Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #27306

Subject: "nah man." This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
FireBrand
Charter member
145739 posts
Tue Mar-01-05 07:26 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
26. "nah man."
In response to In response to 25


  

          

>Alright, once again, lets chop it up...
>
>>>First of all, no where in my last statement did I mention
>>>anything about socialism -nowhere! Sure, I am a socialist
>>>but could you at least wait until that comes up before you
>>>decide that you are going to base your whole counter
>>>argument on it?
>>
>>We've had another convo about this, I felt I knew where you
>>were headed. I tend to jump the gun sometimes. My bad.
>
>As you know I believe only through a system of consciously
>planned production, determined by those who actually produce
>goods and services in society, can we develop ourselves into
>full human beings who relate to one another as human beings
>and not market entities embedded with value on some mystical
>market. With that said, while I believe in socialism as an
>end I believe that building it is a long term project.

Look. I don't disagree with planned goods and services, if we live in small family groups of no more than 200 to 500 people and abolish countries. But anytime you have a sophisticated buracracy that runs infrastructure you are going to have human maniuplation. There is no way around it. You might even have it on the smaller scale, but when you are dealing with family HOPEFULLY the dynamic is lessened.


>Whether you share this view or not, my argument in this post
>is still valid as a means of build broad social unity among
>human beings with similar class interests. If you oppose the
>policies of right wing capitalists then you must support
>their one and only set of victims, labourers.

I agree socialism is valid as an internet arguement. It isn't, however as a socio-political structure and really never has been. It relies on people to be something they are not: altruistic (in regards to themselves and their interests).


>
>>>Second you make such strong claims about this phenomenon you
>>>call "human nature". Human nature arguments are write off
>>>statements for people who don't want to think something
>>>through.
>>
>>Why do you think this? I believe human nature is not ever
>>given enough credit. For some reason people like to forget
>>that we are animals. If you want truth, first look to Allah
>>and secondly look to nature. I believe you can find many
>>answers in nature and social concepts are not excluded.

>
>Well human nature is given far too much credit by people who
>have either not studies history or people who have studied
>history and have failed to understand anything about the
>changing nature of human beings throughout.

Explain.

> This is why in
>the past you have had cooperative societies and slavish
>imperialist societies.

You still do. I didn't say that human nature is simple. It isn't just one thing, but it does exists. I don't believe that there are a different set of schools of thought existing today that didn't exist SOMEWHERE on earth before and vice versa.


Surplant yourself onto a plot of land
>nearly anywhere in the world 500 years ago. When people
>lived in societies that lacked the concept of individual
>private property and private ownership, the concept of
>sharing and producing in common dominated.

You mean in fuedal Europe, or Asia? Explain.

>This is why in
>America at the turn of the 19th century so many artisans,
>craftspeople and journeymen revolted against the emerging
>conditions of capitalism that concentrated wealth and
>property into the hands of a few wealthy landowners.

This has been an ongoing stuggle world wide, no? This isn't a struggle as old as time itself?


Before
>the emergence of industrial capitalism these craftspeople
>lived in a very cooperative and symbiotic manner with their
>guild masters. They had views and ideas completely alien to
>us today and their transformation into wage workers is a
>testament to the malleability of the nature of human beings.
>
>>Personally, I don't believe that there is such a
>>>thing as human nature. History has shown us that we behave
>>>according to our social structures.
>>
>>What are these structures based on? They are a mechanism.
>>When you break down these mechanisms they are based on the
>>simplest of things: 1.) Procreation 2.) Ensuring the next
>>generation.
>>no?
>
>Again, read above as your reductions are overly simplistic.

They are. But they were done so on purpose. They are the BASE of human intention IMO, hence: "based".


>Yes, humans need to continue procreation and ensure their
>survival but your assumption implicit here is that these
>goals always had to be acomplished under hostility.

Western Economics is based upon the principle that resources are scarce. This isn't always so, but when it is what do you think is the result of competition? What has history told us- Pre Vedic, Biblical, Qu'ranic history.


>That
>couldn't be more false. For thousands of years human beings
>had different structures to ensure survival, some
>cooperative and some competitive.

Agreed.


Some societies like the
>Tainos of what we know today as puerto rico and the people
>of Easter Island before that society transformed where
>extremely cooperative and peaceful. Other societies like the
>Aztecs, the Romans and the Ottomans had very centralised and
>class divided societies that survived via imperialism.

