behave a certain way. "Strongest and most dominant males" get "first crack" at the food. So Communism won't work. Pointing out there is no social scientific validation of these claims is hardly "willful obtuseness."

What you say here is not very clear either. "Modern human society"--what does that mean? Historians speak of a modern era of European/world history which begins around 1500--after some five millenia of civilization already.  Pre-civilized humans appear to have had language, religion and rather sophisticated forms of tribal/kinship organization for many thousands of years before that.  Now you say biology dictates women be attracted to "powerful men." So if a woman is attracted to an ugly, feeble-minded and physically weak king, that would be biology in action? If European men are attracted to heavy, wide-hipped women in the 16th century and slim ones in the 21st, that confirms your thousands of years of biology that "took place"?

Remember, you are the one arguing against "spectrums," not me. "Simple biology" is not the foundation of my argument.

[GMDino]

(08-22-2017, 02:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, and anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to understand that.

(08-21-2017, 10:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Human beings are wired to compete against each other if for no other reason than simple biology.  

The strongest, dominant males got the first crack at any food and got the most desirable mates.  

The most desirable females were protected by these males and ensured their offspring would have a better chance of survival.  

No nothing about survival of the fittest there.

[Dill]

(08-22-2017, 02:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you're incorrectly conflating (quite deliberately incorrectly IMO) the need for human beings to cooperate to survive with the more cerebral concept of communism.  Cooperation is necessary by dint, again, of our biology.  Without it humans would not have survived.  This kind of cooperative survival has never usurped the concept of the powerful (whether intellectually, physically or both) leading and enjoying benefits that the less gifted never achieve.

Again, there is simply no social science foundation for this claim.  You are projecting a modern ideology back into pre-capitalist societies. Ancient Romans were rarely more "gifted" than their Greek slaves.  And many American slaves may have been stronger and otherwise more "gifted" than their masters. And what you are claiming is not even true for this society.  Plenty of people enjoy tremendous economic and political power in the US without being especially "gifted."  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-22-2017, 02:55 PM)Dill Wrote: In your previous post, it was not very clear exactly what you were speaking to. You described people as "hard wired" to behave a certain way. "Strongest and most dominant males" get "first crack" at the food. So Communism won't work. Pointing out there is no social scientific validation of these claims is hardly "willful obtuseness."

Ugh, it's annoying that I have to spell it out for you in more basic terms.  It should have been abundantly clear that I was referring to the evolutionary process and how it still drives out biology.  Humans are a predatory species, we are hard wired (that term again!) to compete for resources with those outside our group.  What determines that group has, of course, changed over time.  What hasn't changed is the competition, as the current state of world affairs abundantly proves.  It used to be food (sometimes it still is), now it's oil or religion or any number of other things.  That doesn't that human beings, as a whole, are never going to be satisfied with receiving equal shares for unequal work.  The level of forced altruism required is not going to be expressed by anything like a significant portion of the species.  If you got paid the same amount as the guy who does 10% of the work you do you're going to resent it down the road.  Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

Quote:What you say here is not very clear either. "Modern human society"--what does that mean? Historians speak of a modern era of European/world history which begins around 1500--after some five millenia of civilization already.  Pre-civilized humans appear to have had language, religion and rather sophisticated forms of tribal/kinship organization for many thousands of years before that.  Now you say biology dictates women be attracted to "powerful men." So if a woman is attracted to an ugly, feeble-minded and physically weak king, that would be biology in action? If European men are attracted to heavy, wide-hipped women in the 16th century and slim ones in the 21st, that confirms your thousands of years of biology that "took place"?

Well, since I said "around 3,000 years" I would have thought that would clue you in to the time frame I am referring to.  You must also have missed when I cited powerful as being "physically, intellectually or both"  Of course, temporal power is also a factor as I said in the post above when I referred to physical power or "other".  As to your last point, what is desirable, in terms of physical beauty, is malleable, the idea of wanting a physically desirable mate is not.  We'd save a lot of time if you actually read the points made in my posts so I don't have to endlessly repeat them.
  

Quote:Remember, you are the one arguing against "spectrums," not me. "Simple biology" is not the foundation of my argument.

It's not mine either.  I, unlike yourself, don't pretend like it doesn't exist.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-22-2017, 02:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: No nothing about survival of the fittest there.

You'll recall my having stated many times in the past I don't make points for you, I make them for the other people reading these threads.  Deliberate obtuseness is not an attractive character trait. 

(08-22-2017, 03:07 PM)Dill Wrote: Again, there is simply no social science foundation for this claim.  You are projecting a modern ideology back into pre-capitalist societies. Ancient Romans were rarely more "gifted" than their Greek slaves.

They sure as hell were more powerful than them.

 

Quote:And many American slaves may have been stronger and otherwise more "gifted" than their masters

They sure as hell weren't more powerful than them.

Quote:And what you are claiming is not even true for this society.  Plenty of people enjoy tremendous economic and political power in the US without being especially "gifted."  

Ahh, so they hold power.  I guess when you focus solely on my points about physical or intellectual gifts you chose to ignore my points about temporal power.  I suppose I'd be confused as well I only attempted to understand a fraction of the argument being made.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-22-2017, 02:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Men are still drawn to attractive healthy females, this hasn't changed at all.  Woman are still drawn to powerful men, whether physically or otherwise.  Like I stated in the beginning, willful obtuseness.

I think we're done here.  Remember kids, read the whole post, not just the little bit you think you can nit pick a lame point out of.  Thank you, drive through.

