Changing times: Socialist Kshama Sawant wins council seat in Seattle - Polidicks

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42900843]the incentive is that you want to live in a world where people have bikes. the incentive is that you don't want to be the guy who sits around all day doing nothing productive; such a life is devoid of meaning. as someone who is constantly unemployed due the industries i work in, i would know. when you know that your community is able and willing to provide for your needs and desires, you feel a natural urge to take part to make that community even greater. it's not perfect, but people are, in general, collectivist creatures. we want to be part of a group. we want to contribute to that group. we want to reap the benefits that come from working together on projects and dividing our labor to produce things that we couldn't produce on our own.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but you live in a fairy land if you think people will work all day doing something they don't enjoy for some vague sense of general goodwill for people they don't know. Tell me, who's going to volunteer to clean toilets? to fix septic tanks? to change old people's diapers? to do backbreaking hard labor? Or any other terrible job.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42900872]clean toilets?[/quote] who cleans toilets now? i don't have a fucking maid. i have never had a maid and yet somehow my toilets got cleaned. sorta reminds me of the opening verse of this song: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWoHZL0TWo[/media] [quote]to fix septic tanks?[/quote] idk lol people who know how? [quote]to change old people's diapers?[/quote] ideally this would be the responsibility of their family. failing this i'm sure there are people in the community who would be willing to help the elderly. people work at hospices for shitty pay already. hell, my dad worked at a hospice. [quote]to do backbreaking hard labor?[/quote] you can count on me for that because i personally love hard labor. [quote]Or any other terrible job.[/QUOTE] idk i don't know all the answers. if it can't be done without putting a gun to someone's head then idk if it's a job we really need doing.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42900916]you can count on me for that because i personally love hard labor.[/QUOTE] Yawmwen, I love your enthusiasm but this is a bit much. Even if hypothetically you could get enough people to sit down and do white-collar jobs (or ones that entailed similar skills), I do not think there are many people who outright enjoy hard labour and would do it continuously and reliably without at least some guarantee of getting paid (or whatever the equivalent would be in the community).

[QUOTE=Megafan;42900942]Yawmwen, I love your enthusiasm but this is a bit much. Even if hypothetically you could get enough people to sit down and do white-collar jobs (or ones that entailed similar skills), I do not think there are many people who outright enjoy hard labour and would do it continuously and reliably without at least some guarantee of getting paid (or whatever the equivalent would be in the community).[/QUOTE] bullshit. i know several people who do this sort of work for their houses, their friends, and their neighbors. and again, if it can't be done without a gun, then it probably shouldn't be done at all, or it should be the responsibility of the person who needs it done.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42900916]who cleans toilets now? i don't have a fucking maid. i have never had a maid and yet somehow my toilets got cleaned.[/QUOTE] You clean that one because you own it. Do you offer clean to the toilets at random stores? Why not? I'm sure the employees would appreciate it. [QUOTE]idk lol people who know how?[/QUOTE] You honestly think there are people who would rather fix septic tanks than do anything else in the world? [QUOTE]ideally this would be the responsibility of their family. failing this i'm sure there are people in the community who would be willing to help the elderly. people work at hospices for shitty pay already. hell, my dad worked at a hospice.[/QUOTE] Did your dad work at hospice because he wanted to do that more than anything else or because the balance of incentives to negatives was better than any other possible job? [QUOTE]idk i don't know all the answers. if it can't be done without putting a gun to someone's head then idk if it's a job we really need doing.[/QUOTE] People do things they don't want in a capitalistic society because there are outside incentive... that's it. Take away that incentive and they'll do something they enjoy more. [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] How many video game reviewers do you think there would be if anyone could do it, no matter how many already existed and pay was irrelevant?