And still other, more simple societies were just as class based as well as aggressive. Be careful not to pair aggressiveness or class based society with imperialism. They (aggresiveness and class) are tools. Sometimes they have been used by imperialist.


The
>fact that the ideals, morals, values and relations that
>these different societies had in regard to one another is a
>strong refutation of any inherent nature existent in human
>beings.

Why? What motivated HOW each group did things? I think the difference with human being human nature, and many other species of animal nature is the variance in how we view things.


>
>>There are as many
>>>examples of cooperation and unity as there is for division
>>>and conflict.

No doubt.


In a society where the dogmatic view of human
>>>beings is one of individualism and accumulation through
>>>greed and competition we are going to have greedy and
>>>competitive people.


"All this mythology of the rugged individual has to be deconstructed. We've got to get at the heart of the essential lie that America was founded on this ethic of personal and private individual achievment. That has to be scrapped because a form of American Protestant communalism is the basis of discourse about American Democracy." Michael Eric Dyson.

>>So greed is only born out of society? This isn't an age old
>>problem found in many different cultures with many different
>>ways of approaching life? Show me a group of people that
>>have never had to deal with greed. Are they any? Do you
>>have evidence of this? You are telling me that you know of
>>or believe to be a group of people that nowhere in their
>>writings, or oral traditions they encountered the concept of
>>greed? Interesting. If so, there might be an argument.
>
>No, greed is not only born out of capitalist society but its
>manifestation under capitalism has by far been the most
>brutal, alienating and destructive form of greed human
>social relations have ever known.

Even in countries such as Canada and England?


Even if past societies had
>to grapple with the concept of greed, it was often looked
>down upon until the emergence of capitalism. Over the past
>300 years of capitalist expansion there has never been so
>much expression in human philosophy expressing the virtues
>of selfishness and how greed can be harnessed for good.

More than the Monarchies and aristocracies?


Of
>course, these are only justifications of the current regime.
>If you don't believe such litterature exists check out Ayn
>Rand, Robert Nozick, Adam Smith, Hernando de Soto, Francis
>Fukuyama and the list goes on. In fact, most religions are
>born as a means of resisting the greed impulse that
>commercial societies create. Just study protestantism in the
>19th century to learn how greed was rejected in society.


Roundheads, I feel you.

>
>>These are learned behaviours not natural
>>>ones.
>>
>>Prove it.
>>
>> If you don't believe me then tell me why 14 hour work
>>>days were acceptable 100 years ago but we would regard such
>>>a work day with disgust today?
>>
>>In which countries, which county, and what particular
>>people?
>
>Are you serious? Are you seriously contesting my claim that
>we have defeated some of the most horrible work conditions
>in many parts of the world?

Yes.

You cannot be that dense!

I didn't think I was, enlighten me.

I
>mean, I understand abusive labour practices still exist in
>many countries but 200 years ago those conditions were
>universal. Today, world standards have changed, albeit not
>all over the globe.


Exactly. "not all over the globe."


>
>> Why did American society
>>>believe slavery was acceptable 200 years ago but is deplored
>>>today?
>>
>>It was deplored then by many as well. Money is a powerful
>>blinder tho. We don't need slavery money today. If folk
>>needed a slave to pick tabacco in their front yard to make
>>their mortgage TODAY- I bet you'll have some pro slavery
>>folk RIGHT NOW.

>
>Fine it was deplored by many then, but not to the extent
>that it is today!

Explain. I believe the same prevailing attitudes exist today. The same folk that woulda stood and let it go on are here, and so are those that would take advantage as well as the victims.
I don't believe this has changed a great deal- perhaps marginally.


This is factual and if you don't believe
>it, trying chaining and whipping your neighbor for cotton
>and see where that gets you.

Interesting.

Back then you could do that
>regardless of what you thought of the institute of slavery.

Everywhere?


>And, yes, I understand the economic reasons why slavery was
>abolished. With the advent of many productive technologies,
>it actually became cheaper to produce with wage labour than
>slave labour. All the more reason to fight in favour of the
>working class. But in you statement is a great contradiction
>in what you said earlier. You said that greed and power is a
>product of human nature but right here you see a complete
>shift in values regarding slavery as the economic and social
>conditions of society changed, thus changing our attitudes.


No, I think it's both/and.

