America is not a Democracy
Posted on: June 30, 2009 - 4:45am
Offline
America is not a Democracy
Nor was it intended to be www.brasschecktv.com/page/571.htm
- Login to post comments
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Offline Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
Sure it is.
All rich people are represented
equally.
link,try this one www.brasschecktv.com/page/571.html edit: it worked
In our society beliefs are easily purchased via the public opinion-molding machine. When the majority of us have to spend a great majority of our lives securing our survival, it's most likely that we're going to go listen to what the rich people on TV tell us is correct about the world and that is going to be presented in a way that best represents their interests, which is stacking cash for themselves and maintaining their dictatorship. Poor people can't afford "free" speech to compete in the market to mold public-opinion as it stands in the USA (see Nepal however). We don't have tv stations, textbook companies, printing presses etc.. and the time to break from securing our survival to run them to present things that represent our interests, like placing the means of production in common ownership so we can make goods for need rather than for the profit of the criminals who steal the majority of the wealth that our labor produces. Once again, I don't support the RCP, but Bob Avakian is much better with words than me (most of the time):
For information on classes see my blog post here.
Democracies are imperfect in a culture of mediocrity. In the US, the majority are content to live a life of ignorance. In many ways they are like the proletarians in in 1984 who are constantly fed sports, sour beer and porn ie. prolefeed. Despite the fact that we have a media which enables an individual to read a conservative editorial (eg. Weekly Standard) versus liberal (eg. The Guardian or The Independant), most people would rather read tabloids or watch Reality TV. This is the character of the USA. How can there possibly be a representative democracy with an ignorant populace? And what therefore is the solution?
Are the nordic nations such as Sweden, Denmark or Norway more enlightened? Are they real democracies? They too have Nordic prolefeed as the following exemplifies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqGrgaQsIIE&feature=PlayList&p=742522E0181A06EB&index=0&playnext=1
I think democracies are fundamentally flawed because people are flawed due our hardwiring. Everyone wants prolefeed. Even your hard core Marxist sets aside Das Kapital to watch the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giiZ35Q3keo
Yes. They have partly socialized systems, regulations, and infrastructure for:
1. Education
2. Insurance
3. Pensions
4. Care for elderly
5. Medical for the that can't
afford private supplemental health insurance. i.e. Socialized Medicine.
6. Sweden has refused to engage itself in almost every war/conflict we in the U.S. got into, from Vietnam onward.
7. Sweden offered amnesty for C.O.'s from the US that the US wouldn't offer during Vietnam.
8. Very few people in these countries live in severely impoverished conditions as in the US.
9. Euthenasia is permitted in some if not all of these countries.
10. There are far more Atheists in these countries.
11. Religion does not play a major role in the politics and elections in these countries.
12. Generally speaking, these countries do not superpollute their environment and deforest their forests.
13. The military budget of these countries is virtually non-existent.
14. 2 of these 3 countries did not engage themselves in our wars in Iraq.
15. These countries are not engaged in colonizing the world.
16. These countries do not view nudity and sex as an immoral act.
17. These countries do permit gays in their military and their view on a gay lifestyle
is entirely unlike that in the US.
18. Evangelicals and all their social and political bullshit are virtually non-existent.
Look. The goddamn list is so fucking long, you need to do a bit more than watch a utube to learn how much more enlightened they are over the US.
Given the funds, opportunity I would gladly move to any one of them, give up my US citizenship in a heartbeat.
And I want to add Holland to that list.
The only thing I dislike about them is the amount of cold weather.
If including Holland, you can add:
1. Legalized prostitution.
2. Legalized use of Pot in coffeehouses.
Frankly speaking, "old" Europe is light years ahead of the US in almost every imaginable way.
You REALLY need to travel, learn about Europe and get your head out of your PC and this idiotic country and its residents.
I be tire of Americans bashing USA it be so boaring by now. If any of you think America is so bad you think to pack up and move some where else then do so. I notice you haven't done it yet. I did it once but not because I am anti-American, I would never be that. I dare any American to live in Sweden, Finnland or Norway, do it if you think it will make you happier. btw Sweden, Finnland and Norway have the highest suicide rates inthe world. Now go off and have fun Y'all.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
I'm not an American, I'm a global citizen who currently resides in the most evil empire on Earth. And I'm taking donations for leaving the country from any rich people who'd like to give. But, I'll still be just as anti-US imperialism when I leave, just in places where the overwhelming majority of people agree with me. And also, I don't expect that in most places in the world that it'll be any "better" (in terms of satisfying selfishness, the American way) than here in the empire, US imperialism most certainly exploits the Earth and people in most other lands far more than they do those who reside here.
I myself have no desire to live in any capitalist country such as the ones mentioned here. I find that in societies like the Nordic or anywhere where disgusting liberalism has taken hold that many are lulled into complacency, holding such unscientific views as that we'll one day talk the ruling class dictators out of their dictatorship, and they are usually most resistant to the fundamental changes that are needed to emancipate all of humanity.
