: : ::Humans are selfish and greedy by nature. : : : Again, spoken with all the force and conviction of a deity. I bow to your superior wisdom; your immense brain has obviously examined in depth every possible future for the entire human race.
Cara is a deity and therfore has the right to speak with the conviction of one.
: : Do you see? You have just contradicted yourself. I'm not claiming to be any smarter than you so I won't insult your intelligence by explaining why you contradicted yourself.
: Actually, I didn't contradict myself. In my first statement, I said that societies organized on heirarchical lines _usually_ ended up producing a layered society, that this brought about the fall of the ideals of Communism. It was not a categorical statement and did not attempt to say anything about systems other than capitalist ones.
All societies organized on hierarchal lines fall prey to this "layering?" Everyone keeps talking about all these bosses we have in AMERICA (land of those with the wool covering their eyes) and I'd like to know WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY? THEY DON"T EXIST! You UKers sure know a lot about the US that us Americans don't - but I guess that's just because we've listened to the evil government propaganda too long. Remember: EVIL spelled backwards is LIVE.
: Your statement was a generalisation applied to the whole of humanity at all time and under all conditions. Hence my (admittedly slightly clumsy) use of sarcasm. You cannot make that sort of universal statement without disclaimers and modifiers.
Your clumsy sarcasm is forgiven (as far as I'm concerned) but I want to know why you can make generalizations about all capitalist economies (which by your definition includes ALL organized economies) falling to this great societal ill that is "layering."
: My statement was not hugely specific, nevertheless, it addressed _one_ system and _one_ set of conditions. No contradiction: run it through a symbolic logic analysis if you don't believe me.
Here are the results of that analysis: Umm sorry, but no. You're generalization, even if we can forgive it for being a generaliztion, cannot be forgiven for the fact that it is wrong. This layering BS is nonexistent in the United States, which I will further explain later.
: (If you really want to be pedantic about the whole thing, it's best to tell me via @mail in future. My address is provided.)
Not necessary - we can continue here until someone doesn't respond.
: One of Marx's key points was the theory of historical inevitability - the political systems of the world have evolved alongside humanity. I'm not a Marxist, but I'd say this was a good (if flawed) model of the life of the political beast. Capitalism may (or may not) be the "fairest system yet" - that does not mean we shouldn't try for anything better. I'm an anarchist - I don't know if society can survive and thrive in an anarchist society, but I feel it's worth experimenting with.
Nonetheless - there are certain instinctive feature that humans will never evolve out of or they will die. That includes survival - for themselves before others.
: : Capitalism offers equality of opportunity. Everybody has the same chance at success. Socialism is simply equality of results. No one has the chance to become something better.
: So Jose living in the shanties of Sao Paulo has the same opportunity as Joe living in Bel Air? How interesting, I never realised. Or are you trying to say that they have equal chances of "bettering themselves"? (despite the fact that your average Brazilian kid probably can't read)
That's right - they have exactly the same opportunities. A person living in the slums may have to travel and even work harder to get the success they need, but like she said - equality of opportunity, not outcome. In other words that job as a plumber is open to the Bel Air millionaire just as much as it is to the welfare dependent in Sao Paulo. No one can be gauranteed that they will have the job or that they will have the necessary skills, but once again, the skills can be achieved through working your way up unyil you have enough money, going to school, if need be, and getting those skills. You have to climb the economic ladder, as the rich person or someone in their family once did, you cannot just expect to jump to the top, and the ladder is short enough that if you are willing to work, the top can be reached in one lifetime. This is how the USSR was different. You could not reach the top no matter what you did in many cases because you werent of the designated ruling class. We are different.
: : I have yet to be convinced that the earth is in some amount of serious trouble because of our existance. If you feel this way, may I suggest a web site for you: www.paranoia.com/coe/
: Planetary Atmospheres (3C28) in my degree provided me with all the evidence I need to believe in climate change. If you like, though, I will ask a friend of mine doing a PhD (in atmospheric physics) at Cambridge for her opinion.
Fine - let's say that the environment is in a terrible state, how do you think collective ownership will make this any better? If you really wnat to change things, do it through the democratic process in a capitalist nation where the reforms will work.
: : I don't think that pollution will be the end of us. At the rate of population growth that we are now experiencing we may meet our end due to over-crowding. But hey, I'll bet you're a Darwinist. Survival of the fittest.
: I'm divided on this. Part of me says "of course we'll die out eventually, why not sooner". On balance, I feel it would be a Bad Thing, not least in terms of human suffering. I'm not a Darwinist, as I've explained before - Kropotkin had an equally valid point in saying that considerable inter- and intra-species co-operation features in evolution.
Again, what would be the consequences of human extinction? If the pain was too bad, we could all just kill ourselfs, so what would be the ramifications?
: : : Human nature is not "real" in any conventional sense. Human pollution is. Guns are a more immediate threat to me than divine retribution.
: : You don't have to many guns to worry about in the UK. Here in America we have the second amendment that gurantees us the right to keep and bear arms. If they ever change the constitution then the moral fabric of this nation has been shredded. I will find a different country.
: Hang on a sec. You're saying that we don't have to worry as much about guns in the UK, then you say that if things were changed, you'd leave the country. Hmmmm.
: As for saying that the moral fabric of the country depends on your ability to kill other people as easily as possible, I'd have to ask:
: What's the fabric?
I'll explain. The moral fabric of our country means that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of lawing. Taking away guns only insures that you have already judged the people of wrongdoing with those guns -- before they even have them. It's once again not about the practicality of taking away guns (although it fails there as well) but about the morality. It is wrong to tell people that you the divine know they will use their guns for something EVIL and that therefore they do not have the right to own them.
: The original point I was making is that the physical world has an "objective" existence that the human one doesn't - I defy anyone to find me an atom of truth or a religion plant. Of course, although I wasn't going to cloud a good phrase then, this is a gross oversimplification, in that whilst religion may not hurt me directly, a fatwa is likely to make my life shorter. OK, the "human" world has no objective existence, but it shapes the "real" one we live in. That's probably why it's so important to fight cases like the McLibel trial, lest we get forced to live in McHell because we didn't oppose their ideology.
I agree that the physical world has an objective existence, but what's the bloody point? I mean how does this have any relevance whatsoever to what kind of economy is best for human beings?
: As for the right to bear arms, I've got two, they work perfectly, but I only exercise the "bearing" bit in hot weather. They're all I need.
But I bet they are not assault weapons, which are MADE to kill, regardless of whether you plan to use them that way, and should be banned from the planet!
: Eeep, what a long post.
: : The great consolation in life is to say what one thinks.
: : --Voltaire
: If you're forever thinking about bread, prepare to be toasted.
: --Gideon.
"It is no accident that capitalism has brought with it progress, not merely in production, but also in knowledge. Egoism and competition are, alas, much stronger forces than public spirit and sense of duty. In Russia they say it is hard to get a good piece of bread. Perhaps I'm overpessimistic concerning state and other forms of communal enterprise, but I expect little good from them. Beauracracy is the of any achievement. I've seen and experienced too many warnings, even in comparatively modeled Switzerland. I'm convinced that the state can only be of use to industry as a limiting and regulative force."
-- Albert Einstein
Mike
