Why are people against communism?
- Thread starter United for Communism
- Start date
Would you say that pacifism, or escapism, too, are forms of bigotry?
What am I missing?
Gustav
Since you're here and presently active in the thread, perhaps I might beg a bit of your help here: What am I missing?
I mean, there appear to be several nearly unrelated discussions taking place, and that's fine. But, for instance, your exchange with Signal seems to be significant of something, but I'm having trouble grasping it. Moreover, and perhaps even more relevant to my question, is the fact that the discussions I am involved in are becoming mysteries to me.
And, damn it, I'm not that high.
What the hell is going on around here? What am I missing?
Gustav
Since you're here and presently active in the thread, perhaps I might beg a bit of your help here: What am I missing?
I mean, there appear to be several nearly unrelated discussions taking place, and that's fine. But, for instance, your exchange with Signal seems to be significant of something, but I'm having trouble grasping it. Moreover, and perhaps even more relevant to my question, is the fact that the discussions I am involved in are becoming mysteries to me.
And, damn it, I'm not that high.
What the hell is going on around here? What am I missing?
i have no idea what my point is with signal. what i am sure of is it is just fanciful conjecture.
as for your dialogue, i will not read because tangents are guaranteed in any discourse with the marquis. consider treating him as an endangered species under protection. he gets a free pass
i think so too
so why bother commenting?
as for your dialogue, i will not read because tangents are guaranteed in any discourse with the marquis. consider treating him as an endangered species under protection. he gets a free pass
i think so too
so why bother commenting?
Because I do not believe in being a passive bystander.
Not sure if I'm reading you correctly here, but are you suggesting that N.Z.'s public schools are--or were--in a comparably deplorable states as those in the U.S.?
You can read all kinds of statistics and whatnots, but I'll give you some personal anecdotes:
My girlfriend (a Canadian) has a decade of teaching experience with high school kids--in Canada, Kuwait, Costa Rica, and the Czech Republic--and taught 9th graders in the U.S. (Philadelphia) during the past year. She was teaching 9th grade advanced English courses, but by her assessment--based upon both the curriculum as well as the knowledge base and read/writing capabilities of the students--it was more like teaching average 7th graders.
I'm not a fan of the "blame the teachers" line of thinking, but the teachers certainly are a factor. Every day, I would hear little anecdotes about a co-worker who taught 12th grade English. The guy had no clue as to who Albert Camus or George Orwell were--Orwell, seriously?! How does one even get through high school, let alone become a high school English teacher, without knowing Orwell? I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture: many of the teachers would not have been able to pass the examinations required for graduation from Canadian high schools.
On that matter of graduation: it's virtually impossible to hold a student back in the U.S. anymore--you know, "No Child Left Behind"? Moreover, disciplinary actions for behavioral misconduct are pretty freakin' lax, to say the least.
And while I mentioned that financial matters were hardly the only concern, they're still a pretty freakin' big concern: the Philadelphia school district laid off 1400 teachers this past year--and yet the superintendent of the district brings in roughly half a million per annum, has a bodyguard, and is provided with a "company" car--wtf?! Of course, that company car business has partly to do with the current philosophy of running public schools as though they were corporations.
Teachers are explicity instructed to ignore the exceptional kids--'cuz they're gonna pass easily regardless, ignore the "hopeless" kids--'cuz they're gonna fail (the testing, that is, they'll still be moved on to the next grade) regardless, and just focus on the ones in the middle.Anyhow, I'm curious to hear about N.Z. and your thoughts on the matter.
My arguments against communism are practical ones.
The chaos of market competition turns out to make more accurate and objective management decisions than smart central planners and theorists can. Large corporations and governments suffer by comparison to small companies that grow or die quickly from market forces. The large corporations and government suffer because it is human nature for people to refuse to believe that their ideas were wrong until the evidence that they were wrong becomes overwhelming therefor large corporations and governments are capable of making the same serious mistakes over and over again for longer than a small corporation could stay in business while making serious mistakes.
The second practical reason Communism fails is that people are selfish and motivated by their selfishness and Communism by trying to impose unnatural altruism and failing to utilize and reward selfishness fails to provide as much motivation for people to be productive as capitalism does.
Communism fails but selfishness unchecked by imposed altruism also fails.
Yeah, I see the "people are selfish" contention continually brought up as an "argument" against communism, anarchism, etc. But what does it really mean? And even should we acknowledge the veracity of it, so what?
That is, people are selfish and thus care mostly/only for themselves--but also, for their own: their family, their friends, their "race," their "country," their species... So it effectively says nothing, lest we define the very particular parameters of their selfishness.
I also see a similar criticism leveled at animal liberationists: why focus so much on the animals, when there are so many human injustices to address? How is this any different from asking: why focus on women's issues, when there are still many injustices perpetrated against males? Or, why focus on the plight of blacks, and other ethnic minorities, when plenty of white folks are struggling? And so on.
Directing one's activism towards women's concerns, racial issues or injustices, etc. in no way implies that one does so to the neglect of the other. And with respect to animals particularly, liberationists fully acknowledge the animality of humans as well; unfortunately, the same cannot be said for everyone.
