Are we mindless drones?

[Dante]

It is not even that things caanot be changed beacuse of, as per the maxim "Power corrupts", not even that "power attracts the corruptible", but that humanity is in of itself corrupt, and allowing power to any human is to leave it open to abuse or negligence.

Perfect.

Gunwounds: Maybe. But right now I don't have the benefit of hindsight into school years. And btw, girl trouble? You of all people should remember that I'm the one person who shouldn't suffer from that...

[Acriku]

Bureaucracy is never necessary. The moment it starts to get out of hand (as it has now) we should stop it and re-do the whole system.

So, a country doesn't need a military? Genius! Why didn't anybody else think of that? Oh yeah they did, they're just conquered and not here anymore.  :-*

[Dante]

I said bureaucracy not 'military.' Come to think of it the military is just a drain on finances anyway...

[Acriku]

The military is a bureaucracy. And the soldiers are bureaucrats. Go figure?

[Dante]

How are the soldiers bureaucrats? Do THEY sit filing needless paperwork all day?

[GUNWOUNDS]

I said bureaucracy not 'military.' Come to think of it the military is just a drain on finances anyway...

yes it is...  but  many other countries (allies included) are starting to beef up their military after seeing how helpless they were in the Iraqi war... even france felt helpless.... they vetoed the resolution.... and it didnt accomplish anything.  They saw first hand that Might makes Right.

[Dante]

I prefer 'subtle backstabbing when nobody expects it makes right.'

[GUNWOUNDS]

I prefer 'subtle backstabbing when nobody expects it makes right.'

you'd make a good ninja

here's some things you need to know to get started.

http://www.realultimatepower.net/

  ;D

[Acriku]

Dust Scout, bureaucracy does not have an inherent meaning of "pushing papers around." Your blind hatred for bureaucracy, following others who blindly hate it, is quite appropriate for the title of this thread, and answers the question effectively.

[Dante]

Bureaucracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In sociological theories, bureaucracy is an organizational structure characterized by regularized procedure, division of responsibility, hierarchy, and impersonal relationships. The term can characterize either governmental or nongovernmental organizations.

A hypothetical bureaucracy would consist of many levels of management which require many signature approvals to make any decision. A second characteristic of many bureaucracies, especially government ones, is extreme difficulty in firing or laying off employees.

Max Weber has probably been the most influential user of the word in this Social Science sense. However, contrary to popular belief, "bureaucracy" was an English word before Weber; the Oxford English Dictionary cites usage in several different years between 1818 and 1860, prior to Weber's birth in 1864.

In modern usage, bureaucracy often equates with inefficiency, laziness, and waste. It is oftentimes characterized in the popular imagination as existing solely for itself and only achieving results which end up in enlarging the size of the bureaucracy. It is thus generally used as a pejorative word. However, Weber originally described the concept in more positive terms, considering it to be a more rational form of organization than those that preceded it, which he characterized as charismatic and traditional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy

Do not accuse me of blind following. I have made up my own mind and I'll thank you not to judge me on it. I get that enough elsewhere without you giving it to me here.

[Wolf]

So, I take it you don't judge others on how they make up their minds?

[Acriku]

I don't know why you posted that, because it only strengthens my point:

In modern usage, bureaucracy often equates with inefficiency, laziness, and waste. It is oftentimes characterized in the popular imagination as existing solely for itself and only achieving results which end up in enlarging the size of the bureaucracy. It is thus generally used as a pejorative word. However, Weber originally described the concept in more positive terms, considering it to be a more rational form of organization than those that preceded it, which he characterized as charismatic and traditional.

[Edric O]

This topic has been mutilated by the database purge that erased all posts since february 9. I can recover my own posts, but the rest are up to whoever posted them. See this topic for a possible solution.

I will now re-post what I managed to recover from my old messages:

For the rest... democracy breeds mindless drones.

You haven't been paying much attention to the past 200 years, have you?

