Ask a Red, Second Edition

[_random_]

Yes, she's too old

Dom, we're the same age, and I think we both know that's the wrong answer.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

what about "dictatorship of the proletarian" that doesnt sound to Democratic.

 

[civver_764]

That's because it's a 19th century term and not every word meant the same back then as it did now.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

can you show me where in any form of "communism" are there assumptions about human nature?
The assumptions are about human institutions.

This isn't exactly true. Didn't Lenin say that if communism was implemented that jealousy would evaporate from human existence? This seems to make assumptions about human nature, not only government institutions.

 

[aelf]

Insofar as it assumes that humans are not 'naturally' jealous, which is actually less absurd than claiming that humans are.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

Insofar as it assumes that humans are not 'naturally' jealous, which is actually less absurd than claiming that humans are.

Back in junior high I had this huge crush on this girl. I mean, she was a beautiful girl, a farm girl, well endowed for her age, if you get my drift. But then, one of the jocks two years older than me asked her out, and dashed my hopes and dreams. I suppose the intense jealousy I felt was institutional in nature right?

When I played baseball in high school, I was a pretty good pitcher. I could really hurl the ball. Not as good as another kid, who was actually in the class below me. As a result he started the vast majority of our games. I was jealous of his natural talents. I was jealous of how hard he could throw the ball. Was this institutionalized?

Do you suppose if I was a native American, and couldn't kill as big of a bear as one of my peers, that I wouldn't be jealous? Do you suppose that if he got my girl, that I wouldn't be jealous? I would argue that any situation that prevents people from being jealous and envious of one another would institutional. If jealousy is not natural, is pity also not natural?

Do you really think that jealousy and envy is not a natural human emotion? I don't think you could find a psychologist or a sociologist that would argue otherwise.

 

[aelf]

Cool story, bro. But there's obviously a big difference between that sort of situational jealousy and the kind of 'innate' jealousy that some people like to assume, which borders on the pathological but is presumed to be a central driving force in social relations.

I mean, the character trait and the mental state (or whatever) that are both referred to by the word 'jealous' are often not mutually inclusive - a person who is occasionally jealous is not necessarily a jealous person. Surely, a master of communication such as yourself should know this.

 

[timtofly]

Cool story, bro. But there's obviously a big difference between that sort of situational jealousy and the kind of 'innate' jealousy that some people like to assume, which borders on the pathological but is presumed to be a central driving force in social relations.

Could it be that some have the ability to "walk away" and others do not? Maybe it is the ability to control ones actions, that is lacking?

 

[BuckeyeJim]

Cool story, bro. But there's obviously a big difference between that sort of situational jealousy and the kind of 'innate' jealousy that some people like to assume, which borders on the pathological but is presumed to be a central driving force in social relations.

Looks like we hedged that bet real quick. Moved the goal post back a bit. Cool story, bro, indeed.

 

[aelf]

Could it be that some have the ability to "walk away" and others do not? Maybe it is the ability to control ones actions, that is lacking?

So would you say that humans "naturally" lack self-control?

Looks like we hedged that bet real quick. Moved the goal post back a bit. Cool story, bro, indeed.

Uh, dude, it's not that hard to understand. I said "naturally" jealous. The connotations of the word "naturally" is pretty clear there, especially since we're talking about the subject of human nature. That's, like, a given, but somehow you failed to pick up on it despite diving into the subject yourself

 

[BuckeyeJim]

Then it would seem that you are not on the same wavelength as the original quoter and myself and are trying to strawman my simple counterpoints. I dunno, but I thought he made it pretty clear we were talking about human nature in its total form, not making caveats and connotations with quotation marks. I was talking about human nature in its total form, and pointing out that human jealousy is plenty natural. He didn't make caveats about girls, or abilities to play games. He said "human nature." And I would assume he meant it in total. What makes you think otherwise? What makes you think it's okay to pick which aspects we're naturally jealous and which aren't? What's the difference between me being ugly, and my friend being attractive. And me being born poor, and him being born rich anyway?

 

[BuckeyeJim]

When you claim "it goes against human nature" you're saying that you know the definitive "truth" about human nature. And your claim is false to start with: can you show me where in any form of "communism" are there assumptions about human nature?
The assumptions are about human institutions. Marxism was remarkable (for its time) in that it stated that what divided people was not lineage, race or nationality, but the role assumed by each individual. It was understood that individuals could assume different roles, and that these roles changed throughout history: that human nature didn't exist, each individual's nature was a product of it's environment!