>
>>Why weren't women allowed to vote at the turn of the
>>>20th century but now they can?
>>
>>In which country? In Islamic law women have had the right
>>to vote as well have own title and property rights for over
>>one thousand years. But Islam is supposed to be oppressive
>>to women. So I guess I'm trying to ask, what is your point?
>
>My point is that human beings are not static creatures bound
>to a certain type of nature. Islamic law was also born out
>of a highly classist and centralized system just as western
>misoginy was. However, you and I have a different value
>system in our treatment of women. Why do I have one view of
>women that I consider progressive while Osama Bin Laden
>basically treats women like slaves? If there was a common
>human nature, shouldn't we both have the same view towards
>women?

LOL, you chose Bin Laden. Fanaticism is not exclusive to one belief system. You'd be suprised what I could tell you about Christians I know and their beliefs.

>
>> Could these changes possibly
>>>have anything to do with the consciousness of people
>>>changing as we have collectively fought for them and
>>>rearranged the way we live our lives?
>>
>>I think that every person is mentaly capable of everything
>>the next man/woman is. I feel no consciousness has changed
>>since the beginning of time. People always had the same
>>core values. The only thing that changes is the power
>>structure at the time and what can benefit it. If it wasn't
>>beneficial for someone to allow the womens arguement in the
>>door, it would not have happend. I'm sure folk had it on
>>the brain for years but had no impetus to respond.
>
>Okay think this through. What about before human beings had
>language, music, art, and culture?

When? I don't believe we (as HUMANKIND) were ever without those things.


Think about it, there
>really was a time.

When, and what were other people in other parts of the world doing?


Human beings are socially creatures whose
>consciousness is a product of the social conditions around
>them. Pre-social human beings did not have values because
>there was no language or communication to express and
>develop any such systematic thought.


Defend that arguement. Prove there wasn't language. I don't believe this. Why would we have the mechanisms for language (that bone on our throat) without having language itself. God, nature is not wasteful. That doesn't make sense. In fact they are finding now that Neaderthals in fact used language- but that point is moot considering that they have found that Cro-Magnon man and Neaderthals did IN FACT exist at the same time.

You don't believe in
>pre social human beings or socially defined human beings?
>Well, I have a little experiment for you. Stick a baby in a
>dark cave for the next twenty years and ensure s/he has food
>and water. In twenty years ask that grown person what s/he
>thinks of the catholic church? What are his/her views on
>slavery, the inquisition and industrialisation? Does s/he
>prefer the politics of Malcolm X or Martin Luther King Jr.?
>As him/her the social significance of the latest songs by
>Jay-Z, Mos Def and Talib Kweli. See if that grown creature
>does any more than gurgle at you lifelessly like a nothing
>more than a living, hungry collection of flesh and organs!
>That might teach you something about the reality of our
>nature as human beings.


That's a bit strong, eh? What about babies and cultural differences? ie: Navajo babies like being bundled down while Euro babies hate it. Asian babies having a different rooting reflex than Afrikan and Euro babies? That is genetic, no?

There are limits certainly, but where are they?


>
>>
>>>
>>>Your little claim about humans being nothing but mere
>>>animals is as equally unprofound.
>>
>>We aren't animals? Why is that a put down? How do you feel
>>about animals?
>
>It not the fact the you say we are animals that annoys me,
>we are a type of animal. My issue is that you reduce us to
>nothing more than animals.

What do you mean by "more", exactly?

>
>> First of all, if we are
>>>the same as most animals, most species of animals do not
>>>survive at the expense of other animals within their
>>>species.
>>
>>Explain. Wolves will kill other wolves bordering their
>>territory on sight because it effects competition for food.
>>So do lions. This isn't a case of animals surviving at the
>>expense of other animals within their species? The very
>>existence of a wolf pup of a bordering clan in fact
>>ultimatley means death to the next. They understand that,
>>and will kill the pup.
>
>Show me a wolf whose language and way of life has developed
>over the past fifty thousand years and I will buy your
>little argument.

HA! in fact I saw this just the other day on Discovery. Interesting that you brought it up. Wolves certainly do have dialects of "speech". So do Wales and Elephants. They haven't proved this in the Great Apes (other than us of course) yet in spoken language, but in GSL and CSL sign language groups do develop dialects. Interesting that you brought this up. My fiancee and I were just talking about this the other night.