As an atheist activist I got the "why don't you just leave the country" line sometimes and it'd shock me, but as a revolutionary communist such fascist-like speech directed towards me comes in such frequency (especially from liberal Obamalade drinkers) it hardly gets a reaction from me anymore.
I wholly agree with everything that you mentioned. But what you endorse is a society wherein government assumes responsibility for the needs of the population versus what we have in the USA which is unrestrained individualism. Essentially that individuals are not smart enough to make their own decisions about basic needs. And if people are left to their own vices in an individualist society, widespread inequality will result. In contrast, a society with a paternalistic socialist government will level the playing field. But is a paternalistic society really a democracy?
Let's take the following hypothetical scenerio. We have an imaginary society wherein at the very start everyone is at an equal footing. Everyone has the same amount of money and all needs are equally met. Without any regulation, over time it stands to reason that because of a greedy few, inequality will result. And if that greed is innate, does socialism merely act as a bandage masking that trait? Once socialism is lifted would the masses remain equal or would they deteriorate into "haves" and "have nots"? And in a democracy isn't the ultimate goal of government to ensure that masses lift themselves out of welfare to a state where government is not needed as much? Isn't the goal to achieve equality, widespread enlightenment and self-sufficient individuals? Isn't this the goal of communism? If greed is innate, utopia will not happen.
My take is that there can never really be a true democracy wherein everyone is equal. Either we accept the inevitable inequality of individualism or the level playing field of collectivism. And if greed is innate, collectivism leads to concentration of power to such an excess that the individual must completely submit to the state both in thought and deed ie. totalitarianism.
If this was a democracy we wouldn't have representatives making decisions for us.
We would be voting on every issue ourselves.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Sorry for jumping in here if it‘s unwelcomed, but you are misrepresenting socialism/communism. Socialism is a phase in which the wealth that society has amassed, currently concentrated heavily in the hands of the capitalist ruling class dictators, is redistributed back to those who’ve produced it to achieve this sort of level playing field. Okay here's the rub. There is no money in communism. The means to produce goods have been placed in common ownership. The idea that individuals own a factory or farm or piece of land is done away with. When someone needs a computer, they go over to the computer factory and tell the workers there they need a computer, that there's broke or they don't have one etc... and they hand them a computer. If that person tried to get two computers that person would be violating laws/morals in society, furthermore why would they have a need for two computers? Anyone who wants a computer goes and gets one. And when the workers at the computer factory want some corn they go to the farm...okay, explain how greed can take hold in this society considering that we have the public opinion-molding machine too? Could the corn people start saying, no corn for you? Sure, then guess what…no computers for the corn makers. Communism brings about a whole different society were it becomes in our interests to work together for the benefit of all.
It is not innate in humans to be greedy. Greed like we see today is a product of the public opinion-molding machine the the hands of the capitalist ruling class. And no communist promises utopia, if they do they're full of it...not communism. Communism will rid the world of class distinctions and all the social antagonisms that go with it, but there will most certainly still be conflict over mates etc... but no one will ever starve or be fearful of starving, or being without shelter or equal access to medical care etc.. all rights that guarantee a person’s right to live will be upheld first and foremost. This effect on human psychology will be immense and all sorts of ill behaviors we see now will be unheard of.
And communism isn't a paternalistic society, after the means to produce needed and desired goods are placed firmly in common ownership and goods are being made for need rather than profit then the government fades away as it no longer has a purpose to serve. Governments are simply instruments used by one class to rule over another.
And lastly you write (I think,) that communist parties assume responsibility for the people, and I’ve made this clip for you that directly flies in the face of your assertion:
This isn't factually accurate.
Furthermore, if we are going to base the well-being of a country on suicide rates, we should all move to Iran, Zimbabwe, or Haiti.
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
First of all your comments are most welcome. Greed is among our oldest innate traits. You'll find it even among animals. Even marxists can be greedy. It's not a social construct. Let's test your own morals on this with the following hypothetical scenerio. Supposing you have an infant with a condition that requires urgent surgery. Otherwise your infant will die. And as it turns out, the only one who can successfully operate on your infant is an extremely wealthy, disgustingly rich, capitalist surgeon. Paying this bastard for the surgery will perpetuate the public opinion molding machine to which he actively contributes ie. he donates a good chunk of his wealth to his favorite TV channel Fox News. Would you pay this bourgeous dictator to save your child's life? Alternatively you could let your child die for the sake of a transcendant marxist ideal. Given these 2 choices which would you choose? Would you abandon your ideals to save your child and thus selfishly contribute to and perpetuate the exploitation by the laissez faire free market? Or would you let your child die for the sake of marxism? Be honest.
