[QUOTE=EuSKalduna;52170572]Believe me, I hate fascists with as much of a passion as the next guy, but fighting for the sake of fighting doesn't accomplish anything. There needs to be an end goal that prevents fascism from rising again. Society needs either to be restructured in such a manner that fascism becomes obsolete, if not completely unpalatable. This can be accomplished by organising with like minded folk, implementing local level changes that can prove to the larger society that these reforms have value, and are worth implementing on a grander scale. Things that help to free us from need; things that help us become more active members of the community and give us a sense of investment in life. I guarantee you most of the people on both sides are bottom or near bottom or the ladder workers that probably have a dim outlook on life for a good fucken reason, because society in its current status is just too flawed to be acceptable. Destroy fascism to your hearts content, I wholly encourage it, but you have to help build something new in its place that outdoes it.[/QUOTE]
The better way of handling is do as govna advised. Help people and be positive. Do outreach programs. That what a lot of US Army anti guerilla and counter insurrection manuals advise. I suggest you give their methods a try. I seen the video of anarchists were repairing a pot hole. I did find my self feeling joy at the intent and efforts despite the repairs were amateurish. Where my feeling is a more negative response when I get told I am a nazi (and sometimes threatened) for having a pulse.
Right now the fascists are growing as a means to protect themselves from the left who they seen have gone mad. Miiight wanna change that perception of you.
[QUOTE=RB33;52170486]Well, then the militia can point a gun in return. The community at large won't tolerate tyrrany.[/QUOTE]Can the militia always win, can they carry enough strength? A little planning in advance could seriously undermine that strength. I mean, you just send a few people in the night to find the strongest and kill them, or else to take weaponry, then eventually you've got a weak militia and a strong tyrant.
[QUOTE]The food producers are working on public property, they can have their jobs taken from them, if they refuse to actually contribute to society. When everything is shared, there is no time for selfishness.[/QUOTE]It's only public if they can stop someone from claiming it. If the food producers can hold it, well, its theirs now. They can build their own little kingdom and make everyone around them desperate enough to serve their bidding. It'd be fairly easy in fact with a little forethought and planning to put them in a very secure position.
[QUOTE]They don't own these resources to begin with and can't simply give it away, as if it were theirs.[/QUOTE]Well, they do so long as they are in their hands. Again, all they have to do is say, "No, we're keeping it." And suddenly it is theirs until someone strong enough to say otherwise steps in. And if the food producers plan it out right in advance, then we're back to my previous points.
[QUOTE]So not even capitalism works, as in also relies on people controlling production?[/QUOTE]No, capitalism accepts that people will always tend towards this behavior and instead builds a system to accommodate for it to ultimately create a more stable society, albeit imbalanced. Ninja's point is that communism's intended goals cannot be achieved if people actually exist within the production line at all, instead having to be an entire people divorced from it only receiving its benefits. You would need an intelligent system that can run the entire production process from start to finish, and handle distribution as well. Because if the distributor is corrupt, then they can hold as much power as the producers did by simply refusing to hand over whatever they are supposed to distribute. And this just starts the entire cycle again.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;52170565]Stupid? I am not saying that. Let say you and I are part of a collective mind. Individuals some what but are psychically "melded".
In such a situation, if you felt hunger, I would feel it as well. Your needs would become my needs.
Right now? I could care if you re in trouble right now but that would be based on social conditioning and personal traits. As long there is a sense of being separate, when it comes down to a you or me situation, I most likely would choose me. You could be currently border line starving and I won't feel a damn thing. Thus won't care.
Sure we can cooperate as a species, but the current means is inefficient. A group of humans which had a collective mind of sorts would be far more efficient at getting stuff done.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it would be more effective. You can achieve a similar effect, if we both make our goals the same, what strengthen me strengthens you and so on. Separately, our strength is divided, together our combined strength can achieve more.
[QUOTE=RB33;52170624]Yes, it would be more effective. You can achieve a similar effect, if we both make our goals the same, what strengthen me strengthens you and so on. Separately, our strength is divided, together our combined strength can achieve more.[/QUOTE]
This sounds like fascist speak. GET HIM~!