>>Most animals cooperate for survival.
>>
>>explain what you mean by "most".
>
>For a good definition of "most", follow this link:
>
>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=most&x=0&y=0

Oh. Explain what YOU meant by "most"...


>>Furthermore,
>>>human beings are different from other animals for the sheer
>>>fact that we consciously produce things whereas other
>>>animals produce instinctively.
>>
>>Explain your proof of this. I do not subscribe to the
>>humans THINK but animals act instinctley arguement. It's
>>hogwash. Explain animals doing great feats of THOUGHT and
>>ACTION out of LOVE for either a human being companion or
>>another animal companion. Explain a crow nursing a lost
>>kitten to adulthood. You can't. Because by all rights that
>>crow should KILL and EAT that kitten and share it with it's
>>murder, but instead I know of a DOCUMENTED case where a crow
>>decided to raise a kitten it found, it left it's flock or
>>"murder" and raised the abandoned kitten feeding it and
>>grooming it, never leaving it's side. and now they are best
>>friends. Is that instinct? Can't be. There is no DNA
>>strand for that. Meanwhile I see humans acting on instinct
>>rather than processed though patterns everyday. You
>>underestimate the animal kingdom.
>
>Even if your crow story is true,

It is. It's actually documented and the person who witnessed and video documented it wrote a book about it. If I can find the title I'll refer it to you.



would you be able to
>confidently apply the behaviour of this alleged crow to the
>entire population of crows? Would you wager on it?

I'd certainly wager that a certain PERCENTAGE might think about it. I was just talking to my fiancee about this the other night when I Lioness almost did the same thing for a Leopard cub (an animal by all right Lions usally destroy because of direct competition), but she thought better of it and left the cub to die at the mouths of the oncoming hyenas after some deep thought on the matter.


>Personally, I WOULD wager on the likeliness of being helped
>by some passerby and taken to the hospital if I was to be
>hit by a vehicle tonight and left in the street. I wouldn't
>make a similar wager that if a kitten was ran over that some
>crow would eventually come to its rescue.

Eh.

Either the story
>you tell me is false, or there is some sort of animal
>conditioning there that made the crow familiar with the
>kitten.

I know of no conditioning offered for wild animals. Where do you think this would have come from?


Anyway, you have just done a complete 180 degree
>turn in logic on me. First you argue that animals act upon
>nature, then you tell me this completely contradictory story
>of a crow that acted outside of its nature and behaved with
>social qualities to nurse a kitten to healt. Which one is it
>Firebrand, nature or social conditioning?

It's both/and. But don't give nature such a small role is all I've EVER said.


I really think you
>need to think this through further,

Prolly so.

you seem like a smart
>guy but there are a lot of blanks you need to fill in.

Again, prolly so. I'm not educated on these things, I just know what i know from what I've come across.

>
>Also, one proof that human beings think before they produce
>whereas animals just produce, is in the fact that the design
>of animal production never varies within a species. For
>human beings our tools and creations have been under
>constant evolution since time immemorial. Look at a bee hive
>or a beaver dam from 500 hundred years ago and you can
>pretty much assume that it was produced in the same manner
>and shape as the ones they produce today. The beaver does
>not ponder are the artistic significance of his/her current
>dam. The bees do not redo their hives because he would
>prefer a more impressionist or postmodern motif. These
>animals JUST produce, and as magnificent as nature is, that
>is all they will ever be able to acheive.
>
>> How many wolves have
>>>programmed computers?
>>
>>They have enough mastery of their enviornment and
>>capabilities that they don't NEED to. They can tell you if
>>you have cancer before a computer can tho...and they'll KNOW
>>it's cancer that can kill you. Which is more brilliant?
>
>No, they don't have mastery of their environment. We have
>mastery of their environment.

Correction. We have CONTROL of their enviornment. That's is altogether VERY different.

They live in a delicate system
>of natural balance with other animals and plant life. But
>our slightest alterations of the natural environment drives
>the whole animal kingdom screwy! Changes in hunting laws all
>over has led to spikes and declines of animal populations
>that have absolutely nothing to do with the animal that the
>law concentrates on.

Yeah. what I said above. lol...mastery of an enviornment is dependant upon the enviornment itself. If it changes, the mastery tag doesn't apply, now does it?

