Capitalism .V. Socialism

[Kayla]

I'm sticking with freedom as a basic principle worth fighting for,

could you expand on what you mean by freedom

an american with a shitty job and no medical coverage and a chronically ill kid is not exactly free

a canadian in a similar situation will be more free to do things that they want

[ForgedinHell]

You asked a question, and I answered it. Typical Marxist: Always in denial.

I'm a British Liberal.

But you are right, it was my mistake to use the words "what you think Marx's view of 'human nature' was" as it allowed you to restate your original opinion. I was hoping that the words after that would have qualified what I was asking for but I forgot the Yanks selective reading ability. So, show me where in Marx's writings he states the version of human nature that you ascribe to him?
You also missed these;

"Where does he claim this?"

"Very emotive but where does he propose such a system?"

"Do you think Capitalism is suitable for a billion plus nation?"

No problem. I'm at work right now, but later on this evening, I can review some quotes in my library at home. It's amazing how anyone would deny that Marx considered human beings to be without a nature, to be playthings manipulated at will. But, if you are really claiming ignorance, I'll educate you. If I forget, just post me a reminder and I'll provide the quotes.

[Kayla]

i tried reading marx it is pure gibberish

this makes it easy for people to impose their notions about marxism on his works

arguing about what marx really meant is silly

[Arising_uk]

i tried reading marx it is pure gibberish

this makes it easy for people to impose their notions about marxism on his works

arguing about what marx really meant is silly

i agree, Marx himself said he was not a 'Marxist'. His Das Capital, I accept, is very trying and from a modern economical point of view just wrong. You think The Communist Manifesto was unclear? Must be a cultural thing as I've watched it have a revelatory effect upon what used to be the British working class. Of course now-a-days they're pretty much the lumpen-prole so reading is not their forte anymore. You disagree with his philosophical idea of Historical Materialism to explain historical social relations? Most do now-a-days but I've yet to hear a better explanation for much of what we see around us and over the past few decades have got tired of hearing yet again the issues of why families are dissolving and why our culture appears to be fragmenting being re-hashed time and again by the latest cultural 'expert' when Marx's HM gives a clear explanation, i.e. the forces of production have changed.

[ForgedinHell]

i tried reading marx it is pure gibberish

this makes it easy for people to impose their notions about marxism on his works

arguing about what marx really meant is silly

i agree, Marx himself said he was not a 'Marxist'. His Das Capital, I accept, is very trying and from a modern economical point of view just wrong. You think The Communist Manifesto was unclear? Must be a cultural thing as I've watched it have a revelatory effect upon what used to be the British working class. Of course now-a-days they're pretty much the lumpen-prole so reading is not their forte anymore. You disagree with his philosophical idea of Historical Materialism to explain historical social relations? Most do now-a-days but I've yet to hear a better explanation for much of what we see around us and over the past few decades have got tired of hearing yet again the issues of why families are dissolving and why our culture appears to be fragmenting being re-hashed time and again by the latest cultural 'expert' when Marx's HM gives a clear explanation, i.e. the forces of production have changed.

Marx was just generally confused, which is the general state of socialists the world over. A few of the quotes showing that Marx did not believe in human nature: "Circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances." "It is not the consciousness of men that determine their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." The creepy Marx didn't even believe that people were real: "Individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class interests." Completely overlooked by Marx is about 4 billion years of evolution, and the realization that billions of years of evolution will create a human nature. In fact, you revealed that evolutionary nature when you insulted me for being an "American." We evolved largely through group selection, so it is within your nature to classify people into groups. Whereas if you used your reason, you would realize that I only repesent myself, and not America, or any other American.

[Kayla]

Completely overlooked by Marx is about 4 billion years of evolution, and the realization that billions of years of evolution will create a human nature.

the funny thing about human nature is that there are so many different concepts of it and so many incompatible things are justified in terms of human nature

so perhaps someone who rejects the idea that human nature is something very specific is on to something

[Kayla]

You disagree with his philosophical idea of Historical Materialism to explain historical social relations?

not i just do not understand what he is talking about and i dont think its a problem with my reading skills as i can make sense of kant

but perhaps the way i was introduced to marx created a bias

my math teacher is from russia and he hates communism and marxism having seen it firsthand

he studied english in russia back when it was ussr and as part of that he had to read marx in english and for some reason he took his books with him when he left russia

and he gave me his marx books when i told him i wanted to familiarize myself with marx and provided some rather uncomplimentary editorial commentary

of why families are dissolving

i think that issue is totally overblown

when i hear about family life in the 1950s i shudder

better to have modern dissolved family than the 1950s usa

[ForgedinHell]

Completely overlooked by Marx is about 4 billion years of evolution, and the realization that billions of years of evolution will create a human nature.

the funny thing about human nature is that there are so many different concepts of it and so many incompatible things are justified in terms of human nature

so perhaps someone who rejects the idea that human nature is something very specific is on to something

No. Human nature is very real, and it is based on evolution. What people fail to understand is that there were two different evolutionary selection pressures that pulled human "morality" into two different directions. One is individual selection, the other is group selection. But, just to give a basic illustration, the vast majority of parents, world-wide, treat their children better than strangers. That's a prime example of individual selection. The parent has half their nuclear DNA in their child, absent incest. That closer genetic relationship brings about natural tendency to favor one's children over strangers.