Nahh I am just joking.
The problem with current organizations is the separate factor. Where a human group with a collective mind? There would be no mis understandings with communication. No fuck ups. What one knows all would know. It would be a huuuge advantage.
If we as a species were one super organism with a collective mind? It would eliminate the need for the state.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52170616]Can the militia always win, can they carry enough strength? A little planning in advance could seriously undermine that strength. I mean, you just send a few people in the night to find the strongest and kill them, or else to take weaponry, then eventually you've got a weak militia and a strong tyrant.[/QUOTE]
Can anything always win? No, there is always a chance something fails. Our goal is to minimize that risk. The police or whatever rebel group you're referring to would strike in the night and kill the most important parts of the militia and the people would just accept that and yield to tyranny?
[QUOTE]It's only public if they can stop someone from claiming it. If the food producers can hold it, well, its theirs now. They can build their own little kingdom and make everyone around them desperate enough to serve their bidding. It'd be fairly easy in fact with a little forethought and planning to put them in a very secure position.[/QUOTE]
Even if you somehow got all food producers together in a revolt (probably deserving at that point), they could easily be replaced by the rest of society. Like "Let just let them be and starve instead" would never be an option.
[QUOTE]Well, they do so long as they are in their hands. Again, all they have to do is say, "No, we're keeping it." And suddenly it is theirs until someone strong enough to say otherwise steps in. And if the food producers plan it out right in advance, then we're back to my previous points.[/QUOTE]
So if you steal something, you now own it? You control it, you don't own it. It's not somekind of dystopia where it's everyone fighting for themselves, the food producers are heavily interconnected to the rest of society, probably having family members and friends not making food.
[QUOTE]No, capitalism accepts that people will always tend towards this behavior and instead builds a system to accommodate for it to ultimately create a more stable society, albeit imbalanced. Ninja's point is that communism's intended goals cannot be achieved if people actually exist within the production line at all, instead having to be an entire people divorced from it only receiving its benefits. You would need an intelligent system that can run the entire production process from start to finish, and handle distribution as well. Because if the distributor is corrupt, then they can hold as much power as the producers did by simply refusing to hand over whatever they are supposed to distribute. And this just starts the entire cycle again.[/QUOTE]
And is capitalism somehow incorruptable in comparison? Communism would offer far more reasons to stay incorrupt.
[QUOTE=RB33;52170486]Well, then the militia can point a gun in return. The community at large won't tolerate tyranny.[/quote]
will the militia consist of everyone or only those who want to fight? i can imagine that a number of people would prefer to survive even under tyranny than risk their lives. and what happens if you have those in the militia who choose to take advantage of the disorder to raise their own position? is a counter militia formed?
[quote]The food producers are working on public property, they can have their jobs taken from them, if they refuse to actually contribute to society. When everything is shared, there is no time for selfishness.[/quote]
would their jobs be taken from them by force? they could refuse to leave and, as they are seemingly armed in your society, defend the production facilities. if they are successfully expunged, what do you do with them? what kind of punishment would be effective? are they capable of being reformed? or would going soft on them send a bad message, that you can try to completely uproot and rebel against the society with little in the way of consequences? would you execute them, as they would be considered traitors to the community? once they're dealt with, are other people pulled from their jobs to fill in the now-vacant food production spots?
[quote]They don't own these resources to begin with and can't simply give it away, as if it were theirs.[/quote]
they might not legally own those resources, but so long as they maintain possession over them they maintain practical ownership. if someone robs my wallet or steals my car they may not legally own it but they can certainly do more with it than i could at that moment.
[quote]So not even capitalism works, as in also relies on people controlling production?[/QUOTE]
capitalism works better the more production is performed by people. as everyone involved wants to be compensated for their work, the wealth generated by the production has to be spread out among more people, meaning less concentrated upwards. part of the issues with capitalism in the modern age are caused by increasing automation [sp]for argument's sake, slavery operates like automation far more than it does employment[/sp]. with more and more work being done by less and less people, wealth naturally concentrates upwards and creates the massive issues of inequality we currently have today.
conversely, communism benefits from automation, and total automation is the practical end game for communism. when no persons are required in the production process, nobody has any incentive to gain power over others, as they have nothing to gain.