Perhaps the reason that communism has not gained a greater following is that the ideology, while appealing to some, has no model in nature that I can observe, and we are a part of nature, though we strive to grant ourselves exempt status.
Everywhere I observe, nature uses both co-operation and competition to continually evolve and adapt.
Equality has great ideological appeal, and is useful as a moral and ethical compass. Yet, if equality were attained and a given, how long before the slide toward mediocrity?
It is challenges and competition that keep us moving and evolving, IMO.
Everywhere I observe, nature uses both co-operation and competition to continually evolve and adapt.
Equality has great ideological appeal, and is useful as a moral and ethical compass. Yet, if equality were attained and a given, how long before the slide toward mediocrity?
It is challenges and competition that keep us moving and evolving, IMO.
Exactly.
Nature will suffice
In the answer to that is a description of our general evolutionary suitability for the Universe.
I am of the opinion that, when we get right down to it, all of this competing for resources, economy, and dominion is just a bit silly. Quite simply, nature is sufficient a challenge to keep us on our toes. And especially in the years to come.
But that's just an idyll; I recognize it is not practical in the current environment.
Scheherazade said:
In the answer to that is a description of our general evolutionary suitability for the Universe.
I am of the opinion that, when we get right down to it, all of this competing for resources, economy, and dominion is just a bit silly. Quite simply, nature is sufficient a challenge to keep us on our toes. And especially in the years to come.
But that's just an idyll; I recognize it is not practical in the current environment.
Bees and ants.
Note that we tend to associate positive qualities with bees and ants - that they are diligent, hard-working, strong.
But what's wrong with mediocrity? In many cultures, and particularly within Western cultures, we've been conditioned to aspire to "greatness," to increase "productivity," and to build up and build upon. I wouldn't suggest that there is necessarily anything intrinsically wrong with this either, but why is it desirable? And is it necessary (and if so, why)?
It's rhizomes or trees; or, as many Aboriginal Australians perceive it, it is "to be of land related but perhaps not to be as an individual life, or not to be of land related but to be of a sovereign land and as an embodied person." (T. Swain)
In discussing motivation and rewards earlier in this thread, Signal remarked upon the critical factor of defining "reward." As you well know, for sled dogs the journey itself is the "reward." Likewise, for many an artist, musician, writer, whatever, the doing of whatever it is that they do is the "reward." Money and crap just enables them to live and keep doing what they do. (Also, see The Book of Job and A. Silesius's "The rose is without why.")
Of course, there can still be lofty ambitions and a competitive spirit in these, but there needn't be. I'm a musician, and I have an "audience"--enough of an audience that I get to go to places all over the world and that I get comped enough so that I can feed myself and have a roof (if I desire one). That said, my "audience" isn't that large, and hardly anyone knows who the hell I am--and I couldn't care less. And virtually every other musician I know feels much the same way, including the ones who through some strange twist of circumstances have achieved some level of "fame." The latter ones still do the weird projects and gigs which pay comparatively nothing simply because they want to.
Personally, I am of the opinion that if "greatness" happens, fine! I might enjoy it (music, film, art, writing, etc.), I might make use of it (technological innovations--like the Kindle!), or I might benefit from it in some way (a technique or drug which alleviates seizures); but if it doesn't, and we only get mediocrity, I'm just fine with that as well.
Precisely.
I'm always irked by quantitative comparisons of intelligence and such, especially of the inter-species variety, i.e., when a writer remarks that the Border Collie with the several hundred word vocabulary (Daisy is well beyond just "words," she intimately familiar with many of the nuances and technical specificities of human language
) has an "intelligence" roughly comparable to a seven year old child. It's utterly meaningless and beyond ridiculous. In characteristic reactionary fashion, I'll express my frustration by doing the converse; for instance, when I note people behaving remarkably stupidly in grocery store queues, I'll liken their "intelligence" to that of, say, cognitively impaired bees.Rub it in? I'm only attempting to have you explain your comment. I've already stated on a number of occasions that what I wrote was not a strawman. Three pages down the track, and you're still introducing irrelevancies in an attempt to deflect attention from it and to avoid actually retracting it.
As opposed to the posters you're treating with civility and defending, you mean? As opposed to yourself?
All I've seen here is a couple of petulant young folk who apparently believe the world owes them a living and by god they're going to say so, a pedant rising to the podium, a few convinced that their input is in some way indicative of their own value, a bunch of people hanging around pretending it's all worth something, and a couple of the type who'd stop to watch the ambos cleaning up after a traffic accident.
If that statement were applied across the board, there would not even be a thread here... nor a forum at all.
I am a relevant point, Tiassa. You've never quite worked that out.
I would certainly, at the very least, expect you to retire from the forum with some modicum of dignity... sir.
Honesty. Decency.
Right up there with "morality" really. Tend to vary in the execution from man to man, levelled as accusations only in the expectation (more likely forlorn hope) that another will conform to a certain standard of behaviour...
as if they were absolutes.
In other words, Tiassa, you might as state outright that you expect me to conform to your standards and withhold challenge to everything you write, or be consigned to the naughty corner.
It would be far more honest were you to do so.