[QUOTE=sgman91;42900963]You clean that one because you own it. Do you offer clean the toilets at random stores? Why not? I'm sure the employees would appreciate it.[/quote] the employees generally do. even in a moneyless world, people would still probably clean the toilets in their workplace because they like to shit and piss in a room that isn't fucking filthy. sorta like how you clean the bathroom at your own house. you don't HAVE to clean your bathroom, you do it because you don't like to be in a room that doesn't constantly smell like a used diaper. [quote]You honestly think there are people who would rather fix septic tanks than do anything else in the world?[/quote] no but i know people would likely know how to fix a septic tank and would be willing to fix septic tanks in addition to other "handywork" that they do. [quote]Did your dad work at hospice because he wanted to do that more than anything else or because the balance of incentives to negatives was better than any other possible job?[/quote] i personally don't know, i didn't ask him that question. my sister's friend works at a hospice currently because she wants to take care of old people. sorta like how some people wanna become nurses or doctors because they want to help other people. idk i think people work at hospices for more reasons than the shitty paycheck. [quote]People do things they don't want in a capitalistic society because there are outside incentive... that's it. Take away that incentive and they'll do something they enjoy more.[/QUOTE] so then why do people become a family doctor in today's society? why do people volunteer at soup kitchens? why do people work for shitty pay at hospices? why do people go to school learning how to become an audio engineer when it isn't even a middle class job? [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;42900963] How many video game reviewers do you think there would be if anyone could do it, no matter how many already existed and pay was irrelevant?[/QUOTE] idk how many game reviewers are out there right now? [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] why does anyone do anything in a capitalist economy besides invest in stock, do accounting, and become bankers? i think the fact that people even take up these jobs that you use as an example in the first place shows that people don't work primarily for money unless they are forced to. [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] the game reviewer thing is hilarious though because a lot of people review games for little to no money already. anyone with a camera, microphone, and fraps can review games.

You don't have to answer, but I honestly want to know how old you are because you talk like you haven't truly experienced real life yet where almost everybody dislikes their job (88%-75% based on polling data). The average person doesn't work because they enjoy it, or because they feel "empowered," or because it helps other's, etc. The average person works because the good things they get from it are greater than the amount they dislike working. If you take away the benefits they will simply stop and go do something else that they enjoy more. [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42900997]why does anyone do anything in a capitalist economy besides invest in stock, do accounting, and become bankers? i think the fact that people even take up these jobs that you use as an example in the first place shows that people don't work primarily for money unless they are forced to.[/QUOTE] It's a FACT that the vast majority of people don't like their jobs. [QUOTE]the game reviewer thing is hilarious though because a lot of people review games for little to no money already. anyone with a camera, microphone, and fraps can review games.[/QUOTE] ... but not as a job. They do it on the side, as a hobby. I'm talking about all the people who would do that and ONLY that if they didn't have to worry about money.

i don't necessarily hate working, but i hate doing a job. i hate having to take part in a society i think is fundamentally flawed, but money is an essential. i think i'd feel pretty good doing almost any kind of work (because again, i'm not bothered by working) if it had some actual sense of purpose behind it. 'i can buy something i like' isn't really good enough for me. that's why the idea of a collectivist society appeals to me. [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] noone does ONLY one thing [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] or would only do one thing i reckon

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42901059]i don't necessarily hate working, but i hate doing a job. i hate having to take part in a society i think is fundamentally flawed, but money is an essential. i think i'd feel pretty good doing almost any kind of work (because again, i'm not bothered by working) if it had some actual sense of purpose behind it. 'i can buy something i like' isn't really good enough for me. that's why the idea of a collectivist society appeals to me.[/QUOTE] Give me a concrete example of something you would voluntarily do every day with no outside incentive.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42901031]You don't have to answer, but I honestly want to know how old you are because you talk like you haven't truly experienced real life yet where almost everybody dislikes their job (88%-75% based on polling data). The average person doesn't work because they enjoy it, or because they feel "empowered," or because it helps other's, etc. The average person works because the good things they get from it are greater than the amount they dislike working. If you take away the benefits they will simply stop and go do something else that they enjoy more.[/QUOTE] i'm 21. idk what that means to you. and no shit people hate their jobs because they feel like they are forced to do them for a paycheck and have no control over their work. communism seeks to change that by putting people in direct control of their workplace, and their work isn't tied to a paycheck anymore. [quote]... but not as a job. They do it on the side, as a hobby. I'm talking about all the people who would do that and ONLY that if they didn't have to worry about money.[/quote] what do you do all day? what 1 think do you spend 15 hours of your waking life doing? communism blurs the lines between hobbies and work anyways. you do something because you want to, because the community needs it done, and because you want to do something productive. people won't necessarily do one thing anymore(although they are certainly free to). i don't do one thing. i work, i read news, i read political theory and argue it online, i write music, i write poetry, i write songs, i write stories, i take out the trash, i sometimes program, i play games, i grow food, i am hoping to keep bees next spring... i'm not a gamer, i'm not a news reader, i'm not a musician. i'm a complex human being like everyone else that does many different things, most of it without any pay incentive. many of the things i do without pay can and do benefit the community i live in.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42901067]Give me a concrete example of something you would voluntarily do every day with no outside incentive.[/QUOTE] i don't see why i have to just do one thing? if anything i feel that it's capitalism that forces you into doing one thing. and i also disagree with no outside incentive. working with and for the people around me seems like a nice incentive. a concrete example: what i do right now? landscaping. i enjoy working outside and i like working with plants.