Where's based stickman when you need him?!
[QUOTE=RB33;52170546]We're setting an incredibly low bar for ourselves if we believe ourselves to be so stupid that we need to be like the borg to be able work together. I refuse to believe that we are that stupid, just look at the progress humanity has achieved through cooperation.[/QUOTE]
most progress that we have made as a species has been through cooperation driven by competition. people didn't start cooperating for cooperation's sake, they did it because cooperation is an effective tool. competition is what gave the purpose for those great achievements, whether it was competition with nature to survive or competition amongst other tribes or nations to thrive.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52170689]will the militia consist of everyone or only those who want to fight? i can imagine that a number of people would prefer to survive even under tyranny than risk their lives. and what happens if you have those in the militia who choose to take advantage of the disorder to raise their own position? is a counter militia formed?[/QUOTE]
I imagine a draft militia consisting of everyone, where you serve a month every year or so. Always changing the members of the milita to keep it in touch with the people. Serving in the people's interest, they are hardly risking their lives unless there is an active conflict going on.
[QUOTE]would their jobs be taken from them by force? they could refuse to leave and, as they are seemingly armed in your society, defend the production facilities. if they are successfully expunged, what do you do with them? what kind of punishment would be effective? are they capable of being reformed? or would going soft on them send a bad message, that you can try to completely uproot and rebel against the society with little in the way of consequences? would you execute them, as they would be considered traitors to the community? once they're dealt with, are other people pulled from their jobs to fill in the now-vacant food production spots?[/QUOTE]
If they are refusing to work for their employer which is the people and society at large and refusing to step aside for others to take their place. They are actively working against society and would in fact be criminals. Your scenario is incredibly unlikely, as there would be negotitations primarly and peaceful replacements. They are not going to die for the right to actively hinder society, they are not that hateful and non-productive for no reason.
[QUOTE]they might not legally own those resources, but so long as they maintain possession over them they maintain practical ownership. if someone robs my wallet or steals my car they may not legally own it but they can certainly do more with it than i could at that moment. [/QUOTE]
It would never be seen as valid by the rest of society. As wouldn't a car thief taking your car in today's society.
[QUOTE]capitalism works better the more production is performed by people. as everyone involved wants to be compensated for their work, the wealth generated by the production has to be spread out among more people, meaning less concentrated upwards. part of the issues with capitalism in the modern age are caused by increasing automation [sp]for argument's sake, slavery operates like automation far more than it does employment[/sp]. with more and more work being done by less and less people, wealth naturally concentrates upwards and creates the massive issues of inequality we currently have today.
conversely, communism benefits from automation, and total automation is the practical end game for communism. when no persons are required in the production process, nobody has any incentive to gain power over others, as they have nothing to gain.[/QUOTE]
Or you can stop being greedy and just enjoy your free healthcare, house, well-compensated work and free time in communism. Automation isn't needed, getting your act together and stop acting entitled because you're not rich enough is.
[editline]1st May 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52170709]most progress that we have made as a species has been through cooperation driven by competition. people didn't start cooperating for cooperation's sake, they did it because cooperation is an effective tool. competition is what gave the purpose for those great achievements, whether it was competition with nature to survive or competition amongst other tribes or nations to thrive.[/QUOTE]
You desire to thrive isn't gone just because you have less competition. You don't even need the desire to survive, just the desire to improve. If you can improve things for yourself, you're likely to, even if there is no competition for it. Cooperating improves the chances for success, so you're likely to do so.
[QUOTE=Crooky14;52170367]Me not open to interpretations? You were the one stating that by reading your work it would help end bigotry, implying that your view on abusive speech is the right one. You told me to "come back when I am ready". Ask yourself who is not open to different interpretations? I am trying to pick apart your point of good and bad traits, society plays the biggest role in shaping human beings in what they turn out to be[/QUOTE]
If you want to figure out what is bad or good, I believe I listed my sources for you to read including one Ive researched and created.
if you re afraid of clicking on a dubious link, let me get the preview from general forums.
