Since this is interesting…

I admit that there are certain things that we as humans that were raised under relatively similar circumstances consider right. This is not to say that all things that people tend to consider right are. Humans have developed in such a way that we have morals and most of them are fairly similar; there is a differance between what seem to be basic human morals and absolute truth.

"–------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Aren’t people greedy by nature?

A: No. For example, in capitalist countries, little children quickly learn to share and cooperate, but they are later taught to take more than they need to compete viciously in “the real world.”
"

People are greedy in any society. there is no good or evil by birth, but there is a will to survive and live. man has to eat, he doesn’t share apples with the apple tree. greed is learned…babies are some of the greediest things out there, behind cats.

Does the lone caveman have a better chance of surviving by himself? No. Of course not. Even in ancient cultures you see tribes banding together for the common good to survive and prosper.

Also in the world today, babies are supported by their family. You don’t see babies gunning it out on their own, it’s impossible.

On 2002-04-07 11:47, TG Moses VI wrote:
Does the lone caveman have a better chance of surviving by himself? No. Of course not. Even in ancient cultures you see tribes banding together for the common good to survive and prosper.

Also in the world today, babies are supported by their family. You don’t see babies gunning it out on their own, it’s impossible.

Yes, but the family exist in order to nurture more generations of even more families. Don’t use this as an example of communism, because the roles in the family are far from equal.

Well even in communism you need a leader (or in better yet a set of different leaders). Plus, I’m talking about a tribe, not a just family, two different words. I challenge anybody to find examples of anicent civilizations prospering more using scattered persons rather than binding together as a whole.

Your relating tribes to Communism?
I dont see the connection.
Is a pack of wolves like Communism?

I wouldn’t exactly call a pack of tribes a wolves. However, I’m realting tribes to communism in the sense that everybody benefits as a hole through mutual corporation and protection. This is in no means an duplicate of communism (however hippie communies do embrace socialistic ideas) but a far better one compared with the “every man for himself, survival of the fittest” concept

I see what your saying, but its more like this. Does the caveman who hunts, fishes and protects the tribe going to like the caveman who sits on his ass, doing nothing, getting his fare share? No.
Capitalism rewards the person who puts in the best effort. Its a bit lkie the the strong will survive, but it beats a bunch of caveman sitting around because everyone is waiting for the next guy to do something.

Well as I stated earlier, Communism is never sucessful if not accepted by the greater majority of the people. Do you think capitalism would also succeed if only one or two people wanted to climp the “corporate ladder” while the others sit around on their lazy arse? Of course not. Will the basketball team try as hard if their goal is not to win the Naitonal Championship? Even in a capitalist society people are still content with being unemployed and accepting welfare.

[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-04-08 19:52 ]

the problem is that a lazy people who blame “the man” turn to communism…usually not hard workers.

i hope you understand this answer to the greed argument so i don’t have to repeat my self.

you said greed is human nature. but what is human nature but the conditioning of our enviroments that we live in. so in todays capitalist world people are lazy and greedy becase that is how we are conditiond to be.
so if we were to live in a communist system it changes the conditioning and there fore human nature

I must agree with mini phreek. Besides, it isn’t often that those who work the hardest are rewarded greatest; do you think a company owner sitting in his office day dreaming about what he could do with his millions since daddy died leaving him the company makes more than say a member of the lowly prolitariat? Communism can work because it takes those that do know how to work (the prolitariat) and puts them in charge of running things.

make any excuse you want…greed is acquired, in any kind of society…communism would be NO different.

And that person who inherits “daddy’s” money will not keep that money forever…complacency eventually leads to losing all of your money. money runs out you know.

and people who become very rich weren’t exactly born with it…it is a combination of greed, hard work and luck at times.

Well written mini phreek. However, your answer does leave a few holes that Horten was able to attack upon. So I will provide the necessary information to cover the two major topics in this forum: “Greed” and “Laziness”

But communism motivates the people to become lazy and motivates the productive to seek their fortunes elsewhere!

As for ‘lazy,’ it is a contention that everybody is somewhat of a procrastinator. When we are born, we usually want to do our own thing whenever we want to. But, as an essential part of indoctrination (condition was phreek said), that we begin to love work. Yes but work without any rewards?

