So socialism

[Traitorfish]

"low-level", on the contrary, the commonalities comes from common roots and differs in higher-level. And I would agree about the "staggeringly-obvious", because that's the whole point, save for the fact that some people actually deny this obviousness - just see how it's disputed that humans are territorial animals.

"High level" in the sense of a high level of abstraction. Possibly they are "low-level" in the sense of representing some sort of shared psychological substrate, but the point is that these commonalities wouldn't be visible at a granular level, they'd require pretty abstract comparisons. You wouldn't realistically be able to point to a specific cow behaviour and a specific baboon behaviour and assert that these are identical behaviours, cows and baboons are just too dissimilar, even at the level of something as basically mechanical as eating and shitting! To draw an identification between cow behaviour and baboon behaviour, you'd have to develop a theoretical mechanism that plausibly explains both behaviours, and while I'm wholly prepared to accept that is possible and even useful, it's going to be at such a level of abstraction that it's hard to see how we can then translate that back into some specific insight about human behaviour.

For instance, you give the example of territorialism- but cows aren't territorial. They're just... not, either as individuals or as group. So whatever common psychological substrate you might find between a non-territorial animal like cows and a territorial animal like cats isn't going to tell you anything about whether humans are territorial.

(I had to switch from baboons to cats because it turns out baboons aren't really territorial, either.)

Isn't this just repackaged Malthus?

I don't think so, no. What makes you say that?

 

[bernie14]

"High level" in the sense of a high level of abstraction. Possibly they are "low-level" in the sense of representing some sort of shared psychological substrate, but the point is that these commonalities wouldn't be visible at a granular level, they'd require pretty abstract comparisons. You wouldn't realistically be able to point to a specific cow behaviour and a specific baboon behaviour and assert that these are identical behaviours, cows and baboons are just too dissimilar, even at the level of something as basically mechanical as eating and horsehockyting! To draw an identification between cow behaviour and baboon behaviour, you'd have to develop a theoretical mechanism that plausibly explains both behaviours, and while I'm wholly prepared to accept that is possible and even useful, it's going to be at such a level of abstraction that it's hard to see how we can then translate that back into some specific insight about human behaviour.

For instance, you give the example of territorialism- but cows aren't territorial. They're just... not, either as individuals or as group. So whatever common psychological substrate you might find between a non-territorial animal like cows and a territorial animal like cats isn't going to tell you anything about whether humans are territorial.

(I had to switch from baboons to cats because it turns out baboons aren't really territorial, either.)


I don't think so, no. What makes you say that?

Yeah, no, just a mental fart regarding my belief that both are deeply flawed social theories

 

[AdamCrock]

Can I say my piece ? Socialism is a pretty dream and I wish it would be true. With human nature that is not so : There is always superior and inferior, good and evil, Yin and Yang, North Pole and South Pole , call it whatever You wish but there is no equality in this world , there are polarities and the shades of gray in between. The ideal equalizer does not exist, no matter how strong we wish it would. Somehow always there are people who are just more equal than You ... "gee I wonder why" <- sarcasm alert !

 

[AdamCrock]

All we can do is try our best. If You're not equal to a lowest common denominator , than You are not equal and quoting famous Youtuber - "that's a fact"

 

[AdamCrock]

That is why communism can only work in theory , but in real life ... well let's just say the best thing in communism that can happen to You under the boot of communism is to be "equalized" and the worst it's Gulag AKA life in prison, slaving away till the end of Your life comrade. "All hail Stalin" and all that jazz.

 

[Narz]

There's a quote, I think by Fredrick Douglas, something about man is as free as he is willing to fight for (or as unfree as he's willing to put up with)

If you're expecting a government to secure your bag for you you've another thing coming (that said I'm pro universal health care and even a basic income for people but beyond that one needs to fight and grasp for what one wants in life and expecting the powerful to look out for your well being (whether govt or corporations) is a recipe for disaster

 

[Angst]

we really need to do away with the respectable person quotes something i vaguely agree with thing...

i think i can parse your second paragraph narz, a lacking paranthesis makes it a tad questionable but i think i can make it out

so

the difference between corps and states is that we as "government consumers" have elections. might look like supply/demand, but it's not.

anyways communism was never about freebies. socialism isn't either. if we talk social democracy, it's still a capitalist system; it's about more efficient allocation of resources that corporations are bad at. if we talk communism, there's a massive innate logic of production ingrained in it; there's a reason it is (was?) a worker's movement y'know. noone wanted to stop working, they rather wanted a fairer and more efficient way to distribute things

and for adamcrock, the communists never presumed we were equal in capability, and never pushed for that artificiality.

idk man a lot of this is shower thoughts not actually dealing with the ideas that the criticized people have

 

[Narz]

we really need to do away with the respectable person quotes something i vaguely agree with thing...

