Spain's Communist Village Is Making The Rest Of The World Look Bad - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43129939]alright, and why does it have to stay that way?[/QUOTE] if you have an idea to maintain the very same level of efficiency without forcing people to do things that they don't want then by all means tell us [QUOTE=yawmwen;43129947]then let us choose it and manage it on our own instead of having it forced by the bourgeoisie.[/QUOTE] no the exact point is that you can't focus on management and labor at the same time and expect the same level of productivity as the standard management -> labor model because you only have so much time and focus

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43129894]what exactly is YOUR argument? 'oh you're against the bad things in our society??? then you must be against all the good things too!'[/QUOTE] I don't have an argument. The only way I could have an argument would be if someone else was actually presenting a position that could be argued, as opposed to yawmwen's weird non sequitur soundbites that sound like socialist-themed excerpts from the Time Cube website, and your 'gee wouldn't it be great' well-wishing without any kind of suggestion as to how the ideas you propose are possible to implement. [QUOTE=yawmwen;43129938]no the invention of food surplus didn't subjugate us. however, capitalist class relations subjugate us today.[/QUOTE] See, this is the shit I'm talking about. What does that mean? What does 'subjugates us' mean? Can you define it in any concrete terms, with examples and some sociopolitical context, or are you just going to throw out more soundbites like before?

[QUOTE=catbarf;43129974]See, this is the shit I'm talking about. What does that mean? What does 'subjugates us' mean? Can you define it in any concrete terms, with examples and some sociopolitical context, or are you just going to throw out more soundbites like before?[/QUOTE] you could read some marxist literature, for a start. [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] [url]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch06.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43129987]you could read some marxist literature, for a start.[/QUOTE] I've read Marxist literature, thank you very much. In fact, I actually lived in what used to be a Soviet state and got to experience some of those principles in action for myself. Marx was woefully out of touch with the sheer self-interest of the common man and it has been apparent for a very, VERY long time that his views of human nature are too optimistic to be effective. And again, 'go read this book' is not an argument. Reading your posts is like reading a collegiate socialist club's pamphlets. Can you actually form a cogent argument of your own, or are you limited to regurgitating soundbites from discredited literature?

[QUOTE=catbarf;43130005]I've read Marxist literature, thank you very much. In fact, I actually lived in what used to be a Soviet state and got to experience some of those principles in action for myself. [/QUOTE] what principles did you see in action for yourself?

[QUOTE=Juniez;43129955]if you have an idea to maintain the very same level of efficiency without forcing people to do things that they don't want then by all means tell us [/QUOTE] i don't feel like efficiency is the most worthy thing especially when it comes at the cost of force, but alright, my idea is to have a society where rather than everyone just trying to get money to make their own life better regardless of what it means for others we have a society where we work together to make everyone happy

We should set aside a giant plot of land where people who feel subjugated by the burgoise can go to create their own societies. When the starvation sets in they might finally learn the same lesson the pilgrims had to learn when they first attempted a communist style society with communal fields and proceeded to die in huge numbers when winter rolled around. They finally learned to give each family their own plots to own and proceeded to succeed. Private ownership almost literally saved their lives.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43130005]I've read Marxist literature, thank you very much. In fact, I actually lived in what used to be a Soviet state and got to experience some of those principles in action for myself. Marx was woefully out of touch with the sheer self-interest of the common man and it has been apparent for a very, VERY long time that his views of human nature are too optimistic to be effective. And again, 'go read this book' is not an argument. Reading your posts is like reading a collegiate socialist club's pamphlets. Can you actually form a cogent argument of your own, or are you limited to regurgitating soundbites from discredited literature?[/QUOTE] ah yes, human nature

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43130026]i don't feel like efficiency is the most worthy thing especially when it comes at the cost of force, but alright, my idea is to have a society where rather than everyone just trying to get money to make their own life better regardless of what it means for others we have a society where we work together to make everyone happy[/QUOTE] no because that requires people to be forced into sympathy and cooperation (and you're very familiar with the fact that not everyone is sympathetic! or cooperative)

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43129894]so basically after they've ensured that they are and will live luxuriously for the rest of their lives they decide to throw money at problems. i think thats just a justification of the amount of greed people need to get to that point. and it's not like billionaires and millionaires make up the majority of the population, what about all the people that don't become billionaires and millionaires who are still shoe-horned into living greed-filled lives lusting after money and luxuries because that's what capitalism tells us is worthwhile? [/QUOTE] So they should never ever see the fruits of their labor? They should make sure that they can live an ok life, and hope nothing happens in the future that would require more money? They should also not give 2 shits about their kids or grandkids and say "screw it, you find your own way in the world"? Rich people don't just stay rich just to hoard all of the money, but you will never understand that concept. See, I'm not like you, and I think that's where we differ so much. See, while you NEED your housing, and prepared food, I'm happy living in a little shed powered by a 12v battery and solar panel, killing my meals and such. I don't need the internet, a job, or anything else to survive. If I have an emergency, the hospital can't turn me away if it's life or death, so looks like that's covered. See, I know what I have here. I know that even though it's minimum wage, it's a LOT more comfortable than a cot by a fire outside. My question is, do you know that you can survive without a job? Do you know that you actually can survive without a "living wage"? Because I sure as hell do....