[Dill]

(08-22-2017, 02:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: By dint of it's very structure.  I produce twenty units you produce two, we both get eleven units.  What incentive do I have to keep producing twenty?  For someone who frequently attempts to claim the intellectual high ground your failure to grasp this simple concept is telling.

Probably when I read Das Kapital and determined how utterly unworkable the concept was.  You see, I'm one of those guys who doesn't slavishly adhere to any one ideology.  Logic would tell a person that no one theory has the answer to every problem, therefore a hybrid idea, gleaning the best, and compatible, concepts from multiple sources has the best chance of succeeding.  Pure socialism has not worked once in any country on the globe under any circumstances.  Of course, every time it fails adherents like yourself always whinge that, "It wasn't done right that time".  Communism doesn't work and will never work beyond small communities of like minded people.  As a form of national governance it is utterly unworkable.

Someone who has read Das Kapital would not be describing the "structure" of Communism as "I produce twenty units you produce two"--at least someone who understood Marx's work.   You make a guess about how Communism is supposed to work, a guess no Communist would agree with, then claim my "failure to grasp this simple concept."

And where is the "hybridity" in your critique of Communism? You repeat the same system of shibboleths I have heard about Communism/socialism since the '50s--it goes against human nature, has never worked, will never work, destroys incentive, etc. This does not indicate your reliance upon "multiple sources" or more than one "theory." It sounds, rather, like traditional anti-communism.

And are you conflating Socialism and Communism now? Has "pure capitalism" worked once in any country on the globe under any circumstances? Not clear what you mean by "worked" here.  Different standard for Socialism and Communism?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-22-2017, 03:38 PM)Dill Wrote: Someone who has read Das Kapital would not be describing the "structure" of Communism as "I produce twenty units you produce two"--at least someone who understood Marx's work.   You make a guess about how Communism is supposed to work, a guess no Communist would agree with, then claim my "failure to grasp this simple concept."

And where is the "hybridity" in your critique of Communism? You repeat the same system of shibboleths I have heard about Communism/socialism since the '50s--it goes against human nature, has never worked, will never work, destroys incentive, etc. This does not indicate your reliance upon "multiple sources" or more than one "theory." It sounds, rather, like traditional anti-communism.

And are you conflating Socialism and Communism now? Has "pure capitalism" worked once in any country on the globe under any circumstances? Not clear what you mean by "worked" here.  Different standard for Socialism and Communism?

Then please enlighten us, oh wise one.

[Dill]

(08-22-2017, 03:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ugh, it's annoying that I have to spell it out for you in more basic terms.  It should have been abundantly clear that I was referring to the evolutionary process and how it still drives out biology.  Humans are a predatory species, we are hard wired (that term again!) to compete for resources with those outside our group.  What determines that group has, of course, changed over time.  What hasn't changed is the competition, as the current state of world affairs abundantly proves.  It used to be food (sometimes it still is), now it's oil or religion or any number of other things.  That doesn't that human beings, as a whole, are never going to be satisfied with receiving equal shares for unequal work.  The level of forced altruism required is not going to be expressed by anything like a significant portion of the species.  If you got paid the same amount as the guy who does 10% of the work you do you're going to resent it down the road.  Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

Well, since I said "around 3,000 years" I would have thought that would clue you in to the time frame I am referring to.  You must also have missed when I cited powerful as being "physically, intellectually or both"  Of course, temporal power is also a factor as I said in the post above when I referred to physical power or "other".  As to your last point, what is desirable, in terms of physical beauty, is malleable, the idea of wanting a physically desirable mate is not.  We'd save a lot of time if you actually read the points made in my posts so I don't have to endlessly repeat them.

You have apparently misunderstood my point about the limits of biologism in explaining human behavior. It should have been abundantly clear that at some point in human evolution social organization is uncoupled from biology. That is why the diversity of human social organization is as great within our species as it is between other species.  That's also why it doesn't make sense to project present forms of social organization/competition/valuation back upon previous eras under the guise of biology.
 
When you combine the term "modern" with "3,000" years, that only suggests you do not know how to periodize this evolutionary process you claim to describe. I must guess what you mean by "temporal power" as well--a term used in Medieval politics to describe secular rule. Maybe you mean political or social power, the kind that results from social organization? 

Notice that when you "ugh, spell out" your points, you have to add qualifying statements which bring them closer to my position.  First it's the "strongest, dominant males" the ladies go for. Then it's the ones with intellect as well. Then it's ones with "temporal power" and humans are cooperating to compete for resources "outside the group." And you meant all that all along--though someone with "temporal power" might not have any of those biological power-granting gifts that seemed to have the upper hand in your first formulation. Now physical beauty is "malleable"-- does "hard wiring" still explain why men are attracted to long necks in one culture and fat bottoms in another?  

Now "competition" is the byword. It's always been there, just now for oil etc. That's what you meant. And that's why Communism won't work because the guy who does 90% of the work is hard wired to resent the guy who only does 10%.  Nevermind that for thousands of years societies have "worked" even though the richest members did the least work, and weren't even the strongest and smartest.

Would any Communist disagree with any of your hyper-general claims about competition and attraction to socially defined beauty and power? Would it really hurt to check with some actual Communists before telling everyone what Communism is and why it won't work?



 

[Dill]

(08-22-2017, 03:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then please enlighten us, oh wise one.

??? I always do my best, but about what, specifically?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-22-2017, 04:44 PM)Dill Wrote: ??? I always do my best, but about what, specifically?

Jesus, about communism, you know the thing you just claimed I was displaying ignorance about.