[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1561993[/url]
[QUOTE]society plays the biggest role in shaping human beings in what they turn out to be[/QUOTE]
If this is a reference to believing in tabla rasa, I will inform you the idea was written with ulterior intentions.
The intent was to place blame not on the individual but on society at large. I didn't punch that old lady! Society made me do it!
It is a device which serves the same purpose as "the devil made me do it!"
It is a device (know as scapegoating) used to appeal to people who lack self control and want to justify their ill behavior. Or at least excuse it. The brain washing device is the intrinsically the same (scapegoating) but in either case it is given a different expressive form.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;52169724]
As I said before, communism would require a trans humanistic or post humanistic society when technology is capable of creating a collective mind or a over mind. Fictional examples of a collective mind would be Deus ex Invisible war the Heilos ending. A over mind would be the omar from same game.[/QUOTE]
I have never, ever heard someone say something like this before. By that point in time if such a thing were even feasible we'd have already become a post scarcity society, meaning that economic policy is completely irrelevant anyways.
[quote]
In either case, humanity would become a super organism. The only difference is one is a collective of minds melded together and the later is the erasure of many minds and allowance of one dominant mind to control the entire group.[/quote]
Communism makes even less sense in a hivemind. Everyone already gets equal shares on virtue of there being only one person by technicality. Furthermore in such a society resources would be allocated based on efficiency, not societal equality as there would be no society. This is the silliest approach to communism I have ever seen.
[quote]
There this book titled "Lucifer principle" by howard bloom. In evolutionary terms, ideology is just an excuse to acquire resources and eliminate rivals for mates.[/quote]
Then explain ideologies that advocate celibacy and humbleness. If this were the case then monks or any other group of celibates quite simply would not exist.
[quote]
Both ideas are designed for human mind of the same species, thus are structured the same to be appealing to to a certain mindset. How it occurs is expressed differently but the instincts and motivations are the same. A Marxist steals wealth and kills off his rivals. A jihadi kills off his rivalries and steals their wealth. Same action, same end result. It just a different excuse to do it and expresses it self differently.[/quote]
Simplifying motivation to basic sexual instinct makes no sense when you take into account sentience. I must also point out suicide bombers who neither get wealth nor continue to live after the fact.
[quote]
So what is the INTRINSIC difference between the ideas and psychologies of people involved? Do not give me the aesthetic difference. That is irrelevant. Give me the intrinsic differences.
[/quote]
The intrinsic difference is the fact that literally everyone has different goals and motivations. Simplifying peoples emotions to base instinct is moronic. Your argument is nonsensical.
[quote]
The only way they could be fighting for intrinsic different things is if they were vastly different sentient species, thus having emotions and drives that are incomprehensible to each other.[/quote]
Why do you keep throwing the word intrinsic into things? Intrinsic literally just means "inherently or naturally a part" ex cylinders are intrinsic parts of an engine. The rest of your statement is rambling nonsense that has no substance to parse meaning from.
[editline]30th April 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Guriosity;52170333]The better question is why are you not open to more interpretations of what is tolerance and compassion? Why is your definition the correct one?[/QUOTE]
Tolerance and compassion are things that have concrete definitions. As for acts of tolerance and compassion those can be subjective but still have a commonly held definition (helping an old lady cross the street would be commonly viewed as an act of compassion, for example)
[quote]
I am using face punch to better express my self and sharpen my ideas. If one doesnt work, I make up and try another one.
[/quote]
Coming up with your own ideals is always a good idea. Just heed other peoples advice and accept criticism from people who disagree with you.
[quote]
Any one who agrees with adherent of (state random belief) is superior and those has good traits.
Those on the right suffer from this delusion.
Those on the left suffer from this delusion.
Those who are atheistic suffer from this delusion.
Those who are theistic suffer from this delusion.