[QUOTE=Juniez;43130039]no because that requires people to be forced into sympathy (and you're very familiar with the fact that not everyone is sympathetic!)[/QUOTE] no but people are willing to cooperate and act generously when doing so is encouraged by the system.

[QUOTE=Juniez;43130039]no because that requires people to be forced into sympathy (and you're very familiar with the fact that not everyone is sympathetic!)[/QUOTE] as i said, people are products of their upbringing and their environment, of course people aren't sympathetic when we are raised in a society that encourages doing whatever you can to make money to make your own life better and to shit on anyone below you or who gets in your way

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43130033]ah yes, human nature[/QUOTE] would i be a broken record if i posted that emma goldman quote again?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43130053]So they should never ever see the fruits of their labor? They should make sure that they can live an ok life, and hope nothing happens in the future that would require more money? They should also not give 2 shits about their kids or grandkids and say "screw it, you find your own way in the world"? Rich people don't just stay rich just to hoard all of the money, but you will never understand that concept. See, I'm not like you, and I think that's where we differ so much. See, while you NEED your housing, and prepared food, I'm happy living in a little shed powered by a 12v battery and solar panel, killing my meals and such. I don't need the internet, a job, or anything else to survive. If I have an emergency, the hospital can't turn me away if it's life or death, so looks like that's covered. See, I know what I have here. I know that even though it's minimum wage, it's a LOT more comfortable than a cot by a fire outside. My question is, do you know that you can survive without a job? Do you know that you actually can survive without a "living wage"? Because I sure as hell do....[/QUOTE] no i think EVERYONE should see the fruits of their labour. this isn't about they it's about we [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;43130074]would i be a broken record if i posted that emma goldman quote again?[/QUOTE] i wouldn't mind, i love reading it

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43130062]no but people are willing to cooperate and act generously when doing so is encouraged by the system.[/QUOTE] great solution indoctrination [editline]9th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;43130063]as i said, people are products of their upbringing and their environment, of course people aren't sympathetic when we are raised in a society that encourages doing whatever you can to make money to make your own life better and to shit on anyone below you or who gets in your way[/QUOTE] even two month olds have bias and selfish tendencies dude

but catbarf might accuse you of regurgitating soundbites from discredited literature [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Juniez;43130085]great solution indoctrination [editline]9th December 2013[/editline] even two month olds have bias and selfish tendencies dude[/QUOTE] where did i say indoctrination? and uh, what? two months old don't have tendencies they're two months old

I think yawmwen needs a new title. Something fresh

[QUOTE=Juniez;43130085]even two month olds have bias and selfish tendencies dude[/QUOTE] says who?

[QUOTE=catbarf;43130005]I've read Marxist literature, thank you very much. In fact, I actually lived in what used to be a Soviet state and got to experience some of those principles in action for myself. Marx was woefully out of touch with the sheer self-interest of the common man and it has been apparent for a very, VERY long time that his views of human nature are too optimistic to be effective. And again, 'go read this book' is not an argument. Reading your posts is like reading a collegiate socialist club's pamphlets. Can you actually form a cogent argument of your own, or are you limited to regurgitating soundbites from discredited literature?[/QUOTE] You should just listen to John Lennon's Imagine instead. It'll take less time, and it'll make make an equally effective argument.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43129987]you could read some marxist literature, for a start. [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] [url]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch06.htm[/url][/QUOTE] Do you think Marxism could be applied on a national scale? It can work in very small groups and villages(in which the only people who want to be there are there, not forced into it), but I personally don't think it could work in an area such as the United States. Since Marxism requires everyone to have an equal standard of living, it could be really difficult to manage the distribution of resources in a country with an uneven distribution of resources. Could you please explain this to me? To me, it seems like Marxism is built entirely around small-scale ideal situations and will crumble the moment anything goes awry.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43130015]what principles did you see in action for yourself?[/QUOTE] Seizure of the means of production by the proletariat leading to mismanagement due to a lack of strong central authority to make decisions and the management inexperience of the workers (since the people-owned production is essentially a step backwards as far as division of labor is concerned). Social programs reliant upon the voluntary contribution of citizens for the benefit of others failed, and when implemented in mandatory fashion expected too much of the people. Attempts to implement state-level distribution of wealth according to the contribution of the worker were bogged down in red-tape and petty politics, leaving hard-working people without even food, let alone the imagined fruits of the Marxist ideal. Nice idea. Totally unfeasible in reality, because real people in the real world don't treat strangers as well as their kin and don't treat their kin as well as themselves. [QUOTE=yawmwen;43130062]no but people are willing to cooperate and act generously when doing so is encouraged by the system.[/QUOTE] Which Marxism has [i]never[/i] been able to do. Hell, the whole reason the Soviet economic system failed (aside from mismanagement by the autocracy that inevitably arises in a stateless society) was the inability of the system to effectively reward individual effort towards the collective in any direct and personal way. The best it can do is appeal to a pie-in-the-sky hypothetical perfect society and expect that people will try to contribute to that over their own immediate gain, as it suffers a slow death by bureaucracy in trying to get the state to implement the rewards that Marx promised would [i]someday[/i] be a part of the system itself. 'but catbarf the soviet union wasn't Marxist' Nope, because Marx's idea of a stateless society was entirely incompatible with the reality of individuals wanting to seize more power for themselves. Hence why just about every such stateless society in history bigger than your average city block has eventually been subjugated through military power or compromised from within by militant factions seizing power. Paris Commune? Conquered. Spanish Revolution? Dominated by the Stalinists themselves. And don't get me started on China. Marxist communism is the 'wouldn't it be great' philosophy for people who haven't learned from the past.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43130092]but catbarf might accuse you of regurgitating soundbites from discredited literature [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] where did i say indoctrination? and uh, what? two months old don't have tendencies they're two months old[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=yawmwen;43130131]says who?[/QUOTE] found it [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntbta0H6uFs[/url] idk about the credibility of 60 minute journalists or yale developmental psychologists soooooo do with it what u will the research suggests that infants have a sense of right and wrong that's also influenced by their own bias and to an extent - selfishness

