A question to Communists:

[A Viking Yeti]

For some perverse reason, I got some hearty laughter out of the part where a bunch of you were talking about me behind my ... ... ...Show them confidence and assertiveness, and they'll respond to you in spite of themselves.

Sucks, doesn't it? I'm a jerk and acquired a very nice lady friend as a direct result.

I made the cynical remark, just for reference. And I think some women want that because their fathers were like that, if that's not too Freudian for you. In any case, this all seems very off-topic, but I can't help but point out that thinking cynicism gets you further whilst you ignore people like Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha, Lennon, the entire pacifist movement, is, in and of itself, and self-fulfilling prophecy and is likewise cynical.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

Taking a break from the big long posts ...

No one ever really replied to my initial 'big long posts'... Not that I think it's reasonable to expect someone to boil human socio-economic theory down in to a paragraph or two.

 

[BasketCase]

But why must there be a brain? Why can't the body rule itself (in the figurative sense of course). The body is naturally inferior in calculating than the brain, but

Bingo. Because the brain does something better, that the rest of the body is really bad at.

...Um... Because your brain dies without that much oxygen. And for the same reason, the brain makes sure every cell in the body also survives

Bingo also.


You answered your own questions without realizing it. Only the simplest of organisms can survive without a brain. When a living thing (or a society) grows large enough, specialization and organization become essential. The various systems in a body (or in a society) all need to be working together, therefore you need to have ONE leader (a brain, or a CEO, or a President) calling the shots.

The reason there must be a brain (and, for a society, a leader) is because we humans want to live better than bacteria in a petri dish. Yes, bacteria are free to do what they please, but they never accomplish anything and live miserably. Until they get eaten by something larger than themselves.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Yes, and neither am I... The statistic only counts working individuals. So, 37.5 million employed and suffering food shortages, 7 million homeless or in transitional housing, and 9.25 million unemployed, 4.5 living on misc. benefits (i.e. not totally penniless, but not technically working) is 58.25. 58,250,000 divided by the 2002 US population of 281,000,000 is about 21%. I round up to 25% because it is almost universally accepted that homeless counts are underestimates (simply because it's hard to count people who don't have an address).

Source please.

 

[LightFang]

But why must there be a brain? Why can't the body rule itself (in the figurative sense of course). The body is naturally inferior in calculating than the brain, but there is no real master race inbetween humans. I mean a better analogy is like a small group of brain cells trying to rule over the rest of the brain (not perfect but more accurate).

It's the law of specialization.

 

[greenpeace]

Bingo. Because the brain does something better, that the rest of the body is really bad at.

Did you read the next part of the sentence? There is absolutely no parallel between body functions and the functions of society. Small elite governments are not better at deciding what the people want, the people are the best at deciding what they want. Having 1 millionth of the population having near supreme rule over everyone else is ridiculous when that 1 millionth claims to be better than the rest. CEOs don't neccessarily have any interest (in fact, they rarily do) except to make money, that does not serve the freedom of the people. The people must have direct control over there lives, not some wishy washy "oh, you get to have one hundreth of a millionth of a say in who the executive ruler will be for the next four years ( oh, BTW if you change your mind during the term it doesn't matter)." Actually thats not true, if your under 18 you have absolutely no say.
Even if the government was better at managing its territory, who cares? Freedom is more essential, and I and everyone else should never be forced to do anything I don't want to unless I harm others, nor have no direct say over decisions that directly affect me.

In reference to the economy, the same basic concept applies. People almost always have to work for a company or some other job, and there is absolutely nothing to insure that they naturally want to spend a quarter or more of their life working a completely non-essential (as in not needed for survival) pit of labor. The only work that has to be done without regards for people's willingness is to provide the essentials so that we don't all die. I have used alot of dramatic examples of people who work jobs that aren't neccessarily what they want to do, like prostitutes and factory workers, but the same concept can be applied to any job. In fact, a CEO, who communists rant on all the friggin time, who does not like her/his job to the extent that they would not work if they were getting the same money anyway should not have to do her/his work.
Take me for example, I'm the steriotypical aspiration for parents in poor countries who want their children to have a better life. I go to an amazing school with practically no violence and exceptionally talented students and I am told I should feel happy to have such a blissful opportunity, especially since I'm not a lower person (on the economic scale). But am I? No! I have to work all the time doing useless memorization so that I can get over a friggin 4.0 so that I can achieve greatness at some god-for-saken ivy leage, and if I don't I'm a "failure." But I have such great positive incentive because I can go to that amazing ivy leage, so its all cool, right? No, its still against my will, I still don't want to do it. The same can be applied to countless other people (well, I'd probably have to count them and memorize all their names for an A, but whatever). Working against your will providing non-essentials for survival is not right.

