If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that Marquis' strawman is in that he implies that the Communist theoretics and institutions knew/know about the unsteadiness of human nature - but that they deliberately deny this unsteadiness?
Why are people against communism?
- Thread starter United for Communism
- Start date
If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that Marquis' strawman is in that he implies that the Communist theoretics and institutions knew/know about the unsteadiness of human nature - but that they deliberately deny this unsteadiness?
The concept of "nature of something" implies that it is about something steady, unchanging, given - synonymous with "essence".
Some disputes over the nature of this or that emerge precisely because people have different ideas about what the "nature" of something means.
Whether the "nature" of something can be changed or not.
For example, Bertolt Brecht believed that human nature was bad, but that it can and should be bettered.
I think such an outlook is nonsensical, given my understanding that human nature is whatever it is, and because it is nature (ie. essence), it cannot be something else. We can change some details of something, but not its nature or essence.
Let's just say that "human nature" is a loaded term, and as such, prone to be politically used, for betteror worse.
The revolution relies on "human nature" anyway, whether it likes it or not, whether it is aware of it or not.
It just depends on how we name things and how we use them in arguments.
I often make the mistake of assuming that others will infer from what I have written as I would.
Spend long enough in this place, and one garners a sense of who will make the connections and who will not. It is a tendency of mine to write under the assumption that those reading are those who will, even when I am writing specifically to those who will not. In addition, many of those who might have made that connection are long gone.
It was badly worded, and therefore my fault; I have made comment in the past that I am not a good writer.
It should be noted, however, that even in saying that I still feel something akin to despair.
Spend long enough in this place, and one garners a sense of who will make the connections and who will not. It is a tendency of mine to write under the assumption that those reading are those who will, even when I am writing specifically to those who will not. In addition, many of those who might have made that connection are long gone.
It was badly worded, and therefore my fault; I have made comment in the past that I am not a good writer.
It should be noted, however, that even in saying that I still feel something akin to despair.
I think this is a bit simplistic, at least until we clear up what exactly "reward" means.
Traditionally, for example, it was believed that dogs can be trained and learn tricks because of the rewards (ie. food treats) they get for performing a task.
Newer trends maintain that dogs like to play, learn, work, associate with humans and eat; that they learn the skills and tricks because it is in their nature to do so, not because of the food treats.
In their natural environment, rats navigate mazes as well (albeit those mazes are made of soil, in walls etc.); it is in the rat's nature to navigate mazes.
Some studies suggest that people are motivated by rewards in the form of money only in manual labor, but not in intellectual tasks. In knowledge workers, bigger salaries do not necessarily correspond with improved productivity.
Indeed, some people sometimes take great pleasure in doing something for the good of the whole.
In fact, I think everyone enjoys doing something for the good of the whole every now and then.
But I do not think there is a person who would be eager to do something for the good of the whole all of the time.
Another problem is when people have differing ideas on what "the good of the whole" means, or when an understanding of it is imposed on them that they do not approve of, or a demand to do so 24/7/365.
I think Communism's flaw is in presuming that everyone will naturally have the same ideas all the time.
This is a flaw that some other systems share.
Anothe mistake is in the assumption that that nature is absolute or universal.
Put ten men in a room, and at least one will emerge as a leader.
It is not that "human nature" lies naturally in one direction or another; it is that the majority will accept leadership; at least until that leadership is in conflict with the will of the majority and until that majority have the power to revoke it. In essence, as long as the leadership is beneficial.
Morality has no part to play in this other than in the form that it takes and the service it renders to an ideal.
Something I've said before;
Arguments of this nature are little more than chickens scratching in the dust.
Communism, capitalism... nothing more than focal points for a deeper conflict.
Granted. But if we posit the opposite, namely, that human nature is not absolute and universal, we open ourselves up to approving of racism, slavery, oppression of women and such.
Sure.
(Don't mean to be glib.)
Bells
Staff member
Pfft..
That is apparently what re-education camps are for!
Welcome to Camp Wackamole! Vietnam's model has swimming, hiking and...
the early phase of reeducation, lasting from a few weeks to a few months, inmates were subjected to intensive political indoctrination. Subjects' studies included the exploitation by "American imperialism" of workers in other countries, the glory of labor, the inevitable victory of Vietnam, led by the Communist Party, over the U.S., and the generosity of the new government toward the "rebels" (those who fought on the other side during the war). Another feature emphasized during the early stage of reeducation, but continued throughout one's imprisonment, was the confession of one's alleged misdeeds in the past. All prisoners in the camps were required to write confessions, no matter how trivial their alleged crimes might have been. Mail clerks, for example, were told that they were guilty of aiding the "puppet war machinery" through circulating the mail, while religious chaplains were found guilty of providing spiritual comfort and encouragement to enemy troops.
Camp Wackamole also has forced labour and regular beatings and torture from guards if you read a book that is not pre-approved and which does not tout the Communist ideal! Fun times!
[Insert cheer here]
You'll find those with the power and money are against anything that would make them worse off. That's why many countries rely on "charity" and "aid", it's our attempt to assauge our conscience and pretend we're making things better without realising we're causing the problem in the first place. The majority of people are unable to imagine anything outside of their country, and to them a "poor" person, is one who earns minimum wage in a well developed country, and is at fault for not progressing, even with the limited possibilities available. They cannot begin to imagine what capitalism implies for those outside.
They have no concept of waste. After all why give food away before it rots when there is no profit in it? In capitalism every life has a value, and it's a pathetically low one.
They have no concept of waste. After all why give food away before it rots when there is no profit in it? In capitalism every life has a value, and it's a pathetically low one.
Bells
Staff member
I find it disturbing. I am finding myself agreeing with you on political and social matters when debating the communist buffoon..
Me similar.