Since we've implemented democracy, we've had more revolutions, social movements, mass protests and public involvement in politics than ever before. If anything, democracy has awoken the people. Don't let the apathy of the last 20 years fool you. It's only a temporary fluke.

If you want to see mindless drones, look at the huge mass of obedient peasants from before democracy was established.

[Edric O]

- In it's pure form (communism) it is fabulously easy to corrupt. And only slightly more difficult in any other form.

On the contrary, I'd say that corrupting 50 million people (the "government" that exists in communism) is a hell of a lot harder than corrupting one man (the all-powerful dictator that exists in the system you advocate).

The more democratic a system gets, the HARDER it is to corrupt. The semi-democratic governments we have today are a lot less corrupt than the absolute monarchies we used to have 300 years ago.

- It attracts bureaucracy like wasps to jam.

As Acriku pointed out, bureaucracy is necessary in any modern society, and it can often be highly effective.

You may not like red tape, but what would you replace it with? Arbitrary rule? Summary executions? A reign of terror?

- It listens only to the majority when it claims to listen to everyone equally.

Ok, so your solution is to listen only to a minority? That's what dictatorship does.

Majority rule may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the rule of a minority, or the rule of one man.

- Hypocracy is at the very core of democracy.

- It breeds mindless drones.

Unfounded, silly, and pulled straight out of your ass. I already discussed the issue of "mindless drones" - democracy is what got rid of them in the first place, and now they are coming back precisely because democracy is rolled back by corporate power.

- It brings up all sorts of problems. Overpopulation for a start.

You think democracy is bad because it doesn't kill people? I guess human rights are not on your list of priorities...

Yes, it is up to the people. And the people never listen to the minority.

Oh, and you think a dictator does? A dictator doesn't even listen to the majority, much less to the various hapless minorities he likes to persecute. Look at Hitler.

And btw, most democracies have a little something called "minority rights".

Democracy claims to be good for the people: GOOD for us?

If you like dictatorship so much, why don't you move to a totalitarian country? I heard North Korea is nice this time of year...

Dust Scout, your main argument "against" democracy seems to be the fact that it is too good. You complain that people no longer have to break their backs working just to keep themselves alive. You complain that life is not as hard and cruel as it used to be. You even complain that your government can't kill you!

Your position is quite simply absurd - unless you think suffering is good and happiness is bad.

[Edric O]

It has become increasingly apparent to me that the people who complain about democracy are the people who take all the benefits of democracy for granted and who don't actually know what it's like to live under a dictatorship. They whine about corruption and disrespect for the will of the people - in other words, about the fact that society is not democratic enough - and their "solution" is to make things even WORSE by instituting a dictatorship!

When democracy gets corrupted, that means it's turning into a dictatorship. So if dictatorship is your "solution", then you're saying that we should fight against corruption by giving the corrupt politicians exactly what they want. Completely absurd.

Of course our world is plagued with problems. Of course our "democracies" are corrupt and increasingly un-democratic. But that just shows we need MORE democracy, not less. We need to give the people more power over their elected representatives, and we need to bring democracy into the economy - in others words, we need socialism.

[Edric O]

At this point, Dust Scout posted his reply (and hopefully his post will be recovered). The debate continued:

I can't make up my mind whether this whole debate is silly, ridiculous, or just plain absurd. Dust Scout, you seem to be one of those people who like to wallow in self-pity and whine about how the world is such an evil place, how nothing can ever possibly get any better, how everybody hates them, and so on and so forth. You're pathetic. Stop feeling sorry for yourself and stop dreaming of a time that never existed. We are living in the most prosperous, the most efficient, the most liberty-minded and the most egalitarian age in human history. You think you have no voice? You have more of a voice than your ancestors could ever dream of! You feel persecuted? You don't know the meaning of persecution! You don't know what it means to be chewed by rats in a medieval dungeon, to suffer from easily preventable diseases, to be mutilated and abused by the soldiers of your "beloved king", to work a lifetime and have all the fruits of your labout taken by your feudal lord for his own luxury and pleasure.