Sorry if I sounded a little aggressive there, wasn't intentional.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

Source please.

The 37.5 is from the link I quoted, unemployed and homeless are from the US census bureau (you can look that up), and the 4.5 not technically employed is off the top of my head from something I read. If you can't trust me on that, then you can ignore it, which bumps us down to 1/5 of US society hungry or malnourished.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

Bingo. Because the brain does something better, that the rest of the body is really bad at.


Bingo also.


You answered your own questions without realizing it. Only the simplest of organisms can survive without a brain. When a living thing (or a society) grows large enough, specialization and organization become essential. The various systems in a body (or in a society) all need to be working together, therefore you need to have ONE leader (a brain, or a CEO, or a President) calling the shots.

The reason there must be a brain (and, for a society, a leader) is because we humans want to live better than bacteria in a petri dish. Yes, bacteria are free to do what they please, but they never accomplish anything and live miserably. Until they get eaten by something larger than themselves.

You still fail to answer as to why we let members of our own species die if a single organism is such a good analogy for human society. Also, your argument may stand for leadership (political power, though you ignore the endocrine system and major nerve ganglions throughout the human body), however you ignore the basic tenant that energy distribution between cells in the body follow... From each according to ability, to each according to need.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

It's the law of specialization.

Yes... And, likewise, and systemic evolutionary or genetic development that allows or necessitates the death of portions of the body or organism renders the organism as a whole incapable of survival. Case in point, cancer; a mutation allowing a set of cells to deny surrounding tissues energy (oxygen and necessary sugars), resulting in necrosis in that region. Inevitably, without treatment or immune suppression, the organism dies. Likewise, any social system (social organization, or organized system of semi-independent members) that, by necessity or structure, kills or allows the death or deprivation of its members is doomed.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

The 37.5 is from the link I quoted, unemployed and homeless are from the US census bureau (you can look that up), and the 4.5 not technically employed is off the top of my head from something I read. If you can't trust me on that, then you can ignore it, which bumps us down to 1/5 of US society hungry or malnourished.

Explain to me how you get that unemployed implies hungry. Also explain to me how you can be "not technically employed."

 

[Newbunkle]

The truth about poverty in America

That is all, carry on.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

Explain to me how you get that unemployed implies hungry. Also explain to me how you can be "not technically employed."

...Because you generally don't have money. At least you're statistically likely to be hungry. And toward the second question, disability, severance. Aren't you kinda' splittin' hairs here? I mean, even if you remove those, that's what? 17.5%? Still just about 1/5 of the country... ...I mean, any hunger or malnourishment at all should be ridiculous.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

The truth about poverty in America

That is all, carry on.

The lack of citations per statistical claim in that article is astounding. And the poverty comparison to the 70's makes no mention of living cost increases.

"Those under the age of 18 were the most likely to be impoverished. In 2001 the poverty rate for minors in the United States was the highest in the industrialized world, with 14.8% of all minors and 30% of African American minors living below the poverty threshold. Moreover, the standard of living for those in the bottom 10% was lower in the U.S. than in any other developed nation except the United Kingdom, which had the lowest standard of living for impoverished children.[4] In 2006, poverty rate for minors in the United States was 21.9% - highest child poverty rate in the developed world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

 

[BasketCase]

You still fail to answer as to why we let members of our own species die if a single organism is such a good analogy for human society.

We don't let them die. They die in spite of our best efforts. This is the way it has always been, and this is the way it will always be, and no amount of whining by you or anybody else will change it.