Greed is a product of scarcity and it becomes even nastier than it is normally under conditions of scarcity while under a capitalist ruling class controlled public opinion-molding machine. Greed is not innate. There are many examples of people even within our capitalist society who are not greedy people at all and who live very selflessly, where did there greed go? I'll fully answer to your riddles when you address the substance of what I've put forth. I'll just say that if a doctor refuses to operate on my child for an amount that I'm able to pay under capitalism then I accuse the doctor of a crime against humanity and they become my enemy. And it's not that people like doctors give money to the media, it's advertising dollars. If a station airs something against the interests of the advertisers/ruling class dictators, no check for the station.
And overall, of course I know that I live all kinds of contradictions in a capitalist society as a communist...friggin duh. I only can do what I can to minimize them while securing my survival.
You keep linking us to this, I wonder what this mysterious machine is...
But conveniently not the internet, which leaves their blog as a credible source. Nice.
I also have to ask, has the world yet seen an example (IYO) of "true" communism? You keep speaking to this ideal and I'd be interested to know what you think about that.
"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."
You donate the funds to move and live in Holland for 1 year, till I've got settled, and I'm gone!
I think you have got it backwards and I'm actually surprised at your first comment. It is greed that causes scarcity. The very foundation of capitalism is greed. And in regards to people who live in a capitalist society who live selflessly, I have yet to meet them. The United States is the richest nation on earth with wealth concentrated in the hands of a greedy few. How did they become greedy? The Wall Street executives who run the investment banks were certainly not bred under conditions of scarcity. They are the ones causing the scarcity.
Let's take the former Soviet Union. All aspects of the economy were nationalized. The original intent was a prolonged period of state socialism which over time will desolve and the end product of communism achieved. The 70 year experiment did not work for a variety of factors but the most significant of which was the overwhelming nature of American capitalism. Trotsky was right that there had to be worldwide socialist revolutions in contrast to Stalin's socialism in one nation. I hope we agree on all these points.
Here's where you and I part ways in regards to human nature. I may be wrong but I bet you likely think that the economic and political changes needed to build a communist society will be accompanied by changes in human personality. That noble selfless collectivism will be the key trait of the New Soviet Man. Once the vestiges of capitalism have been erased we have a mind that is "a blank sheet of paper with no blotches, and so the newest and most beautiful words can be written on it, the newest and most beautiful pictures can be painted on it" (Mao Tse Tung). A new and altruistic man will be socially engineered and all the savagery of his past will be gone. And after 70 years of state socialism in Russia did this occur? Look at China today despite Maoism. Russians and Chinese are as greedy as their western counterparts.
And it is based on this history that I make the claim that human greed is innate. And I go further by giving you evidence from cognitive neuroscience. When a person gives to charity and you image his/her brain, the reward centers light up. That person is actually experiencing a form of lust. Utimately in each one of us, our motives are selfish with hardwiring that places self interests and the interests of our kin over all else. As Dawkins put it, when you help out a stranger, your brain is fooled to think that he/she is your kin ie. a neural misfiring.
Now you still haven't answered my hypothetical moral dilemma. Would you save your infant and contribute to an ideology you oppose. Or would you let your infant die for the sake of your principles.
"those things that the majority of people find most authoritative when forming their opinions and beliefs. "
Sorry I didn't include Internet here nor the complete list. Of course Internet is a part of the public opinion-molding machine. And no one is saying that those other sources aren't "credible" only that they will be used to serve the interests of those in control of them.
And no, it's a scientific fact (not merely my opinion) that there hasn't been anything even close to communist society in recorded history. Plenty of parties called communist parties who wish to reach communism, but no one will tell you they've made it or that anyone has come close. Communism is only reached after the long hard road of socialism in which all the wealth that the workers produced is redistributed back to the workers who produced it and all the means of producing goods are placed in common ownership. As long as goods have a price tag on them, communism hasn't been reached. In communism goods are made for need rather than profit.
I think you've got it backwards too Ragdish, and have a habit of choosing to ignore certain of my words. Of course I understand that greed exists in capitalist society! Friggng duh! I've been telling you that. And of course ruling class dictators are driven by scarcity (there isn't infinite money and the power that goes along with it) AND the capitalist system itself, which rewards the behavior of exploiting others. In a different environment with different variables, things take on a different nature. Remove the incentive to exploit, have it known that all will have the right to live guaranteed (this will have tremendous effects on human psychology), as I've asked before and you've chosen to ignore, by which mechanism does greed assert itself?
I'm using the most expensive thing I own to type this to you (and it is a moral issue with me that I've reconciled), I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to be rich (I've never had more than $3,000 in assets for more than two days at any time in my 30+years) and exploit people..where did my greed go if it is innate in me to be greedy? Will you say that my mind has been changed from what is normal in THIS society...I'd agree.