I despise capitalism and all the injustice and suffering it causes. But for all its faults, capitalism is a vast improvement over the systems that came before it. I want to continue this improvement. I want to move forward into socialism and eventually communism, not backward into a dark Middle Age.

Monarchies are incorruptable because they are already inherantly corrupt, because all humans are. Better to start corrupt than degenerate slowly.

Do I even have to point out the stupidity of that statement? You're saying that corruption is bad (and therefore democracy is bad because it is corruptible), while at the same time saying that corruption is good (since you support a system that is absolutely corrupt).

OF COURSE that any system can be corrupted. But any system can also be un-corrupted. That's what revolutions are for. If democracy degenerates into tyranny, the people can take to the streets and claim back the power that is rightfully theirs. We already did it once. What makes you think we can't do it again?

Arbitary rule, yes.

My solution is to listen to everybody.

Those two don't go together. Arbitrary rule means that the monarch only listens to the people he wants to listen to. And he can burn you at the stake if he doesn't like your face.

Arbitrary rule means that no one can have his voice heard. Except the all-powerful monarch, of course.

I think democracy is bad because it doesn't do what is good for the people when the people don't want it. They don't know what's good for them.

And YOU know better?

The greatest atrocities in history have happened because some tyrants thought they knew what the people needed better than the people themselves.

Yeah, like that does anything.

Actually, it does. Right now, you are free to express your sexual preferences. Under a dictatorship, you could be executed for it.

Suffering is part of life. I'd rather suffer under a system that makes no pretenses than under a system which pretends to promote equality and superiority. And of course it's far easier to gain power in an autocracy.

So you'd rather be slowly tortured to death for being a heretic than live in today's quasi-free society?

Society is not democratic enough because it cannot be and never will be.

Society has been constantly getting more democratic for the past 500 years. What makes you think it's going to stop now?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Dust Scout. If you want to contradict the overwhelming trends of human history, you'd better have a more convincing argument than "I just don't think it can happen".

So we might as well stick to an unfair system that works than a fair one which is impossible to achieve because we are the wrong species.

You know what that reminds me of?

"We can never fly! We are the wrong species!"

We have already achieved a limited democracy, and you must be living under a rock if you think it doesn't work. And all we need in order to achieve more advanced forms of democracy (socialism and communism) is to actively struggle to create them. If the people want a certain type of society, they will eventually succeed in creating it. It's actually a lot easier than creating a flying machine.

What makes us so different?

The fact that you have the intelligence to ask that question. Homo Sapiens is not just any animal. Look around you if you don't believe me. What other species can do what we have done?

Not politicians. Never politicians. Politicians... *shudders* They have no right to power. To get power you either fight for it or are born into it. Not politicians... *shudders*

All power rightfully belongs to the people.

And kings ARE politicians.

You want to talk about the nature of human beings? I'll tell you what our nature is: Our nature is to be ambitious. Our nature is to fight, to struggle, to never be satisfied with what we have. That is what carried us from stcks and stones to space travel. Humanity will NEVER say "this cannot be done". We are curious, ambitious, and imaginative. That is why communism will succeed.

[Edric O]

After another post by Dust Scout, I replied:

Dust Scout, we seem to be speaking different languages here - or, to be more exact, we have radically different views on the role of government and on the notions of "good" and "evil".

I believe the function of the government is to be a tool of the people, which serves the people's interests and works for the common good. You believe the government should be some sort of mafia-like organization which exists to oppress and exploit the people.

I believe that a "good" system is a system that maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering. You don't care either way, and you just want a system which fulfills your twisted dreams about how society should look like (and I say "twisted" because your "perfect society" consists of a bunch of barbarians slaughtering each other).

The question is not whether autocracy is possible. Of course it is. The question is whether it is desirable. And the answer is most certainly NO.

Those very qualities are what help us survive (at the expense of others) in an autocracy.