Sig worthy

 

[Narz]

if we talk social democracy, it's still a capitalist system; it's about more efficient allocation of resources that corporations are bad at.

Yeah sounds good to me

But some folks here seem to think communism will lead to some workers paradise when in practice it seems to lead to as much inequality as ever (except the floor is lower, usually so low that people are dying in droves)

Without free enterprise life is garbage, but if the entrepreneurial dream (or even the dream of a stable, enjoyable job) is unrealistic for the vast majority (and the barrier to enterprise is blocked) life is garbage too.

 

[AdamCrock]

Let's face reality , the only way we are able to achieve unbiased and somewhat just government is via the AI, that would allocate resources based on needs. I am not willing to do that because I have my own free will. It is really a question of how much You are willing to give up and what for, like Narz said. (thumbs up) The truth is the only person that is always gonna look up for You is You. I have given up on the BS government is giving me - nothing but lies and their own well-being is always the priority. Believe it or not the last time I've watched news was 2 years ago - memes are much more accurate and closer to the truth.

 

[Narz]

The truth is the only person that is always gonna look up for You is You

Yup, no god, ism or government is gonna solve anyone's problems

 

[Traitorfish]

Yup, no god, ism or government is gonna solve anyone's problems

Government action has pretty demonstrably solved a great many problems throughout history. What's changed?

 

[Narz]

A government policy may help some of the people some of the time (smoking bans, searbelt laws, environmental protections) but I wouldn't hold breath. Individual self-care/education is always ones first line of defense.

US government still subsidizes fast food while making cannabis illegal.

The rich get richer while the middle class slips closer to poverty. The govt may make changes to help the public but again waiting/depending on them to do so is ill-advised (hope for the best, plan for the worst)

 

[aelf]

Yeah sounds good to me

But some folks here seem to think communism will lead to some workers paradise when in practice it seems to lead to as much inequality as ever (except the floor is lower, usually so low that people are dying in droves)

Which communism are you talking about?

 

[Lexicus]

A government policy may help some of the people some of the time (smoking bans, searbelt laws, environmental protections) but I wouldn't hold breath. Individual self-care/education is always ones first line of defense.

Strange how the biggest individualists grew up in a cradle protected by the US government

 

[Narz]

Strange how the biggest individualists grew up in a cradle protected by the US government

I agree American individualism (as promoted by the uber wealthy) is fake

 

[Angst]

Which communism are you talking about?

tbf i know what "communism" sometimes looks like online, since there seems to be some pretty loud people not understanding it, as with all fields. i remember what i was like when i was 17. problem is, as often elsewhere, that there doesn't seem to be much interest or conversation with the majority views of the people engaged with it. similar thing i talked about in the ole "woke" thread if you remember/read that. outside definitions and ideas of the matter rather than engaging with the speech and beliefs of people inside the matter. and sadly today, it's the jp way, drop the beat

 

[Traitorfish]

A government policy may help some of the people some of the time (smoking bans, searbelt laws, environmental protections) but I wouldn't hold breath. Individual self-care/education is always ones first line of defense.

I was thinking of things like public education, rural electrification and wiping out deadly diseases. Things like that represent enormous public good and it's impossible to imagine our modern world without them, they weren't just a few small regulations to sand off the rough edges. A people today so much more wicked and stupid than people a hundred years ago that we can't imagine the state taking that sort of action today?

 

[El_Machinae]

It will always be "individual (and local) self-care on top of a good public infrastructure". Whether it's Rule-of-Law and Common Defense* or all the way to Public Education to Mandatory Savings Plans, you'll still have to take care of yourself and yours or else the total society won't improve. In my professional life, I deal with this very often. We have people who're more qualified to help someone in need, but there's only a fraction of the total effort devoted to putting in more effort than the person and their personal circle. So, when effort is the multiplier on the tools we bring to bear, we need people to help whose 'job' isn't to help.

*The United States socialized the Common Defense pretty early into its experiment.

 

[Farm Boy]

I was thinking of things like public education, rural electrification and wiping out deadly diseases. Things like that represent enormous public good and it's impossible to imagine our modern world without them, they weren't just a few small regulations to sand off the rough edges. A people today so much more wicked and stupid than people a hundred years ago that we can't imagine the state taking that sort of action today?

Given that we know people become less generous in real terms the richer they get, the answer to that is "quite possibly."