Individual cells die. Every single cell in your body has been replaced something like a dozen times in your life, Viking. That material your mother gave birth to? None of that survived. Yet, for some strange reason, you are still you.

Also, your argument may stand for leadership (political power, though you ignore the endocrine system and major nerve ganglions throughout the human body), however you ignore the basic tenant that energy distribution between cells in the body follow... From each according to ability, to each according to need.

Evolution decided not to follow this rule--the brain clearly gets far more of the body's resources than it needs. Evolution, it would appear, disagrees with you.

And I am a very devout follower of Evolution.


From each according to ability. To each according to need--and value. The brain is a lot more valuable than any other part of the body. So you must consider the possibility that some humans are more imporant than others. Unfair, but true.

Random side note: if capitalists are so aggro about making money, then why do you suppose they pay ridiculous amounts of money to hire a CEO for their company? Why pay 50 million bucks for a CEO when the shareholders could pocket all that cash themselves? The obvious answer: because that CEO is worth more than 50 million bucks. To each according to value. And some humans are genuinely worth that much.

 

[greenpeace]

Random side note: if capitalists are so aggro about making money, then why do you suppose they pay ridiculous amounts of money to hire a CEO for their company? Why pay 50 million bucks for a CEO when the shareholders could pocket all that cash themselves? The obvious answer: because that CEO is worth more than 50 million bucks. To each according to value. And some humans are genuinely worth that much.

The following is basically a summary of my previous post:
This is very illogical in terms of justifying that power. I mean, in the USSR during Stalin's regime, they killed millions upon millions of people for Stalin's power. Does that mean that his power was really justified by the mass murder? Obviously not.
Furthermore, the CEO position may make some people tons of money, but it doesn't mean that the position of CEO is neccessary other than in Capitalism (or at least your version of Capitalism). There is no need to have such a tiny portion of people with tremendous power and wealth if the people can directly rule over themselves.
I'll ask you this, why must there be a hierarchal structure?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

...Because you generally don't have money. At least you're statistically likely to be hungry. And toward the second question, disability, severance. Aren't you kinda' splittin' hairs here? I mean, even if you remove those, that's what? 17.5%? Still just about 1/5 of the country... ...I mean, any hunger or malnourishment at all should be ridiculous.

Unemployed does not imply hungry, disabled does not imply hungry and 1/5 of the country is not hungry.


Definitely read what Nephrite posted:

The truth about poverty in America

That is all, carry on.

 

[mdwh]

Furthermore, the CEO position may make some people tons of money, but it doesn't mean that the position of CEO is neccessary other than in Capitalism (or at least your version of Capitalism). There is no need to have such a tiny portion of people with tremendous power and wealth if the people can directly rule over themselves.
I'll ask you this, why must there be a hierarchal structure?

So why not set up your own company without a hierarchical structure?

This is what I don't get when communists and anarchists attack the fundamental way corporations work. There is nothing in capitalism that says corporations must work this way - your are free to set up a company where everyone, from the toilet cleaner to the person who invested his life savings, gets an equal say in the company if you so wish.

But rather than doing that and proving it can be done, instead it seems you want a world where everyone is forced to work the way you want?

 

[greenpeace]

So why not set up your own company without a hierarchical structure?

This is what I don't get when communists and anarchists attack the fundamental way corporations work.
There is nothing in capitalism that says corporations must work this way

But there is absolutely nothing preventing people from establishing hierarchial structure, and it is by far the most prominent form because it allows people to gain enormous power (and since people can be very greedy, as we see, they will take that chance very often).

- your are free to set up a company where everyone, from the toilet cleaner to the person who invested his life savings, gets an equal say in the company if you so wish.

But I don't even want that, because thats offering positive incentives which I consider harm (and net intentional harm is not justified).

But rather than doing that and proving it can be done, instead it seems you want a world where everyone is forced to work the way you want?

I definenetly do not want that. First of all nobody should be forced to accept this society, and it would definently be considered illegal (in said society). I simply wish for a seperate society that follows said rules, that can be a place to go for others who find this system better.

The truth about poverty in America

That is all, carry on.