Yes, our minds are molded by this system. I don't find it a bit surprising that people find selfish reasons to want to give. And yes Dawkins..Dawkins states that a child chooses the religion of their parents because basically that those are the sources that the child finds most authoritative. This is a Marxist understanding. At issue is that Dawkins I think believes around age 4? 6? Who knows? .. that this scientific fact about humans shuts off for whatever reason. Marxists understand that while it is most obviously visible while we're young, that this relationship of people going to the sources they find most authoritative when deciding what is normal/true continues all through life and this this molds the entire society. Situations become much more complex as we get older and develop more sources of influence. But, you'll see in places like N. Korea, those who're most authoritative say believe this, and you have a lot of uniformity in beliefs, ergo behaviors, because there are less sources of potential influence. So in the USA we don't have such domination of the public opinion-molding machine by a single source, but what we do have is one dominated by one class (the capitalist ruling class) who naturally use it to mold public opinion to support their interests (work-give me the majority of the wealth that your labor produces-make more laborers-die).
I will not even attempt to write the books needed to address the issues of the USSR. I'll just say that any analysis that doesn't include the actions of capitalists is not worth reading and it's clear whose public opinion-molding machine you've been gathering information from. If you're interested in where I stand on issues regarding political issues I suggest you engage the content of my blog. The question of can socialism be achieved in one state is wrapped up in so much other stuff that I simply can't type here long enough to properly address it.
Yes, look at China today, 30+ years removed from socialism after the counter-revolution where capitalism was firmly restored..why aren't they socialists still? Please, attempt to engage me with a little more thought behind your words. Yes, I'm forced to live all sorts of contradictions as a communist in a capitalist society. That is my answer to your silly question that I suppose you think makes a point of some kind. It's very childish actually. Do you think that you're making a point by pointing out that a communist must live contradictions while living in a capitalist society...please grow up if you are. We communists aren't going to look at the world, determine it doesn't work the way it should if humanity is your top priority, and then blow our brains out, or sit in a corner and starve to death because of it...seriously, grow up. I apologize if you're indeed a child.
You've got it backwards!
Our Socail Security was used to subsidize BUSINESSES!
Business is subsidized.
Business operates with virtual impunity, NOT the individuals!
Individuals are highly regulated.
Business operates virtually unregulated, with OUR money.
We've got i essence "anarchistic capitalism."
Business ownes our politicians, and in turn operates our government.
Your idea of a paternastic government in the face of nearly 20% unemployment is laughable!
Stop wasting my time with such naive statements and wake up, for "chrise sake!"
Epithets aside, my friend, I do consider myself a child at heart. I think everyone is a child. I humble myself and acknowledge my peripheral understanding of issues such as economics paticularly regarding Marxism. My critiques are small in comparison with my admiration of him even though I consider myself ideologically somewhere between liberalism and libertarian. My critiques of Marxism are analogous to critiques of Einstein, Watson and Crick, etc..And on threads such as this, my humor is often below the level of a child. Why? Because, by and large forums such as this are geared towards free association, to vent thoughts and to provide people with entertainment. I therefore don't take it too seriously and I really don't think this forum will amount to any significant social change (sorry Brian). Even though you calling me "a child" is an ad hominem attack, I actually view it as a compliment. And quite honestly, when ad hominem attacks are displayed it's not too difficult to sort out who is really being childish in the negative sense. And I will say this, you are no different than me or anyone else on this forum. We all have our unique set of expertises and mine is the brain.
Who am I? I'm a Neurologist who has been in practice for 10 years. I have a strong background in neuroscience and some education in genetics and molecular biology. After studying cognitive neuroscience for the past 10 years, my experiences with patients who have suffered devasting neurologic conditions affecting cognition have radically altered my views regarding human nature. Combine this with the fact that I am constantly in interaction with a host of cognitive neuroscientists. What have I learned these past 10 years? It's that genes exert such a powerful influence over our cognition. And I'm sure you agree that we are far from being blank slates. We carry with us from birth onwards a cognitive repertoire that was ultimately sculpted by natural selection. Our noble traits such as altruism, empathy, love, trust and our negative traits such as greed, hate, anger,etc.. all have a strong genetic basis. These behaviors are simply not socially constructed but are indeed tempered by the environment. That is, it is nurture via nature that is most likely taking place (I would refer you to author Matt Ridley). With every aspect of human behavior you will indeed see variation among individuals that is likely the result of genes predisposing us to seek specific environments. Indeed some individuals will be Einsteins and others will have to settle at being George Bush. And also we have some that are far, far more greedy than others ie. Dick Cheney. And that there is a limited environmental repertoire for us to choose from at this stage. Given the same environment, we don't end up identical in behvior to each other. No matter how hard I try, I will never be able to memorize biochemical pathways as well as my sibling despite our similar environmental upbringing. We both are hardwired differently in this regard. So I have come to conclude that we all possess a prewired human nature that has limited flexibility. So what does this have to do with culture and politics?