So, just to be clear here. Marx argued all of this. And Lenin, a proponent of Marxism, argued that jealousy would go away once all men because equal. But if humans are naturally jealous of things they can't have (like women), and if humans are jealous of athletic talents, then how will Lenin's vision, or Marx's vision of a jealousy free society, one where we do not covet, ever exist? The entire idea at its very root is incredibly flawed. Even if you eliminate material wants, and create a perfectly egalitarian society, you will not remove jealousy due to natural endowments that we cannot control. They will still exist, so you will simply shuffle the jealousy and envy around. Not only did communist theory think it understood human nature, but it was completely wrong about it at the same time.

 

[aelf]

Because you mentioned Lenin, and I highly doubt that he meant to say that the feeling of jealousy would totally disappear?

Saying that "human jealousy is plenty natural" is to say nothing, as it has little or no ramification for communism or any ideology. The question is whether jealousy constitutes part of "human nature" (TM) such that it necessarily constrains social organisation in certain ways. If you don't mean it in that way, then I don't see why you're even asking about it here at all.

 

[aelf]

I mean, the character trait and the mental state (or whatever) that are both referred to by the word 'jealous' are often not mutually inclusive - a person who is occasionally jealous is not necessarily a jealous person.

I don't think this has been addressed, and I suspect that it's able to point to why being capable of jealousy =/= a jealous society.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

Well of course jealousy constitutes part of "human nature" (TM) such that it necessarily constrains social organization in certain ways. Do both of those examples not constitute constraints in social organization? Does it not create winners and losers? Haves and have nots? Doesn't the dating scene do this? Does marriage not impose social constraints? Do physical disabilities not inherently impose social constraints? What about the person who is born in the plains, but yearns for the ocean? Is he not jealous? Are their not social constraints placed upon him his jealousy and circumstance that is beyond his control?

 

[BuckeyeJim]

I don't think this has been addressed, and I suspect that it's able to point to why being capable of jealousy =/= a jealous society.

Okay, so fine. Why be jealous in the first place? Why be envious - ever? Why distinguish between money, women, and natural talents? What justification do you have to pin caveats only to money and material possessions? Things that I actually think are pretty inane? I don't think I've ever stomped around begrudging those that are wealthier than me, or had more material possessions than I did. I think more emotional stress and pain was caused by not getting the girl, and certain;y by not being the star pitcher. And perhaps not being the Valedictorian of my class. Why is it materials that we choose to isolate in our analysis of jealousy. And why is there any reason or justification to presume that an egalitarian society will have one bit less of jealousy within it?

 

[aelf]

Well of course jealousy constitutes part of "human nature" (TM) such that it necessarily constrains social organization in certain ways. Do both of those examples not constitute constraints in social organization? Does it not create winners and losers? Haves and have nots? Doesn't the dating scene do this? Does marriage not impose social constraints? Do physical disabilities not inherently impose social constraints? What about the person who is born in the plains, but yearns for the ocean? Is he not jealous? Are their not social constraints placed upon him his jealousy and circumstance that is beyond his control?

Okay, so fine. Why be jealous in the first place? Why be envious - ever? Why distinguish between money, women, and natural talents? What justification do you have to pin caveats only to money and material possessions? Things that I actually think are pretty inane? I don't think I've ever stomped around begrudging those that are wealthier than me, or had more material possessions than I did. I think more emotional stress and pain was caused by not getting the girl, and certain;y by not being the star pitcher. And perhaps not being the Valedictorian of my class. Why is it materials that we choose to isolate in our analysis of jealousy. And why is there any reason or justification to presume that an egalitarian society will have one bit less of jealousy within it?

I'm not arguing for what Lenin apparently said. I'd say it's conceivable that society can become accultured in such a manner that envy no longer plays a significant part of social relations, i.e. that it no longer serves as a primary motivation for human actions in a general sense. I don't know how that is to be achieved, though.