Another example is we evolved to think in terms of "group identity" and "us versus them" mentality. Just cruise around this site and see how often the Europeans insult Americans? That's an example of our human nature at work. Our morality is based on our group, and we do not extend morality to those outside our group. Suppose Trump said he wanted to see no one go hungry and donated 10 million in food for starving children in the US? He would be considered a hero. However, if he sent that same ten million, to people who were equally hungry, but they were the Taliban, what would happen? He would be demonized. The same act of charity, yet, the in-group out-group mentality takes over and makes the same act either moral or an abomination. That's human nature.

[Alchemyst]

the funny thing about human nature is that there are so many different concepts of it and so many incompatible things are justified in terms of human nature

so perhaps someone who rejects the idea that human nature is something very specific is on to something

No. Human nature is very real, and it is based on evolution. What people fail to understand is that there were two different evolutionary selection pressures that pulled human "morality" into two different directions. One is individual selection, the other is group selection. But, just to give a basic illustration, the vast majority of parents, world-wide, treat their children better than strangers. That's a prime example of individual selection. The parent has half their nuclear DNA in their child, absent incest. That closer genetic relationship brings about natural tendency to favor one's children over strangers.

Another example is we evolved to think in terms of "group identity" and "us versus them" mentality. Just cruise around this site and see how often the Europeans insult Americans? That's an example of our human nature at work. Our morality is based on our group, and we do not extend morality to those outside our group. Suppose Trump said he wanted to see no one go hungry and donated 10 million in food for starving children in the US? He would be considered a hero. However, if he sent that same ten million, to people who were equally hungry, but they were the Taliban, what would happen? He would be demonized. The same act of charity, yet, the in-group out-group mentality takes over and makes the same act either moral or an abomination. That's human nature.

I take your general point about group identity, but there is a personality trait called conscientiousness and I would bet that those who score highly on that dimension are indeed disposed to extending morality beyond their group (I do and I do, whilst still favouring my own kind). And isn't anti-American sentiment pretty global? The British don't identitfy much with continental Europe and a majority of us do not want to maintain the current quasi-political union with it. We have a widespread perception of Americans as arrogant, boastful and over-excitable. To be fair, the few Americans I've known have been nice and quiet, so maybe the arrogance thing is a culture within a culture?

[ForgedinHell]

the funny thing about human nature is that there are so many different concepts of it and so many incompatible things are justified in terms of human nature

so perhaps someone who rejects the idea that human nature is something very specific is on to something

No. Human nature is very real, and it is based on evolution. What people fail to understand is that there were two different evolutionary selection pressures that pulled human "morality" into two different directions. One is individual selection, the other is group selection. But, just to give a basic illustration, the vast majority of parents, world-wide, treat their children better than strangers. That's a prime example of individual selection. The parent has half their nuclear DNA in their child, absent incest. That closer genetic relationship brings about natural tendency to favor one's children over strangers.

Another example is we evolved to think in terms of "group identity" and "us versus them" mentality. Just cruise around this site and see how often the Europeans insult Americans? That's an example of our human nature at work. Our morality is based on our group, and we do not extend morality to those outside our group. Suppose Trump said he wanted to see no one go hungry and donated 10 million in food for starving children in the US? He would be considered a hero. However, if he sent that same ten million, to people who were equally hungry, but they were the Taliban, what would happen? He would be demonized. The same act of charity, yet, the in-group out-group mentality takes over and makes the same act either moral or an abomination. That's human nature.

I take your general point about group identity, but there is a personality trait called conscientiousness and I would bet that those who score highly on that dimension are indeed disposed to extending morality beyond their group (I do and I do, whilst still favouring my own kind). And isn't anti-American sentiment pretty global? The British don't identitfy much with continental Europe and a majority of us do not want to maintain the current quasi-political union with it. We have a widespread perception of Americans as arrogant, boastful and over-excitable. To be fair, the few Americans I've known have been nice and quiet, so maybe the arrogance thing is a culture within a culture?

Anti-American sentiment is not global, it exists mainly along a small handful of people who don't even know anything about America. Besides, let's say, for the sake of argument, every person outside America hated Americans. So? Would that in any way mean that Americans were worthy of that dislike? Not at all. No more than white supremacists hating blacks makes black people worthy of the hatred. Americans are made up of individual people, and each has their own thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and each is responsible for their own actions. A blanket indictment of all Americans, by its very nature, must be irrational.