What it means is that we have some nasty truths to confront. In an individualistic society, when human behavior is unrestrained, inequality and exploitation will be inevitable. Those who have a genetic "advantage" whose social brain is so much more heavily predisposed to sociopathy and greed, you can guess what happens. The Dick Cheneys will win. That is the ultimate failure of a purely capitalist society. I am a complete failure at running a business and despite being raised in the same household and same culture as my brother, he is close to being a millionaire. His orbitofrontal cortex is wired by a different set of genes than mine which ultimately predisposes him to approach social decision making that is different than me. He takes short term risks and it payed off in his business. I on the other hand am not a risk taker and prefer to be a salaried employee in a socialist system with a comfortable income and a guaranteed pension. Myself and my sibling's behavior indeed were not socially constructed. And there are several facets of our behavior (some similar and some different) we have to place emphasis on genetic predispositions. So what does that say about a socialist society?
The reality is that in any political system, the brain is not radically re-wired so that our negative traits are gone. If only the brain were purely sculpted by culture, then we would truly have perfect people. We don't and we never will. Socialism levels the playing field so that no one will have a huge economic advantage over another. My brother and I would be equal. Now supposing we lived in such a system for X number of years and then it ended. I guarantee you that he would strive to be a millionaire and I would want to pursue a government job. And this is where my criticism of Marxism comes in.
Given what we know about the brain as well as nature/nurture, it stands to reason that society will always need government. In the absence of the economic constraints of socialism, inequality will result. An extended period of state socialism cannot rewire greed out of the human brain. And if you believe that then you might as well believe in intelligent design. The anarchist end point of communism cannot possibly survive given this view of human nature. There has to be a government in control of the means of production forever to prevent the Dick Cheneys from having it all. And that is my central critique of Marxism. That a proletarian society will emerge wherein the means of production and consumption are fully in their hands without any executive power fully regulating this society. Given what I have described about human nature, I cannot conceive of a society such as this that will sustain itself forever. Now I am a very humble and yes, a childish man. If there is an existing society wherein the Marxist experiment has been successful to the point of a classless society devoid of government, then I would indeed humbly concede "I am wrong".
You have muddied the waters all around to distract from the points you can't deal with. Yes, your completely absurd, childish...stupidity... of thinking that you've made a point by showing that communists must live contradictions in a capitalist society. Call that ad hom, I call it a fact that you've clearly demonstrated in this case, the case in which I called your assertion childish.
So by what mechanism does greed assert itself in a society where goods are being produced for need? Is one person going to attempt to horde a bunch of what? Pieces of paper with pictures on them become worthless. And sell what for what? Sell what when people know that you just go down to the place and get one. Someone would look at you stupid if you tried to "sell" them something and call you lazy, and wonder why you hadn't just gone and gotten one of whatever you want yourself. It'd be like someone bumming cigarettes when the "store" hands them to people by the carton for free, you'd just be annoying. The very mechanisms that make greed what it is today are destroyed under communism. Greed could manifest somehow, that's the question I'm putting before you...how?
Yes, there will be the need of a very strong political force with proper vision to suppress all former ruling class and reactionaries (those forces who have always managed to purchase enough beliefs to crush revolutions in the past) for a long time to come until the means of production are placed firmly in common ownership (this becomes codified and accepted by the masses as normal, the right for individuals to own the means to produce goods is made totally illegal eventually in socialism as it moves towards communism) and the public opinion-molding machine firmly in the control of a political party with proper vision.
You're never going to see communism "work" in your life, and if that's your goal then it displays that your interests are lieing with yourself and not humanity. Socialism is a phase full of horrors that no communist who understands anything is going to say is going to be very nice. These phases are filled with violence and turmoil as reactionaries and those who are the current dictators do everything in their power to make counter-revolution. If there was a peaceful way to break the dictatorship then that would be the way to go, but any such thought is unscientific. No dictatorship is going to be broke by talking the dictators out of their position like those in a lot of "left" movements think, especially not these dictators.
Yes we are blank slates, depending on how you define it. But what matters as it pertains to everything I've brought up is the products of whatever "wiring" there is anyway. It doesn't matter if you're mind is an exact copy of Einstein's if you'd grown up in an environment different than his you wouldn't have been the Einstein we knew. Plenty of brains have been "wired" capable of being much more brilliant than Einstein I'm sure, but those brains may have been born in Haiti or Bhutan, where instead of being given the time to develop any knowledge, that person had to work 12 hours a day to make sure that they didn't die. The fear involved in knowing that at any time you could die or face extreme hardship because you've made the wrong choice has a profound effect on the mind. Our neuro"scientist" here might deny this. Do you? How limited is this flexibility?
Okay, I've not much time tonight, please sort through your big splashy post above that's gotten everything muddy all around here and pick out the substance of what you would like me to address if I've missed anything. I would like for you to address the question of greed mechanism/how it would manifest in a communist society, oh and here's one..if greed is innate in humans explain those of us who are not greedy. Can you point to me where on the brain, or what chemicals are involved, that show I'm lacking something or have too much of something? If not then how can you call what you do a science? ...considering too that you refuse to accept evidence against your hypothesis that greed is innate. If greed is innate, and not a product of the public opinion-molding machine having largely (within parameters of nature, and any barriers common people erect) created our environment, then where is the greed of those of who don't display it? Where's the greed of the glorious martyrs of Nepal who have given their lives, the only one they knew they had (most are atheists), to the service of liberating the Nepali people from the dictatorship of the ruling class? Time after time the poor and glorious people of Nepal took on hails of bullets as they charged army bases and police stations knowing full well that many would die. Where is there innate greed?