Just to be clear, you haven't provided an argument beyond personal opinion. In the end you have faith that the goodwill of humanity is enough and I don't. I believe my view gels with reality while yours is based on an imaginary world that has never existed and never will exist. People generally tend towards laziness and need incentive to provide for their fellow man. This incentive either comes in the form of physical benefits or religion, not some inner altruism.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42901091]i don't see why i have to just do one thing? if anything i feel that it's capitalism that forces you into doing one thing. and i also disagree with no outside incentive. working with and for the people around me seems like a nice incentive. a concrete example: what i do right now? landscaping. i enjoy working outside and i like working with plants.[/QUOTE] what people don't seem to understand is that socialism in general, but particularly communism, seeks to change the fundamental relationship between "work" and "worker". "As Marx put it, socialists look forward to a society in which labor will “become not only a means of life, but also the highest want in life,”

i find that very hard to believe considering humanity has only gotten to the stage we have because of our inherent desire to cooperate. why did early man look after the old and sick? [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] @ sgman

[QUOTE=sgman91;42901106]Just to be clear, you haven't provided an argument beyond personal opinion. In the end you have faith that the goodwill of humanity is enough and I don't. I believe my view gels with reality while yours is based on an imaginary world that has never existed and never will exist. People generally tend towards laziness and need incentive to provide for their fellow man. This incentive either comes in the form of physical benefits or religion, not some inner altruism.[/QUOTE] what did people do before capitalism? how did anyone eat if everyone just wanted to sit around and be lazy all day? how did greedy humans evolve in an environment where greediness would ultimately leave you starving?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42901111]what people don't seem to understand is that socialism in general, but particularly communism, seeks to change the fundamental relationship between "work" and "worker". "As Marx put it, socialists look forward to a society in which labor will “become not only a means of life, but also the highest want in life,”[/QUOTE] I understand the thought just fine, but I also see it as idealistic and imaginary. Do you have an actual compelling argument to show that it's a realistic goal? [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42901117]what did people do before capitalism? how did anyone eat if everyone just wanted to sit around and be lazy all day? how did greedy humans evolve in an environment where greediness would ultimately leave you starving?[/QUOTE] They had to eat and eating requires work, wala, incentive.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42901120]They had to eat and eating requires work, wala, incentive.[/QUOTE] but what about the pre-agricultural and early agricultural days when people were doing things like making pottery, toys, and statues? surely, these things require work but do not put food into the stomach. also: “But what about human nature? Can it be changed? And if not, will it endure under Anarchism? Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed? John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities? Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities. Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations. This is not a wild fancy or an aberration of the mind. It is the conclusion arrived at by hosts of intellectual men and women the world over; a conclusion resulting from the close and studious observation of the tendencies of modern society: individual liberty and economic equality, the twin forces for the birth of what is fine and true in man.” i gotta use this damn quote whenever someone mentions human nature with regards to socialism. it's pretty much the most relevant thing anyone has ever said about human nature imo.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42901131]but what about the pre-agricultural and early agricultural days when people were doing things like making pottery, toys, and statues? surely, these things require work but do not put food into the stomach. also: “But what about human nature? Can it be changed? And if not, will it endure under Anarchism? Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed? John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities? Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities. Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations. This is not a wild fancy or an aberration of the mind. It is the conclusion arrived at by hosts of intellectual men and women the world over; a conclusion resulting from the close and studious observation of the tendencies of modern society: individual liberty and economic equality, the twin forces for the birth of what is fine and true in man.” i gotta use this damn quote whenever someone mentions human nature with regards to socialism. it's pretty much the most relevant thing anyone has ever said about human nature imo.[/QUOTE] i love emma goldman