If you don't believe in group selection as forming a large part of human nature, then when is the last time you advocated taxing British people to feed starving Africans? For educating them? How come you are more willing to take care of your fellow Brits than people living in America? If you do not identify with groups, then your love for Americans should always have been as strong as your love for your fellow Brits. We constantly think in terms of groups. Sports fans, political parties, race, gender, professions, etc., we constantly are identifying ourselves with groups throughout the day.

[ForgedinHell]

the funny thing about human nature is that there are so many different concepts of it and so many incompatible things are justified in terms of human nature

so perhaps someone who rejects the idea that human nature is something very specific is on to something

No. Human nature is very real, and it is based on evolution. What people fail to understand is that there were two different evolutionary selection pressures that pulled human "morality" into two different directions. One is individual selection, the other is group selection. But, just to give a basic illustration, the vast majority of parents, world-wide, treat their children better than strangers. That's a prime example of individual selection. The parent has half their nuclear DNA in their child, absent incest. That closer genetic relationship brings about natural tendency to favor one's children over strangers.

Another example is we evolved to think in terms of "group identity" and "us versus them" mentality. Just cruise around this site and see how often the Europeans insult Americans? That's an example of our human nature at work. Our morality is based on our group, and we do not extend morality to those outside our group. Suppose Trump said he wanted to see no one go hungry and donated 10 million in food for starving children in the US? He would be considered a hero. However, if he sent that same ten million, to people who were equally hungry, but they were the Taliban, what would happen? He would be demonized. The same act of charity, yet, the in-group out-group mentality takes over and makes the same act either moral or an abomination. That's human nature.

I take your general point about group identity, but there is a personality trait called conscientiousness and I would bet that those who score highly on that dimension are indeed disposed to extending morality beyond their group (I do and I do, whilst still favouring my own kind). And isn't anti-American sentiment pretty global? The British don't identitfy much with continental Europe and a majority of us do not want to maintain the current quasi-political union with it. We have a widespread perception of Americans as arrogant, boastful and over-excitable. To be fair, the few Americans I've known have been nice and quiet, so maybe the arrogance thing is a culture within a culture?

I forgot to give a more detailed explanation of how evolution created our human nature, and in doing so, offers a rational explanation for our hypocrisies, etc. There is individual selection. That type of selection encourages selfish behavior. Within a group, the more selfish a person is, then the more likely they are to be successful, survive, and reproduce. If left alone, then it may actually result in a dog-eat-dog world. The second evolutionary influence, however, pulls us in the opposite direction. This is called group selection. We may compete with each other as individuals, but we also belong to groups that compete with other groups. Basically, those groups with the greatest number of altruistic members have a competitive advantage over other groups. So, part of us is influenced to be selfish, and another part, altruistic, but only with respect to groups we identify with. In other words, there will be no global government and world peace. It's not in our nature.

[Alchemyst]

I did say that I accepted your general point about intra-group preference and morality. I just don't think it's absolute and that a minority in any group (about 20%) are capable of altruism towards outsiders. This comes from individual personality traits. And whatever the faults of Americans, Alice Cooper redeems you all!

[ForgedinHell]

I did say that I accepted your general point about intra-group preference and morality. I just don't think it's absolute and that a minority in any group (about 20%) are capable of altruism towards outsiders. This comes from individual personality traits. And whatever the faults of Americans, Alice Cooper redeems you all!

Thank the realm for Alice Cooper then. That was funny.

How about this: That 20% you are thinking of? They are actually using a broader definition of a social group, but they are still acting within the limits of a social group. Some people see "white" others "black" others "Americans" others "human beings," and although one may desire civil rights for all, who on earth desires equal benefits for strangers as loved ones? So, even as the group identification expands, there is still individual selection, which does make selfishness part of our natur

[Alchemyst]

Regarding Alice Cooper, you are not worthy! (Humourous film reference - a spoonful of sugar, etc.)

If the group is human beings that only leaves animals or aliens to extend our goodwill to, and we know it happens with the former. Put it this way, assuming I had an average income for my nation (currently about $40,000 p.a. in your terms) I would be happy for 1% of it to go to foreign aid assuming the aid agencies involved were efficient. Like I said, I prefer my own, but with a little generosity left over for others.

[ForgedinHell]

Regarding Alice Cooper, you are not worthy! (Humourous film reference - a spoonful of sugar, etc.)

If the group is human beings that only leaves animals or aliens to extend our goodwill to, and we know it happens with the former. Put it this way, assuming I had an average income for my nation (currently about $40,000 in your terms) I would be happy for 1% of it to go to foreign aid and 4% to go to domestic aid, assuming the aid agencies involved were efficient. Like I said, I prefer my own, but with a little generosity left over for others.

So, what is your point? You just admitted that you treat people further removed from you less well than people who are closer to you. The 1 percent versus 4 percent distribution. I stated that is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts you would do. It also predicts that you are more likely to treat your kids better than the stranger down the street. Your behavior demonstrates human nature.