-ibily survive given this view of Human Nature. Are you saying that the end point of communism is anarchism ? I'm not a Neurologist or a scientist,or a scholar of anarchist thought,but in my opinion,anarchism is highly mis-understood in our society.Check out Chomsky on Anarchism to get a true picture of anarchist thought ;flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html. I disagree with you about how society needs Government.The state is evil - To be governed is to be watched over,inspected,spied on,directed,legislated,regimented,closed in,indoctrinated,preached at,controlled,assessed,evaluated,censored,commanded;all by other people that have neither the right,nor the wisdom,or virtue...To be governed also means that at every move,operation,or transaction one does is then noted,registered,entered in a census,then your are taxed,stamped,priced,assessed,patented,licensed,authorized,recommended,admonished,prevented,reformed,set right,corrected.Government also means to be subjected to tribute,trained,ransomed,exploited,monopolized,extorted,pressured,mystified,robbed,all in the name of public utility and the general good.Then at first sign of resistance or word of complaint,one is repressed,fined,despised,vexed,pursued,hustled,beaten up ,imprisoned,hung or shot,judged,sentenced,deported,sacrificed,sold,betrayed,and to cap it all,your ridiculed,mocked,outraged and dishonored.That is the Government,that is (their) justice and its morality... O Human personality ! How can it be that you have cowered in such subjection for over sixty centuries. Proudhon ~ 1809-1865
Signature ? How ?
Yes, communism ends with anarchism. Anarchists share many similarities with real revolutionaries, but they take the completely unscientific view that we will one day talk the capitalist dictators out of their position (of course they don't say these exact words, but just try to debate me on it.) and that no organized force is needed to take them on. It's disgusting. I love all poor people, but I honestly have a hard time loving most anarchists. Okay, with that said. Yes, governments will forever and always be instruments to suppress the classes who are not in control of them. The question is, which class will control them and what is in their interests? Will a class put into place a .gov that takes a 100% scientific approach and whose interests lie in abolishing all class distinctions and use the government towards those goals? Or will a class put a .gov in power who doesn't have proper vision and simply wishes to make the last become the first and the first become the last, or take other such deviations from the science of MLM? Or will the capitalist ruling class continue to have .gov forever to use towards their goals of continued exploitation of the common people? Or, just kidding on this one sorta, but perhaps someone will give state power to the anarchists, and they'd throw it down on the ground, pretend it wasn't there and the capitalists would pick it up again.
If you'll take the time to watch the documentary on my blog it'll totally blow the mind of any anarchist I promise. I live in the PNW, and the amount of nonsense that anarchists believe about communists is usually even greater than the general population because the people who help mold your beliefs (yes, I have them too, everyone does, but I'll defend my beliefs scientifically), Chomsky, Zeitgeist Movement people etc.. continue to throw little soundbites that back up the capitalist ruling class version of communism, because they themselves haven't seriously engaged the works of communists (MLM) as a result of the public opinion-molding machine and it's viscous major propaganda campaign (most heavily in school textbooks) against communism...the ideology that capitalists least want the public to understand.
anarchist. O'Well,you can't please everyone all of the time but, maybe you can make the majority of the people understand true Freedom and Liberty.There are many people that call themselves anarchist,that really don't understand how different it is,compared to the reality of the subject. I had to put the documentary that is on your blog into my favorites,to watch it later,its almost 3 hr.'s long .I'll write you after I view it. PS. Did you ever hear of Derrick Jensen ? His book "The Culture of Make Believe" is a really good look at our society. Check out his home page www.derrickjensen.org/
Signature ? How ?
I have Endgame Resistance v2 here that I constantly sit stuff on, but never have read. An anarchist gave it to me. As long as anarchists, after my years of attempts at it, continue to refuse to engage the substance of this blog post that I've been putting forth in various ways to countless dumbfounded anarchists over the years, I'm going to just keep ridiculing them as they just act to confuse the exploited masses and channel their outrage into ideology that doesn't have a chance to liberate them. There is no magical jump from capitalism to communism (classless, eventually stateless society). If you want me to take you seriously then formulate something that even approaches reasonable that explains how you're going to place the means of production into common ownership. It's like with the theists with me and the anarchists at this point, I've tried so much for answers from them that I've really given up, but I'm all ears if they can produce. I'm not about to read some Lee Strobel at this point though, so no thanks
I seriously have done lots of research into anarchism and have read works of many anarchists (I even listen to community radio on the WC..heh), and you're right that most misunderstand it. Even many who say they're anarchists don't understand it.