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42901113]i find that very hard to believe considering humanity has only gotten to the stage we have because of our inherent desire to cooperate. why did early man look after the old and sick?[/QUOTE] The current need to take care of the old and sick hasn't existed nearly to the same degree that it exists today during most of humanity's existence. People died young and most debilitating sicknesses were deadly. The sick were looked after because they would get better and against provide for the family/tribe/etc. I also think you're idealizing the people in the past. Many ancient cultures killed babies, for example, that were born deformed, even modern Chinese kill baby girls in order to have a boy. Now, one of the major causes of actual altruism in the history of mankind was religion because of the inherent value that it puts on a person, beyond how useful that person is. [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42901131]but what about the pre-agricultural and early agricultural days when people were doing things like making pottery, toys, and statues? surely, these things require work but do not put food into the stomach. also: “But what about human nature? Can it be changed? And if not, will it endure under Anarchism? Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed? John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities? Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities. Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations. This is not a wild fancy or an aberration of the mind. It is the conclusion arrived at by hosts of intellectual men and women the world over; a conclusion resulting from the close and studious observation of the tendencies of modern society: individual liberty and economic equality, the twin forces for the birth of what is fine and true in man.” i gotta use this damn quote whenever someone mentions human nature with regards to socialism. it's pretty much the most relevant thing anyone has ever said about human nature imo.[/QUOTE] Yay for someone that agrees with you? It still isn't compelling at all though.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42901106] In the end you have faith that the goodwill of humanity is enough and I don't. I believe my view gels with reality while yours is based on an imaginary world that has never existed and never will exist. People generally tend towards laziness and need incentive to provide for their fellow man. This incentive either comes in the form of physical benefits or religion, not some inner altruism.[/QUOTE] sgman91, remind me, are you a libertarian (in the American sense)?

Fancy words do not a good argument make. [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lonestriper;42901166]sgman91, remind me, are you a libertarian (in the American sense)?[/QUOTE] Semi-libertarian, I believe that the basic rights of people must be protected, but that freedom should always try to be maximized. I don't go so far as to say things like the military or justice system should be privatized.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42901155] Now, one of the major causes of actual altruism in the history of mankind was religion because of the inherent value that it puts on a person, beyond how useful that person is.[/quote] lmfao religion? the backwards dogma that had people butchering their own animals they could have used for meat or milk to give as some sort of token to a vengeful god? the wonderful ideology that was used as a tool of subjugation of mankind from the moment it became organized to the present day? religion doesn't breed altruism. the altruistic among the religion are an illustration that people have motivations besides wealth and god to do things for other people. [quote]Yay for someone that agrees with you? It still isn't compelling at all though.[/QUOTE] sure it is? how can you speak for human nature when humans are currently enslaved economically and politically? "Captive animals, especially those not domesticated, sometimes develop repetitive and purposeless motor behaviors called stereotypical behaviors. Examples of stereotypical behaviours include pacing around, biting themselves, retracing their steps, and self-grooming. These behaviors are caused by stress and boredom. Many who keep animals in captivity, especially in zoos and related institutions and in research institutions, attempt to prevent or decrease stereotypical behavior by introducing novel stimuli, known as environmental enrichment." [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captivity_%28animal%29#Behavior_of_animals_in_captivity[/url] humans are ripped from their natural state of collective organization and individualist liberty and confined to laws and a meaningless existence based very heavily upon consumerism and subjugation. who are you to say the potentials of human beings when human beings could simply be displaying stereotypical behavior?