"It’s an article of faith for most of us that rewards promote better performance.
But a growing body of research suggests that this law is not nearly as ironclad as was once thought. Psychologists have been finding that rewards can lower performance levels, especially when the performance involves creativity. A related series of studies shows that intrinsic interest in a task - the sense that something is worth doing for its own sake - typically declines when someone is rewarded for doing it.

If a reward - money, awards, or winning a contest - comes to be seen as the reason one is engaging in an activity, that activity will be viewed as less enjoyable in its own right.

With the exception of some behaviorists who doubt the very existence of intrinsic motivation, these conclusions are now widely accepted among psychologists. Taken together, they suggest we may unwittingly be squelching interest and discouraging innovation among workers, students and artists.

The recognition that rewards can have counter-productive effects is based on a variety of studies, which have come up with such findings as these: Young children who are rewarded for drawing are less likely to draw on their own that are children who draw just for the fun of it. Teenagers offered rewards for playing word games enjoy the games less and do not do as well as those who play with no rewards. Employees who are praised for meeting a manager’s expectations suffer a drop in motivation." - Boston Globe

It’s not that socialism and communism offer no motivation to be productive; it’s a combination of two factors – we still need a lot of stuff done by people, that virtually nobody would want to do (i.e. toilet cleaning), and our society is configured to discourage human self-actualization in Maslowian sense. However, if you look at one large subculture – Free Software – you will see an example of culture that works on just those principles. Such a structure cannot be universalized yet, but it may very well be a glimpse of things to come in a communist society.

Never before have we had so little time in which to do so much

[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-04-11 00:16 ]

I believe that greed comes more naturally than generosity. Even in these tribes cooperation is born out of a sense of self. If it is in a person’s best interest to cooperate he will do so. If he benefits more by lies and deceit this is the path he will follow unless he has been taught as a child the value of honesty and helping people if for no other reason than it’s “the right thing to do”.

It’s all very clear to the objective observer - we live also in a society in which the best interests of the existing members are served by perpetuating the ‘work ethic’ of production. However, is this much production really needed? Time for the next counteroffensive…

Exactly what am I supposed to be producing, and for whom?

The only reason in the world that we need so much production is that we have so much consumption. Most of the work done in today’s society is unecessary, pointless, and serves only the vanity or greed of others. We are obsessed with our perfect homes, cars, furniture, restaurants, electronic gadgets, vacations, and all that other needless consumer goods. Why shouldn’t we? After all aren’t we brought up to embrace those principles in a capitalist society? If everyone followed the old Marxist slogan “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs,” meaning that people will have reached discipline enough to work for the good of society, we will take what we need, but not so much as there could be someone else who needs it more. Most of the ‘production’ that good capitalists want us to accomplish would be suddenly rendered moot. If what tal said is correct, that we aquire greed naturally, then it is capitalism that accelerates and magnifies these vanities? Absoultely.

"If he benefits more by lies and deceit this is the path he will follow unless he has been taught as a child the value of honesty and helping people if for no other reason than it’s “the right thing to do.”

Exactly. That is exactly why it is up to Communists to educated the next generation that will live in a world true of communism. That is why education is one of the top priorities. “Education is a fundamental right, and must be provided free of charge to all who are interested and able. Teaching is a critical skill in any society; let us return teaching to its proper place of honor and respect…” Another problem we see today is a clear disrespect for teachers in general. Though teachers teach merely for the sake of teaching (read my previous post on rewards), a teacher’s income is often laughed upon by students and adults alike. It is often precieved teaching as being a ‘waste.’ However in communism this certainly wouldn’t be the case.

“Even in these tribes cooperation is born out of a sense of self. If it is in a person’s best interest to cooperate he will do so.”

This may be true (I’ll get in tribes later). However, isn’t this more of an argument more in favor of communism? In Capitalism you try and get ahead of other people, under Socialism and later Communism we all get ahead together. Now shouldn’t the later be more acceptable by a tribe to cooperate one another? What provides more of the inspiration: for only one to benefit or for all to do so?

This is the problem of clear capitalistic brainwashing. People are becoming too concerned with their own selves to care about anybody else.

Never before have we had so little time in which to do so much

[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-04-09 22:43 ]

"I will now try to deal with a few objections people generally bring against communism. Some people have a terror of being loafed upon. I don’t see why this should be considered a great obstacle; if sufficient care be exercised in formation, loafers could be excluded.