Yes, and they are also the qualities that allowed us to survive in the stone age. But times change, and forms of social organization change along with them. The very qualities that took us out of the stone age are the ones that will take us into communism.

Humans are ambitious, yes. But with that comes cruelty, and a desire to subjugate others. Humans are evil.

That's right, go ahead and ignore all proof to the contrary. Who cares about the thousands of charitable organizations, the hundreds of groups fighting for human rights, the millions of doctors and firemen who want to save lives, the other millions of people who are ready (or have been ready throughout history) to give their life for their fellow man, or even the person you're talking to? You have this fixed idea in your head that we're all little Hitlers, and there isn't anything or anyone who can convince you otherwise.

Why is it that some people insist on attributing some "inherent" qualities or faults to the entire human species, when it is obvious that the only thing we have in common is our flexibility and adaptability?

Human beings can be as evil or as good as they want.

Oh, and ambition is not the same as the desire to subjugate others. The vast majority of people are ambitious - but the ones who want to subjugate others are relatively few, and we call them "politicians" or "businessmen".

You assume that lack of free speech or rights goes hand in hand with it.

Don't tell me you're so naive as to believe that a ruler with absolute power can be incorruptible and benevolent. I thought we were over those childish fairy tales.

The great thing about autocracies is that if you kill the leader there is always someone willing to reward you when they take the top spot.

...or kill you to make sure that you can't get hired by someone else for the same job.

You also seem to assume that everyone is at the bottom of the heap. Sure, MOST people are. But there is always a select few.

Oh, that's right, not everyone is poor and enslaved and miserable. Just 99% of people are. That makes it all better, doesn't it? ::)

And if you are smart nough, strong enough, able enough, you can fight your way up and join them (again, using these qualities you mentioned).

Is that why the aristocracy of Europe was made up of degenerate fools?

The king was neither the strongest, nor the smartest, nor the most able person in the country. Far from it.

(and anyway, there is no objective standard for superiority or inferiority in human beings; there are no such things as "better" or "worse" people)

Autocracy does not equal middle ages.

True - it only equals medieval-style tyranny.

I didn't say anything would be done about it. Listen to the people, yes. Whether you do anything or not is up to the leader. Wise ones heed the people.

Again, you seem to believe in some sort of benevolent, incorruptible tyrant that simply does not and cannot exist. How can you whine and moan about the way democratic leaders are corrupted by power, while at the same time not seeing the kind of corruption that absolute power would bring?

The people really don't know. A rise in taxes to defend the country, evicting a village to get them out of harm's way. The people can't see the big picture, they are ignorant and thus cannot make informed decisions.

That's what Stalin used to say, too. Everything he did was supposedly "for the good of the people", who needed him as their beloved leader because they couldn't make the right decisions for themselves. ::)

This is the excuse of every tyrant in history.

The fact is that the people will always know what they want. And with the development of modern technology and the increasingly free flow of information, people are also becoming aware of the big picture. Of course, they can't yet make informed decisions on every tiny technical detail - that's what we need government (a democratic, socialist government) for.

But the people are getting smarter and more informed. Eventually, they will be able to make all the decisions themselves. And that is when we will reach communism.

You think this is democratic? Look at America. Russia. Britain even. And even if democracy is working, it's not going to go as far as you want it because it can't. We, as a species, would destroy it.

We live in capitalism, and capitalist democracy is a very narrow and limited form of democracy. But nevertheless, it is far more democratic and vastly better than anything that came before it.

There are many shades of grey between full democracy and full dictatorship.

Your silly predictions about the future are contradicted by all of human history. Democracies have usually been long-lasting, and all young democracies that had been overthrown were restored soon thereafter.

Kings are generals, politicians, manipulators, assassins, etc etc... Much more than just capitalist slime.

Oh yes, they are much more slimy than capitalist slime.

And the people don't deserve power.