[QUOTE=catbarf;43130202]Seizure of the means of production by the proletariat leading to mismanagement due to a lack of strong central authority to make decisions and the management inexperience of the workers (since the people-owned production is essentially a step backwards as far as division of labor is concerned). Social programs reliant upon the voluntary contribution of citizens for the benefit of others failed, and when implemented in mandatory fashion expected too much of the people. Attempts to implement state-level distribution of wealth according to the contribution of the worker were bogged down in red-tape and petty politics, leaving hard-working people without even food, let alone the imagined fruits of the Marxist ideal. Nice idea. Totally unfeasible in reality, because real people in the real world don't treat strangers as well as their kin and don't treat their kin as well as themselves. Which Marxism has [i]never[/i] been able to do. Hell, the whole reason the Soviet economic system failed (aside from mismanagement by the autocracy that inevitably arises in a stateless society) was the inability of the system to effectively reward individual effort towards the collective in any direct and personal way. The best it can do is appeal to a pie-in-the-sky hypothetical perfect society and expect that people will try to contribute to that over their own immediate gain, as it suffers a slow death by bureaucracy in trying to get the state to implement the rewards that Marx promised would [i]someday[/i] be a part of the system itself. 'but catbarf the soviet union wasn't Marxist' Nope, because Marx's idea of a stateless society was entirely incompatible with the reality of individuals wanting to seize more power for themselves. Hence why just about every such stateless society in history bigger than your average city block has eventually been subjugated through military power or compromised from within by militant factions seizing power. Paris Commune? Conquered. Spanish Revolution? Dominated by the Stalinists themselves. And don't get me started on China. Marxist communism is the 'wouldn't it be great' philosophy for people who haven't learned from the past.[/QUOTE] so this argument is basically "no it can never work" vs "yea it can work" ok cool. but yea maybe you should actually look up wtf the ussr was if you think it fell due to "mismanagement by the autocracy that inevitably arises in a stateless society" [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] here's a hint: the ussr wasn't stateless.

Jesus, people, it's been seven hours already

[QUOTE=Juniez;43130408]found it [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntbta0H6uFs[/url] idk about the credibility of 60 minute journalists or yale developmental psychologists soooooo do with it what u will the research suggests that infants have a sense of right and wrong that's also influenced by their own bias and to an extent - selfishness[/QUOTE] 2 months olds also have a tendency to shit themselves i don't think this is human nature though

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43130562]2 months olds also have a tendency to shit themselves i don't think this is human nature though[/QUOTE] believe it or not potty training is entirely a learned experience! which would suggest that yes, pooping anywhere is indeed a default

[QUOTE=Juniez;43130408]found it [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntbta0H6uFs[/url] idk about the credibility of 60 minute journalists or yale developmental psychologists soooooo do with it what u will the research suggests that infants have a sense of right and wrong that's also influenced by their own bias and to an extent - selfishness[/QUOTE] towards the end of that video it shows that older children tends towards generosity though. [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Juniez;43130631]i dont think u could quite compare a state of mind with poop control[/QUOTE] two year olds can hardly communicate beyond screaming. their ability to empathize and communicate is greatly limited.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43130632]towards the end of that video it shows that older children tends towards generosity though.[/QUOTE] which the research attributes as a learned social behavior [QUOTE=yawmwen;43130632]two year olds can hardly communicate beyond screaming. their ability to empathize and communicate is greatly limited.[/QUOTE] well that research would have you believe otherwise!

so your idea of human nature is we are all selfish and want to shit everywhere? i dunno i think i prefer mine

[QUOTE=Juniez;43130648]which the research attributes as a learned social behavior [/QUOTE] yea without any real cause though. have they made sure to control for learned social behavior in the research?