>
>> How many lions have built enormous
>>>bridges across large bodies of water?
>>
>>Not any I know of. But ants do it all the time. Beavers
>>have made contraptions our engineers still cant get the math
>>on.
>
>Show me a society of beavers that can put the design out on
>paper and build a structure that crosses a body of water
>several kilometers long, then you may have something. Until
>then, humans conceive of their products before producing
>them.

Gorillas have done this. They've built or drawn what they wanted, and expressed joy when it was created or made to be so.

Yup.


>
>> Come to think
>>>of it, I remember you once said that you were once quite a
>>>republican. I can see why, the logic is still there.
>>
>>This is unfair. In fact, it's downright crude. Just because
>>I don't agree with socialism u doin all that? Wow. I
>>thought u were bigger than that.
>
>The reason I say this is because you subscribe to a very
>individualistic mode of thought

What in the heck makes you think that? Just because I dont subscribe to socialism on the Global/National/State level?


that reduces that actions of
>individuals to some greedy form of human nature. This is
>what the whole doctrine of free market capitalism and the
>republican party of today premise themselves upon.

wow.

******************************

______________________________
"...I'm telling ya these walls are
funny. First you hate 'em, then
you get used to 'em. Enough,
time passes, you get so you
depend on 'em. That's
"institutionalized."

Red, The Shawshank Redemption.







_________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

"Slaves got options...cowards aint got shit." --PS
"Once upon a time, little need existed for making the distinction between a nigga and a black—at least not in this country, the place where niggas were invented" -- Donnell A

  

Printer-friendly copy


Towards a class based movement against racism and sexism [View all] , Pinko_Panther, Wed Feb-23-05 01:32 PM
 
Subject Author Message Date ID
it should be a combination of both race and class
Feb 23rd 2005
1
exactly, my thoughts in a minute.
Feb 23rd 2005
2
RE: it should be a combination of both race and class
Feb 23rd 2005
3
people forget AA was designed for gender too
Apr 08th 2005
40
How would this directly speak to the plight of the
Feb 23rd 2005
4
RE: How would this directly speak to the plight of the
Feb 24th 2005
5
yup. Russians got along with Ukrainians just fine.
Feb 24th 2005
7
One point!
Feb 25th 2005
16
i think racism is definitely a great tool to oppress ...
Feb 24th 2005
9
Opression is a tool of advantage.
Feb 24th 2005
12
true, but my point was more about...
Feb 24th 2005
13
RE: i think racism is definitely a great tool to oppress ...
Feb 25th 2005
17
n/m
Apr 08th 2005
41
RE: How would this directly speak to the plight of the
Feb 25th 2005
14
      I believe pure socialism is a farse.
Feb 26th 2005
21
           Please, just show me that you are at least trying to focus...
Feb 26th 2005
22
                Interesting...
Feb 26th 2005
23
                     RE: Interesting...
Feb 28th 2005
25
                         
                          What protestianism rejected Greed!?
Mar 01st 2005
28
                               RE: What protestianism rejected Greed!?
Mar 01st 2005
29
                               What happened here?
Apr 06th 2005
34
                               who, me? I thought it was done.
Apr 08th 2005
37
                                    RE: who, me? I thought it was done.
Apr 08th 2005
38
                                         well damn. lol....my bad.
Apr 08th 2005
39
                               RE: What protestianism rejected Greed!?
Apr 07th 2005
36
                               RE: What protestianism rejected Greed!?
Mar 01st 2005
30
ok so that's what you all think about race
Feb 24th 2005
6
for gender and race relations...
Feb 24th 2005
10
Selma James' work is also useful...
Feb 25th 2005
18
The Wobblies were some decent cats...
Apr 06th 2005
35
RE: ok so that's what you all think about race
Feb 25th 2005
15
Don't just blame white labor unions
Feb 24th 2005
8
I don't think I disagree with you but...
Feb 25th 2005
19
Devil's Advocate
Feb 24th 2005
11
What a great question!!
Feb 25th 2005
20
Globalization.........
Mar 03rd 2005
32
mmm
Mar 03rd 2005
33
great post....
Feb 26th 2005
24
i appreciate the worker thing
Mar 01st 2005
27
RE: i appreciate the worker thing
Apr 11th 2005
44
Up
Mar 03rd 2005
31
The real question is...
Apr 08th 2005
42
RE: The real question is...
Apr 08th 2005
43
      RE: The real question is...
Apr 11th 2005
45

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #27306 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com