But, on the other hand, the premise that this possibility rests on (i.e. that jealousy does not constitute a part of human nature (TM)) is actually easier to believe that the opposite premise, the reason being that the concept of human nature that is non-negotiable (apart from the obvious physical needs) is damn hard to prove.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

what about "dictatorship of the proletarian" that doesnt sound to Democratic.

When Marx coined the term, "dictatorship" in the context of a non-democratic despotism did not exist as a concept. That is really a 20th century idea. In Marx's time, the word "dictatorship" simply meant that someone or something was in unquestionable control. The word comes from Roman times: during times of crisis, the Romans would appoint a temporary leader who possessed lots of power in order to solve the crisis, and whose power would evaporate quickly thereafter (six months, or until the crisis was resolved, whichever came first) who was called a "dictator," and until the 20th century, this is what the word referred to.

This isn't exactly true. Didn't Lenin say that if communism was implemented that jealousy would evaporate from human existence? This seems to make assumptions about human nature, not only government institutions.

First, I've read quite a bit of Lenin and I can't say I've encountered that claim before.

Second, the statement does not run contrary to the one you quoted; in fact, it fits perfectly in line with it! It claims two things: first, that jealousy exists in the present time, which is really unquestionable, and second, that at some point in a post-capitalist future, that trait will disappear. It does not claim that either jealousy is an inert human trait, or that lack of jealousy is one. It makes no pretension towards knowing what human nature is by default; in fact, it claims that this one aspect of it, jealousy, is as controllable as the rest of human nature in that its possession by people as a quality of their persona is as influenced by circumstance and society as anything else is.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

It does not claim that either jealousy is an inert human trait, or that lack of jealousy is one. It makes no pretension towards knowing what human nature is by default.

I went back to my books, and I will say that the quote of interest to me was actually from Trotsky. He says that the average human will become an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx.

I don't really think there is any sound foundation in stating that my statement and examples run counter to the original. The original quoter, and now you, went after another poster for presuming that they understood what human nature was. But now you are blithely stating that you know what human nature is by making the forceful, and yet totally unfounded claim, that jealousy and envy isn't a part of human nature prima facie. There is absolutely, positively, no justification to think that jealousy will not exist in the future - zero. Men will still crave certain girls and be jealous when they cannot get them. Children will still be jealous when their parents do not allow them to do certain things. The person working in the slightly profitable commune will still be jealous of the person who works in a very profitable commune. The boy stuck in the midwest that desires to live by the ocean and surf will still be jealous of boys who live on the west coast and get to surf. Jealousy and envy is an observable trait in even very, very young children, and in all cultures. Envy and jealousy is just as natural as our fight or flight mechanism. Furthermore, there is absolutely no way that communism can declare that jealousy will go away with the implementation of it's system and not declare that it knows what human nature is by default. When you make that statement you are saying what human nature is by default. You are saying that we are not jealous, and that jealousy is a result of institutions. And yet, let's go farther. How can you claim that you can control human nature without stating that you know what human nature is by default? What is control of human nature anyway? I don't think you can control human nature. The nature is still there. You're not really controlling it, you're just masking or subduing it. But be sure, when a man comes home and sees his best friend slonking his wife, the nature in him will lead him to murder his best friend just as much as he would now. And what's the suggestion anyway? That in a communist world that the entire spectrum of human emotions will be controlled and that we'll all turn into feelingless automatons? Nothing but blind cogs working towards the collective good, serving only the collective good? People without individual goals or desires (a natural human trait directly related to jealousy)? There's a lot of boldness in these comments, and I you're be waiting for a long train that won't come if you actually think you can quench genuine natural human jealousy.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I went back to my books, and I will say that the quote of interest to me was actually from Trotsky. He says that the average human will become an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx.

I don't really think there is any sound foundation in stating that my statement and examples run counter to the original.

I didn't say that. You did. I said your statement compliments Inno's.

The original quoter, and now you, went after another poster for presuming that they understood what human nature was. But now you are blithely stating that you know what human nature is by making the forceful, and yet totally unfounded claim, that jealousy and envy isn't a part of human nature prima facie.

Actually, I did not say that. I said that your statement that it was definitively a part of human nature was wrong. The only thing I've said definitively about the qualities of human nature is that we don't know what its absolutes are.

There is absolutely, positively, no justification to think that jealousy will not exist in the future - zero.

...It was speculation?

tl;dr

Don't litter our thread with this nonsense, please.