Says who? You? Under what authority do you make decisions in the name of Humanity? The absolute monarchs of old used the "divine right of kings" as their excuse. You don't even have that pathetic excuse any more.

Please consider reading Rousseau's Social Contract.

All political and economic power belongs to the people, because the people are the source of that power - the power of any leader comes from the number and the strength of his followers.

[Edric O]

And finally, my last two replies in this topic (which were posted as two separate posts rather than a single one due to sheer length) were the following:

Dust Scout, the fundamental problem with your ideas is that instead of looking at the world and trying to interpret it, you start out with your own dogmatic preconceptions and then try to make the world look as if it fits them. You try to adapt the world to your ideas rather than adapting your ideas to the world, and this results in your flawed arguments and warped world-view.

Of all the errors you make, the chief two are the following:

1. Blindly and stubbornly denying the reality of 5000 years of human history. Countless social systems have existed for extended periods of time. Democratic or pseudo-democratic systems have lasted for centuries and brought prosperity to their citizens in the ancient world, while in the modern world the capitalist form of limited democracy has practically conquered the world and ushered in an age of unprecedented development in all fields (which only socialism and communism can ever surpass). Autocracy has been utterly crushed, humilitated, shown to be incompetent and inefficient, and practically exterminated. Yet you still claim that parliamentary democracy "doesn't work" and that "autocracy is the only system available". All I can say to that is WAKE UP ALREADY!

2. Blindly and stubbornly ignoring the biological attributes of Homo Sapiens. For the millionth time, Dust Scout, get it in your head that we are a social animal. How long could a single human being survive in the wild, without any of the benefits of modern technology? You'd be wolf food in no time. Look at the way our bodies are built! We are SOCIAL ANIMALS. We were designed to live in social units (called "tribes"), and that is the way we have survived for tens of thousands of years.

You think the feelings of compassion, love, brotherhood, mercy, etc. appeared out of nowhere? Your silly one-sided view of human psychology doesn't explain how the "good" side of human nature came into existence. The truth is that we learned to be compassionate and love each other because we couldn't survive otherwise. Nice and friendly individuals helped their tribe to survive, so their genes were carried on. Selfish and nasty individuals caused their tribes to die, so their genes went extinct. Evolution favoured altruism.

Notice that people tend to bind together when their lives are in danger, or when they are suffering. The poor are generally more compassionate (and donate a greater proportion of their incomes to charity) than the rich. We grow selfish when we have everything we need, and we can also get selfish in an emergency (for example, if we find ourselves on a sinking ship, it's often every man for himself). But in a long-term period of danger and/or suffering, we become more altruistic and our bonds to our fellow human beings grow stronger. That's because we know that the long-term survival and well-being of the individual always depends on the long-term survival and well-being of the group.

[Edric O]

And now that I've clarified the larger issues, it's time for a point-by-point reply:

I suppose you are generally correct. Especially on the notions of "good" and "evil." You seem to believe that there is a definative moral code involving them by which to live by. I don't think they exist.

The "moral code" I use for my political views is actually very simple: Life and happiness are good, while death and suffering are evil. That's all there is to it.

From this simple philosophy comes the conclusion that the best social system is the one that maximizes life and happiness while minimizing death and suffering. Hence communism.

it's impossible to keep everyone happy

That's perfectly true. You can't keep everyone happy. So the best system is the one that keeps the greatest number of people happy. And that system is communism.

Your argument, as I understand it, goes like this: "We can't keep everyone happy, so we should just forget about keeping the majority happy and enslave them for the personal enjoyment of a tiny minority". That is just plain illogical. If happiness is a good thing, then it follows that we should keep the greast number of people (i.e. the majority) happy.

With nothing else available, we should take what we can.

NOTHING ELSE AVAILABLE??? You much farther removed from reality can you get? See my previous post.

Besides, it has it's good points. Efficiency for one.

Autocracy is NOT efficient. History proves this. All autocracies have been shown to be horribly inefficient and wasteful when compared to more democratic systems. When was the last time a more autocratic system scored a long-term victory against a more democratic one?