I feel like getting a gun and shooting some moose.
I feel like getting a gun and shooting some moose.
Bells
Staff member
On a more serious note, some Communist camps have provided insight into some disturbing facets of human psychology.
An example is how American POW's in Communist camps have turned into defenders of Communism. Whereby no physical force or torture were used.
The prisoners were, for example, asked to copy in handwriting a pro-Communist text, or read such texts before their fellow inmates.
In structure and difficulty, the tasks were essentially the same as for school children in regular schools.
And yet those US soldiers ended up divulging confidential information about US military politics and defending Communist ideals.
You can read more about that in Cialdini's Influence
Yay!
Bells
Staff member
Ah, yes, the seduction method of sort, isn't it?
The result becomes akin to a sort of Stockholm Syndrome.. Brainwashing... When you experience one thing daily for such a long time, you are virtually hounded with lies daily, it becomes easy to start believing the illusion and believe the facade is real. In the background, there is always fear that non-compliance will result in pain or death.. The reality is always vastly different..
Last edited:
:massive fucking facepalm:
So, like, do you read a sentence--or clause--then go out for a bite, take a walk, whatever, until you've completely forgotten what you had just read, and then continue reading?
If I were to ask, "What is your name?" Would you respond, "Why, that would be the appellation to which I respond" ?
Most people take in the context when reading, not you apparently. Let me guess: "business" man, computer "science" guy, lawyer? Gotta be one of 'em.
Oh, and I like how you didn't quote this part:
Cuz that would reveal your post for the complete fucking load of shit it is, right?
And your last bit's a gem: so basically, you resort to dishonest tactics--and completely disregard science--when dealing with "paranormal/crank" stuff. That's, uh, quite an admission.
Are you reading this, Mods? Then do yer job, and BAN this fucking dishonest troll!
Last edited:
Only in accordance with essentialist readings, and that is largely what is being debated here.
Well, that is amongst those "that" can read. (OK, my inner Nazi is coming through--just pretend I wrote "who" and not "that.")
I think that's an overly-simplistic reading of Brecht. Remember, Brecht was chummy with Horkheimer, Adorno, et al, and would have been a bit more savvy.
Agreed.
i'd go with the latter in both cases ie: i am not the same person i was yesterday
Decades of research have now shown that substantial changes occur in the lowest neocortical processing areas, and that these changes can profoundly alter the pattern of neuronal activation in response to experience. Neurological research indicates that experience can actually change both the brain's physical structure (anatomy) and functional organization (physiology) from top to bottom. Neuroscientists are presently engaged in a reconciliation of critical period studies demonstrating the immutability of the brain after development with the more recent research showing how the brain can, and does, change.
Neuroplasticity
Adult neurogenesis is an example of a long-held scientific theory being overturned. Early neuroanatomists, including Santiago Ramon y Cajal, considered the nervous system fixed and incapable of regeneration. The first evidence of adult mammalian neurogenesis in the cerebral cortex was presented by Joseph Altman in 1962, followed by a demonstration of adult neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus in 1963. In 1969, Joseph Altman discovered and named the rostral migratory stream as the source of adult generated granule cell neurons in the olfactory bulb. Up until the 1980s, the scientific community ignored these findings despite use of the most direct method of demonstrating cell proliferation in the early studies, i. e. 3H-thymidine autoradiography. By that time, Shirley Bayer (and Michael Kaplan) again showed that adult neurogenesis exists in mammals (rats), and Nottebohm showed the same phenomenon in birds[sparking renewed interest in the topic. Studies in the 1990s finally put research on adult neurogenesis into a mainstream pursuit.
Neurogenesis
Mechanisms and functional implications of adult neurogenesis
Neuroplasticity
Adult neurogenesis is an example of a long-held scientific theory being overturned. Early neuroanatomists, including Santiago Ramon y Cajal, considered the nervous system fixed and incapable of regeneration. The first evidence of adult mammalian neurogenesis in the cerebral cortex was presented by Joseph Altman in 1962, followed by a demonstration of adult neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus in 1963. In 1969, Joseph Altman discovered and named the rostral migratory stream as the source of adult generated granule cell neurons in the olfactory bulb. Up until the 1980s, the scientific community ignored these findings despite use of the most direct method of demonstrating cell proliferation in the early studies, i. e. 3H-thymidine autoradiography. By that time, Shirley Bayer (and Michael Kaplan) again showed that adult neurogenesis exists in mammals (rats), and Nottebohm showed the same phenomenon in birds[sparking renewed interest in the topic. Studies in the 1990s finally put research on adult neurogenesis into a mainstream pursuit.
Neurogenesis
Mechanisms and functional implications of adult neurogenesis
if the above are indeed valid scientific pursuits, we can see why gulags are eminently reasonable and neccessary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is feeding the machine. You don't think that's wrong? You must be just another enemy of the working man. (UfC)
Anyhows, since we've obviously got some old-school Skinnerites and Bettelheim adherents here, I respectfully--and lazily, since I'm disinclined towards scanning pages or typing out long passages, so I took 'em all from the same website--submit the work of esteemed anthropologists Stanley Diamond--In Search of the Primitive, Marshall Sahlins--The Original Affluent Society, and Pierre Clastres--Society Against the State.
I suppose I could have highlighted the relevant bits, but they're not long extracts anyways. Of course, these texts illustrate both why they were great anthropologist and why they were crappy anthropologists simultaneously, but for those who stubbornly cling to that mysterious, immutable essential, you've now got some people to argue against.
I suppose I could have highlighted the relevant bits, but they're not long extracts anyways. Of course, these texts illustrate both why they were great anthropologist and why they were crappy anthropologists simultaneously, but for those who stubbornly cling to that mysterious, immutable essential, you've now got some people to argue against.