[QUOTE=sgman91;42901155]The current need to take care of the old and sick hasn't existed nearly to the same degree that it exists today during most of humanity's existence. People died young and most debilitating sicknesses were deadly. The sick were looked after because they would get better and against provide for the family/tribe/etc. I also think you're idealizing the people in the past. Many ancient cultures killed babies, for example, that were born deformed, even modern Chinese kill baby girls in order to have a boy. Now, one of the major causes of actual altruism in the history of mankind was religion because of the inherent value that it puts on a person, beyond how useful that person is.[/QUOTE] except early man (pre-dating cultural stigmas) cared for the sick, the old, the crippled and in some cases even deformed and disabled babies. as you said that you feel religion is a source of altruism, i also feel that religion and culture can corrupt humans inherent good to cause to do messed up stuff.

Yo this belief that everybody has to hate labor but will do it anyway because they're rewarded materially for doing it is a product of capitalist alienation. I've worked all kinds of shitty jobs and even at the shittiest, worst paid jobs I've found people who are able to take pride in their work. Obviously an anarcho-syndicalist utopia where everybody understands that it takes all kinds of labor to make society work and use that knowledge as motivation is a long way away but pls dont say having to "work a job you hate until you die" is an acceptable status quo for most of the world population because that is neither acceptable nor realistic. its also really really sad to see people who are stuck in alienating menial labor shill for it as a "fact of life". Nice false consciousness...

I will never understand why North Americans see a $15 minimum wage as some sort of bad/dangerous thing. I mean, obviously the minimum wage can't be changed overnight ([i]that[/i] would be dangerous), but it's a perfectly reasonable target to work towards over the course of, say, five years or so.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42897286]The boom in North Dakota is because of the booming gas and oil industry, not some state bank. Just to be clear: I think the states should be able to do whatever the hell they want, as long as it doesn't directly go against the constitution, but to say North Dakota's recent success can be attributed to the state bank is plain ridiculous.[/QUOTE] North Dakota's unemployment has always been low: [t]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fK0VcVxvEjw/TYFw3e-oKgI/AAAAAAAAPGE/CPtztPHTriA/s1600/nd.jpg[/t] The Oil Industry may be creating work, but North Dakota has always had really low unemployment. This could be on part to the fishing and hunting industry and farming industry, but most attribute it to the banking system here.

[QUOTE=halofreak472;42899515]Neither can a system that guarantees income to those people be called caring. The money is involuntarily collected through threats of violence against peaceful people and redistributed to others. Why can't we give people the option to choose to give to the lower class? Capitalism gives freedom to the individual in the sense of full responsibility for their actions. If you don't work towards getting a higher income, then nobody is going to help you, but nobody is going to stop you from putting forth the effort either. A lot of government regulations tend to make it more difficult to start small businesses, while letting the existing ones remain in power since they already have the profits to cover whatever expenses would increase. College also really isn't that necessary anymore. With resources like Kahn Academy, and MIT's free online lectures, you can get a college education for the price of your internet connection. All you lose is the piece of paper. Part of the other issue with college prices is that the government hands out loans to just about anyone who applies for them. As a result the colleges end up getting their money anyways regardless of how high they set their prices, because the government is going to pay them anyways. If the student loan system was abolished, then either colleges will lower their prices to try to attract this sudden market of poor students, or a degree would not become the norm for any job anymore, since it's no longer something anyone can get. If jobs still were to require that people have a degree before even being considered, then it's their own loss by turning an entire category of otherwise qualified people.[/QUOTE] College may not be necessary in the US, but in Argentina or the BRICS, it is actually quite important. A Cambridge english certificate here in Argentina allows you to get a job when there is competition. Megafan is right. Time is gold, and companies don't have the time to go around checking if you know how to build a bridge or mix X compounds.