And thanks for going to check out the documentary. It is actually an 8 hour documentary originally, but only an edited 3 hour version is available on the internet. It is a very moving and informative documentary. It starts a bit weird with 12 minutes of footage that someone has appended to the documentary footage, but that is certainly relevant to the subject matter. Don't skip the music, for that is a big part of how the story is told. Also the version at archive.org is a bit better quality than the google video version it seems.
-formulate something that even approaches reasonable that explain how you're going to place the means of production into common ownership.like I wrote earlier I don't have the time right now to view the video on your blog or to seriously take the time to write what I believe will handle the task of production in the hands of the common worker.I'll get back to you in a few hours,I have things to do right now.But it concerns PareCon - by Michael Alberts.The workers own the factory and are responsible for production.
Later !!!
Signature ? How ?
Here is one article on the vasopressin gene which is heavily implicated in pair bonding and social decision making. Certain polymorphisms of this gene result in less generous behavior.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119424373/abstract
Where in the brain? The vasopressin receptors are distributed in various regions including the orbitofrontal regions which are tied up with social decision making.
What is the chemical? Vasopressin.
Why isn't everyone equally greedy or conversely equally altruistic? Because each of us have a different polymorphism of the same gene. Thus some will be glorious martyrs for a transcendant cause and selflessly sacrifice themselves. Whereas others are wholly selfish.
By no means is this a greedy gene but it does illustrate that there is biological evidence that for even some of our worse behaviors such as greed, there is a powerful genetic influence.
I can't get that song out of my head. It is quite beautiful. Is there a place I can download it?
Yes, the music is the most beuatiful I've ever heard and once you grasp it's meaning all other music is shallow in comparision.
I have personally spent the hours to clip out all of the music bits and is available here.
I don't have much time over the next few days at all, but just letting you know, that I don't disagree that there are genetic components to human behavior, but that is like the big bang event so to speak and the actual science is shakey at best, especially when it comes to details and even irrelevant to the substance of what is at issue here. I'm dealing with things on firm scientific footing that can provide much testable evidence. Greed as we know it is a product of the fact that it is infused and rewarded at every turn under capitalism, because this behavior benefits the capitalist ruling class. If everyone started helping each other they'd realize how much we don't need the capitalist ruling class at all. You know as well as I that there are many people who identify and are disgusted by greed, but even themselves are forced into actions that can be considered greedy by there instincts to survive and feel "normal" under capitalist society. I think a lot of what peope mistake for an innate greed in humans is actually just the expression of our survival instincts under capitalism.
To me it is plainly obvious that the public opinion-molding machine, coupled with the environment one has experienced (including events..everything that made up someones entire experience) is much, much more powerful than any other effect on human behavior. And the only thing it can't change is our instincts to survive and reproduce.
Yes, worker run factories producing goods for profit still rather than need...socialism. Yes, there are worker run factories, but they are still exploited by capitalists until there is also worker run transport, worker run raw material providers, worker run health care etc.. and you're never, ever going to reach that stage peacefully. The capitalist ruling class will never say "Oh, look the common people want us to stop exploiting the Earth and it's inhabitants and put into place a new system...let's just sit back and see how they do." They'll never do it, and they'll fight you ever step of the way to you trying to do it, and that is why a 100% scientific approach is needed to stand a chance at taking on these dictators.
Well in my opinion, is that while dealing with a philosophy that concerns human nature,nothing can be said to be 100% in changing society. I've read your "Radical Humanism"and that don't tackle the issue's that you lay forward for anarchism to solve. I have also viewed a little of the two video's that is on your blog,and I also don't see any real answers to solving the exploitation of worker's,except in the small country of Nepal.It was just a lot of rhetoric that had absolutely no scientific evidence backing their rhetoric. But if you read what Libertarian Socialism is -en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism you can see that Libertarian socialism has by far been implemented in Human society more often than capitalism or Maoist philosophical thinking. And Michael Albert's work on Parecon (Classlessness society) is so well written,that a lot of people embrace it's concept's - www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/3978 ,it is based on anarchism philosophical thinking.Parecon meaning classlessness was born from the revolutionaries idea's of anarchist like,Kropotkin,Rocker,Bakunin,Pannekoek and a few others. Also in your Maoist thinking,you have leader's,hence not truly classlessness.And in your other post you compared Anarchist with Theist (WoW) how in the world can you compare these two,Anarchism's main saying is "No Gods,No Master's,the complete opposite of Theism.
Signature ? How ?