Nordhoff Hind’s Histories of American Communities states, ‘How do you manage with lazy people? But there are no idlers in a commune; I conclude that men are not naturally idle. Even the winter shakers, - the shiftless fellows who, as cold weather approaches, take refuge in shaker and other communities, professing a desire to become members, who come at the beginning of winter, as a shaker elder said to me, with empty stomachs and empty trunks, and go off with both full as soon as the roses begin to bloom, - even these poor succumb to the systematic and orderly rules of the place, and do their share of work without shrinking, until the mild spring sun tempts them to a freer life.’

I am inclined to suspect that it is the fear of not being able to loaf on others that deters many from even contemplating the communistic question. From what I myself have been able to observe of life amongst the North American Indian, the Maories, and even the Australian aborigines, I find loafing is seldom a source of trouble. Of course, these people have only adopted a very crude form of communism; yet I do not hesitate to say, that these people enjoy more of the privileges of life than do one fourth of the civilised world: they never had to (before the advent of the whites) depend on charity." - Voluntary Communism,
Robert Beattie

still, you are side-stepping your way around the point that the existance of laziness itself kills any “ideal” system. everything is acquired, besides desire. desire keeps you alive, desire to eat…to sleep. how about desire to eat more? greed is born, and even selfishness (since you were a baby crying for everything you want.)

Communism will not kill that. instead, communism will be affected by this acquired greed and selfishness, and will serve no one but the ones in power.

that you cannot debate…or can you?

your missing the point Horton.
there is no one in complete control the system is called the soviet were you have one rep. from each work place in a community to make a council, this council acts as the managment for the entire community.
the reps are elected by the workers of there workplace and subject to recal at ANY TIME.
the council is run by a rep that is elected by the council and subject to recal at any time. this exsecutive rep is in contact with the other ex reps from all the other communitys this makes up the goverment.

this idea is to have every one have a say in the way the nation is run.
in words of Vladamir Lennin “if everyones a buerocrat then nobody is a buerocrat”

all the problems of our world could be soved so vary simply.
you could eliminate unimployment and poverty in one move
you rase the wages by 4 and cut the workweek in half this creats a labour shortage providing imployment for the unimployed. and with more people working and spending. it stimulats the economy.
we can eliminate homelessness simple by building houses just like weve allways done only now it’s a priorty not an after thought
and with people working only half the amount they have the time to learn on there own.
you will begin to see an influx of culture.

this would probably take time but it is very posible to do.

now i just want you to open your mind to the consept that there might is a beter system out there then what we got

Want to eat more? Well this is true. However it’s more of a double edged sword against Capitalism. Did you know if America really wanted to feed the world, it could? The American breadbasket by far has enough fertile soil and the means to produce foodstuffs and more for the whole world. So why don’t we? Easy, capitalism. You see by over producing, American gain prices would drop due to low prices and overproduction.

This was widely apparent during the Great Depression. Did you know that several million squealing pigs were purchased and slaughtered by the Agricultural Adjustment Administration to set up artificial scarcity and establish parity prices? Farmers were forced to plow under young plants, reduce crop acreage, and destroy their own crops. All of this during the depression when people were straving? As you can see, this is capitalism at its worse.

Besides, you always heard of the expression that we’re spoiling kids, right? That kids nowadays have it much better off than their parents did blah blah blah… This is also a byproduct of capitalism. By expecting children to achieve more and to have this “perfect lifestyle,” it inevitably makes children desire more.

Remember in communism we have, “Do more with less.” If everyone followed the old Marxist slogan “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs,” meaning that people will have reached discipline enough to work for the good of society, we will take only what we need.

Now it’s not to say communism is perfect. There are still some kinks to be worked out. The Communist Manifesto was written over 100 years ago! However, communism offers a better solution than capitalism. Case in point?

Supposing you don’t buy the argument that a person’s environment determines his nature. Well whats to say greed in communism is bad? In some Native American cultures an extremely greedy and self-centered act would be to give all of his belongings away. In a different case among the tribes of the South Pacific Islands like Oceania (sp) there is not word for “I” in their language; there is only “We.”

Never before have we had so little time in which to do so much

[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-04-11 00:14 ]