[QUOTE=3noneTwo;42901970]I will never understand why North Americans see a $15 minimum wage as some sort of bad/dangerous thing. I mean, obviously the minimum wage can't be changed overnight ([i]that[/i] would be dangerous), but it's a perfectly reasonable target to work towards over the course of, say, five years or so.[/QUOTE] Businesses will raise the costs of their products so not to loose on the raised payroll expense, making everything more expensive for everyone. In a few cases, the raised prices will kill the business, shutting it down and costing jobs.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42903031]Businesses will raise the costs of their products so not to loose on the raised payroll expense, making everything more expensive for everyone. In a few cases, the raised prices will kill the business, shutting it down and costing jobs.[/QUOTE] This is totally not true, seeing as how all of the largest employers of employees at minimum wage are huge corporations. Wal-Mart is the single largest employer in the US. Generally the small businesses which haven't been killed off by big chains like Wal-Mart and Lowes and McDonalds have survived by offering better service than those chains, which means they're generally paying more than minimum wage anyway. These big chains absolutely can afford to pay their workers better (though they might use the threat of layoffs as a political tactic) while market competition will keep goods prices low, seeing as how farm subsidies and overseas sweatshop labor have driven the costs of production ever downward. Paid shills on cable news outlets love to claim that anything which will threaten the pay checks of CEOs is actually something which "will hurt small businesses" and it is so, utterly transparent but it apparently manages to trick people since I hear people who are making minimum wage oppose raising the minimum wage all the time. It's realy really tragic

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;42901894]Yo this belief that everybody has to hate labor but will do it anyway because they're rewarded materially for doing it is a product of capitalist alienation. I've worked all kinds of shitty jobs and even at the shittiest, worst paid jobs I've found people who are able to take pride in their work. Obviously an anarcho-syndicalist utopia where everybody understands that it takes all kinds of labor to make society work and use that knowledge as motivation is a long way away but pls dont say having to "work a job you hate until you die" is an acceptable status quo for most of the world population because that is neither acceptable nor realistic. its also really really sad to see people who are stuck in alienating menial labor shill for it as a "fact of life". Nice false consciousness...[/QUOTE] False consciousness is an unfalsifiable concept. "The reason we don't have X is because the poor can't vote" (Voting reforms) "The reason we don't have X is because the poor are voting for the wrong people" I think that in a truly democratic society, some form of capitalism will always be wanted by people. They keep voting for it. [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;42901236]except early man (pre-dating cultural stigmas) cared for the sick, the old, the crippled and in some cases even deformed and disabled babies. as you said that you feel religion is a source of altruism, i also feel that religion and culture can corrupt humans inherent good to cause to do messed up stuff.[/QUOTE] I don't see humans as either inherently good nor evil or selfish. People seem to do different things and create new moral systems (often with a very rational basis behind them) all the time. The reason people cared for the sick/old/crippled is because these people still were quite useful. Women past menopause for example would seem like they have no use, but they could help raise children, gather food, engage in tribal politics, create tools, etc. Plus their extensive store of knowledge gathered from years of experience would help when it came to tense diplomacy, medicine, etc. [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42901204]lmfao religion? the backwards dogma that had people butchering their own animals they could have used for meat or milk to give as some sort of token to a vengeful god? the wonderful ideology that was used as a tool of subjugation of mankind from the moment it became organized to the present day? religion doesn't breed altruism. the altruistic among the religion are an illustration that people have motivations besides wealth and god to do things for other people.[/QUOTE] Religious belief has been around in some shape or form since the Neanderthals. They buried their dead with grave goods, and it's generally accepted they probably believed in some sort of afterlife at the very least. Religion had to have had a reason for its appearance in the first place, and one popular suggestion is that it was actually used to help organize people within a local area to work on public projects. (The first megaliths are religious structures which predate agriculture by a few thousand years, and had to have required large scale cooperation from a large number of tribal groups). Later on, the first religions did help extensively with the creation of calenders, writing, agriculture, food stockpiles, diplomacy, trade, and warfare. It may seem bizarre and outlandish that people would kill a goat as a token of goodwill to the invisible man in the sky, but remember that most sacrifices were usually eaten by the offering party anyways. (When an Ox was sacrificed in Ancient Greece, they would leave the tail and a few bones behind as a "gift".)