Go back and read again, and see where I've ever compared theism to anarchism. I haven't yet, but I will now. It's about a scientific approach, anarchists often do well in envisioning how a society should run, but they are hopelessly lost people when it comes to a plan on how to ever get there or even a scientific understanding of the nature of the capitalist system. Anarchists think that somehow (perhaps by magic? they certainly have faith) that without strictly enforced laws and a strong organized force that the capitalist ruling class and reactionaries will simply set there and let you walk into their factories, farms etc.. take over their lands and begin producing goods for need rather than profit. This level of delusion can only be rivaled by religious delusion. If these matters weren't so serious it'd be extremely laughable. If you want to be taken seriously by real revolutionaries then prove that your nonsense will work on any kind of systematic level, I'd even look into it more if you could get a few handful: approach the owners of the means to produce needed and desired goods and have them be convinced of our way of thinking and begin giving workers 100% of the wealth they produce, go with your ideas to those in the suits and convince them, because those are who are in control if you ever get to implement your agenda, especially the closer it gets to their dictorial power (their control of our ability to survive via ownership of means of production and flow of goods, and their ownership of the overwhelming communications networks/opinion-molding ability.)
It's really good though, even those who're not sympathetic to communism should listen to these talks so that they won't come off so uninformed when encountering us in our much increased presence in the world.
Seriously, we all know there is a better way, this is child’s thought to the Maoist..this is 1st grade stuff. Stop just dreaming of the future better society, and join in with a movement that takes a 100% scientific approach and who has a friggin clue about the nature of what we're up against and what it'll take to bring about a society that puts humanity above all other. No, I'm sorry, I've not found a way to condense MLM into 20 paragraphs lol on a blog, but if I were to simply start talking of the means by which we need to act to destroy the dictatorship without laying any kind of groundwork with people you'd cast me off as even nuttier than you probably do anyways.
And "Radical Humanism" is simply MLM repackaged in the hopes of getting anyone to actually engage the substance. As you can tell it's hard to get people -- those who can afford the Internet and time to spend typing especially -- to engage the substance of what we put forth rather than the public opinion-molding machine version of what we're about. I linked the video because it shows with irrefutable evidence that many of the claims about MLM preached by anarchists are completely false. Tell me where in the anarchist literature that it tells of Maoist Party leaders continuously educating people of the need for them (elected Party leaders) to not exist and to transfer the political power (that is necessary) to the people..in the video at one point a Party leader gets up in front of a large gathering (this in itself is against the stereotypes constantly put forth by anarchists) and asks "How do we transfer this political power to the power of the people?" The Party literature/public opinion-molding machine is filled with education about the nature of our system to the point that now in places like Nepal and India, any amount of the glorious people could be martyred and the revolution will still be on fire. You said no evidence? Do you deny the existence of the people who're before your eyes on the video? What evidence are you looking for...it wouldn't be perhaps for a completely unscientific leap from capitalism to communism would it?
Anarchists are the creationists of revolutionary thought. There's more to this than, better world is possible. Getting to a better world on paper is easy, getting there in real life requires you take into account such evidence like "that rich person there won't let me take the grocery store and give it to the poor people no matter how much I ask nicely, and will pay people to shoot me if I try" that kind of scientific knowledge is needed, and furthermore an approach that can overcome these truths about the nature of our system that our class has learned in the many experiments at placing the means to produce needed goods in common ownership. And please spare me any "MLM has been tried before" nonsense, MLM is a science not a doctrine, we learn from mistakes of past revolutions and chart new ways forward based on a scientific understanding. And to even analyze past revolutions one needs to first examine which class has prepared that education for them and what is in their interests, and whether or not that analysis includes the actions of capitalists and reactionaries that made the implementation of our ideology far from smooth going to say the very very least.
I'll be away for awhile (perhaps more than a week), here is a 65 hour or so audio introduction to MLM that I couldn't cram into 20 paragraphs for you Ken
Not to get into an argument about comparing these topics,but your post 37 written on 6-26,7th line "it's like the theist with me and the anarchist at this point".right before you mention Lee Strobal,who was a christian apologist.Anarchism has no apologist.Believe me,I know that the capitalist and their goons won't sit back and watch their wealth fad away.In Noam Chomsky's book "Understanding Power"and "Government in the Future"addresses many of your concerns.South America's Bolavarian Revolution uses many action that aren't in step with capitalism,United States style, it's closer to Parecon, but here we're closer to corporatorcary.Anarchist are not the creationist of revolutionary thought.Another case in point,right here in the US(Chicago) worker's took over a company that was going bankrupt,after the worker's took control,the windows and doors factory started to get back on its feet.When you look at US worker's history,,and it's where the original May Day was started also in Chicago at the Haymarket Convention of 1884,where the trade unions and labor unions came together with the anarchist in order to stop the elite's from robbing the poor.There is absolutely no scientific approaches to any revolution,Anarchist or Maoist.
PS, I have never heard of any anarchist criticizing Maoist.In my opinion both are for taking back the power that we have lost. 
Having the wealth of this nation in the hands of the few,is not written in stone. 
PPS, I have read Bob Avakian's "From Ike to Mao"in "The Nation"journal,and I have listen to many of his tapes (very inspiring) I like most of his work,I must say that I have not listen to all of them,but I do think that he makes a lot of good points.
Signature ? How ?
To Ken G
Try this:
http://www.angeloftruth.com/capitalism
http://www.angeloftruth.com/christianity
Arthur King
arthur king, the voice of god