For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor"

Assuming your article is true, that means that there is more than zero because a small number is > 0.
Why should these people have to suffer proverty (unless of course, some natural catastrophe hits and there is no way to provide basics)?
Furthermore, why must people have to work against their will providing labor that goes toward something other than the basics to get themselves out of proverty (or stay out)?
Furthermore, why must there be people with incredibly high amounts of wealth and power while said people can't provide basics (especially without working against their will)?

 

[A Viking Yeti]

We don't let them die. They die in spite of our best efforts. This is the way it has always been, and this is the way it will always be, and no amount of whining by you or anybody else will change it.

Individual cells die. Every single cell in your body has been replaced something like a dozen times in your life, Viking. That material your mother gave birth to? None of that survived. Yet, for some strange reason, you are still you.

Yes... From age. However, no single cell in the whole of the body is ever deliberately deprived of energy unless it is diseased or forced to by an external source. In other words, every cell in the body gets exactly the amount of energy it needs in order to survive, assuming there are enough resources for every cell (unlike our society).

And, on a side note, calling my distaste and lack of complacency for poverty 'whining' is the same thing as calling the founding fathers' disdain for their lack of civil liberties 'whining', or slaves unhappiness with indentured servitude 'whining', so try and keep things in perspective. Not to mention I already cited a statistic putting the US in the third worst position for basic poverty standards, especially among children, in the modern world, so I think we still have plenty of room to improve. Calling it 'whining' is just the jaded manifestation of complacency and fear in an individual either too heartless or too lazy to do something about it.

Evolution decided not to follow this rule--the brain clearly gets far more of the body's resources than it needs. Evolution, it would appear, disagrees with you.

And I am a very devout follower of Evolution.

From each according to ability. To each according to need--and value. The brain is a lot more valuable than any other part of the body. So you must consider the possibility that some humans are more imporant than others. Unfair, but true.

No, the brain, having one of the highest cellular densities of any organ in the human body, takes exactly what it needs. Like the citation says, it burns off exactly what is given to it, asserting that it must be doing nearly that exact amount of work.

Aside from that, you are obviously not a neurologist... If you were, you might would've realized how ridiculous your statement was. Assuming any organism was dumb enough to give more oxygen than is necessary to any nerve group, you see the effects of, SURPRISE, over-oxidization... ...In other words, if the brain were to get more than it need, it would die. It would be oxidized and die. That's why strokes are bad...

http://www.acnp.org/g4/GN401000064/CH064.HTML

"Oxygen consumption is 160 mmol/100 g·min; because CO2 production is almost identical, the respiratory quotient (RQ) of the brain is nearly 1, indicating that carbohydrates are the substrates for oxidative metabolism (60)."

Random side note: if capitalists are so aggro about making money, then why do you suppose they pay ridiculous amounts of money to hire a CEO for their company? Why pay 50 million bucks for a CEO when the shareholders could pocket all that cash themselves? The obvious answer: because that CEO is worth more than 50 million bucks. To each according to value. And some humans are genuinely worth that much.

You've failed to prove that... The perceived value of the rich is nothing I hold much value in, especially in this country. As a counter example, where would our country, humanity as a whole even, be without the farmer? About 35,000 behind, that's where (or when, I suppose). So why is the farmer, or the teacher, or the construction worker, et cetera, paid so little in relation to overall capital distribution, if they are obviously the mainstay of any stable society? Why do we, in essence, discourage people to do that kind of labor (via poor wages), whilst encouraging them to take up executive or management positions? Why are the jobs responsible for the production of the most basic necessities the least profitable? Seems abhorrently illogical to me...

 

[A Viking Yeti]

Unemployed does not imply hungry, disabled does not imply hungry and 1/5 of the country is not hungry.


Definitely read what Nephrite posted:

Unemployed does, disability checks fall well below the average living cost (which implies hunger), and I've already statistically proven that 1/5 is. If you'd like to cite some counter examples, rather than just delving into worthless denial, feel free. However, if you're just going to say things and back them up with nothing, you may want to keep your trap shut, lest you hurt your own argument... Or just look like a fool.

I already replied... The only considerable denial in that article is over the crowding issue... ...Frankly, that article, in light of some citations I've made and seen previous, seems quite bias and very, very unconvincing.