What is your point?[/quote]
You've called pretty much every human on this planet delusional in various threads throughout facepunch. Perhaps you should apply Occam's Razor to that particular belief.
[editline]30th April 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Guriosity;52171035]
The intent was to place blame not on the individual but on society at large. I didn't punch that old lady! Society made me do it!
It is a device which serves the same purpose as "the devil made me do it!"
It is a device (know as scapegoating) used to appeal to people who lack self control and want to justify their ill behavior. Or at least excuse it. The brain washing device is the intrinsically the same (scapegoating) but in either case it is given a different expressive form.[/QUOTE]
This is asinine. People are social creatures and our beliefs are changed by the environment around us (AKA society). This is evident in everything from the tendency of children to hold the beliefs of their parents to the bandwagon effect and populism. A good example would be the massive amounts of indoctrination done in Imperial Japan.
Also its spelled tabula rasa
I do believe communist proponents and debunkers alike are overestimating by how much communism would change our lives. And by communism I mean namebrand communism that works as intended. You may change the rules of human society to still find yourself in front of the same cold, uncaring universe at the end of the day. You may be shocked to find out that you were already giving according to your ability and recieving according to your needs. You may even find that the demand for your manufacturing has stagnated and that still you have no possible other use you can make of this machine-tool that is now "yours" and just trail it back home at the end of the day.
Capitalists and their wealth as of now tend to be entirely removed from our sights. Does going back to work, knowing that they have been expropriated offer perspectives that you would otherwise not contemplate?
[QUOTE=Scarabix;52171723]I do believe communist proponents and debunkers alike are overestimating by how much communism would change our lives. And by communism I mean namebrand communism that works as intended. You may change the rules of human society to still find yourself in front of the same cold, uncaring universe at the end of the day. You may be shocked to find out that you were already giving according to your ability and recieving according to your needs. You may even find that the demand for your manufacturing has stagnated and that still you have no possible other use you can make of this machine-tool that is now "yours" and just trail it back home at the end of the day.
Capitalists and their wealth as of now tend to be entirely removed from our sights. Does going back to work, knowing that they have been expropriated offer perspectives that you would otherwise not contemplate?[/QUOTE]
You know there's more to the world than factory work, and that most of it is being automated anyway, and that people more often than not have ambitions beyond factory work, right? Would making the pursuit of these ambitions through free universities, free access to information, freedom from need through a universal, basic income allowing us to access our means of survival be implausible?
And sure, you'll always need people working the power plants and such to some extent, but when you're not working just to make ends meet, and instead work because you have a skill and now a purpose in society, you don't need the anxiety and coercion of capitalism to get people to work. Further more, with a basic universal income scheme, you free up the necessity for businesses to provide great wages, and on the flipside any money that the worker would make under said scheme would be their to do as they see fit, instead of having to spend it all on simply surviving. Sounds like a good life to me
[QUOTE=Guriosity;52171035]
If this is a reference to believing in tabla rasa, I will inform you the idea was written with ulterior intentions.
The intent was to place blame not on the individual but on society at large. I didn't punch that old lady! Society made me do it!
It is a device which serves the same purpose as "the devil made me do it!"
It is a device (know as scapegoating) used to appeal to people who lack self control and want to justify their ill behavior. Or at least excuse it. The brain washing device is the intrinsically the same (scapegoating) but in either case it is given a different expressive form.[/QUOTE]
Do you not understand the nature vs nurture argument? Recognizing the role society has in shaping us as human beings is not the same as scapegoating. We are all born with our different qualities, but we as human beings adapt to different situations around us in order to learn how to deal with certain situations. Referring to your analogy, the individuals nature and nurture can be to blame, but not any of the two on their own. You have presented this analogy implying that punching an old lady is a bad thing, and this is a belief shared throughout society, which you have emulated (of course my belief is the same, I am just trying to get you to understand the role society plays in forming certain beliefs). Feral children who grow up around animals and mirror their behavior were not born like that, and would be completely different if they had grown up around human parents. Nature AND nurture both play roles
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