Every person can have a charitable outside. Firemen, doctors, etc. Some of them may be working for the money, others may actually enjoy it. A rare few might actually care about their jobs. But inside we evolved from a deep, red instinct and when pressed they will revert to an animalistic predator, as evolution designed us to be.

Evolution designed us to be social animals that co-operate and care for each other. That is what has kept us alive, and that was the key to our evolutionary success.

Again, see my previous post, in which I talked about your stubborn illusions in more detail.

Oh, and by the way, since when can you read people's minds?

Everyone who gives to charity has an ulterior motive.

Oh, this is just ridiculous. When are you going to support your statements with any actual proof or logical reasoning, instead of whining about how the whole world is evil and anyone who says otherwise must be wrong by default?

Take away their surplus wealth and they become defensive, selfish, uncaring.

On the contrary. Take away their hard-earned wealth and they start bonding together to claim their rights. Reduce them to poverty and they start building organizations based on altruist ideals of brotherhood.

The poor are generally more compassionate (and donate a greater proportion of their incomes to charity) than the rich. We grow selfish when we have everything we need, and we can also get selfish in an emergency (for example, if we find ourselves on a sinking ship, it's often every man for himself). But in a long-term period of danger and/or suffering, we become more altruistic and our bonds to our fellow human beings grow stronger. That's because we know that the long-term survival and well-being of the individual always depends on the long-term survival and well-being of the group.

No they can't. We are slaves to our genetic inheritance and it has allowed us to survive by being cruel, exploiting, sadistic, uncaring...

You don't know much about survival, do you? Cruel, exploiting, sadistic, uncaring idiots became tasty snacks for whatever predator was lucky enough to stumble on their weak and disunited tribes. Or they starved to death because they failed to build a proper co-operative system to ensure the survival of the tribe.

Stop trying to fit reality into your depressed dreams about how evil the world is and start looking at the real scientific facts: Compassion, love and kindness exist for a very good reason. Evolution favours altruism.

The newfound 'niceness' in modern society

Newfound? I guess you never heard of a guy called Buddha, or someone named Jesus Christ... and I guess you never heard of their followers, or any other examples of altruism and self-sacrifice before a couple of hundred years ago, have you? ::)

And as we get 'nicer,' society stagnates.

Is that why we've been "stagnating" so badly in recent history? ::)

We sure had some serious "stagnation" in the 20th century... going from the victorian age to space flight and the internet...

Of course not. All humans are inherantly corrupt, a potential leader is no exception. Whether they are a good leader or not is up to them.

Then please explain to me the logic in your belief that the solution to corruption is MORE corruption.

Only after they began to lose power. The English Civil War put an end to truly great monarchs here, as did similar uprisings elsewhere (although by the French Revolution the monarchy was pretty poor anyway. Not truly autocratic).

Well, yes, the "great monarchs" had their asses kicked. I guess they weren't so "great" after all, were they?

No, but there are such things as "stronger," "smarter," "More able"...

Need I bring up the medical records of royal families?

Not everything need be medieval. Equality by everything except class, that's an idea I supposrt that isn't medieval.

Oh yes, I'm sure your people will be very happy that you're opressing all nationalities and religions equally. ::)

Of course some autocrats might disagree but that's a great thing about autocracy which makes it so much stronger than democracy. People don't have to agree.

Actually, it makes it weaker. It allows for utterly stupid decisions to be made. The judgement of a million brains is usually better than the judgement of one brain.

Democratic leaders aren't supposed to be corrupted. But it is inherant to human nature.

Define "corruption", and explain why was this trait favoured by evolution ("human nature" is the sum of the traits favoured by human evolution - and seeing how one of the major traits that helped us to survive is adaptability, "human nature" pretty much cancels itself out. Essentially, it is in our nature to have the ability to change our "nature")

Besides, even if you're right, a little bit of corruption is better than the greater corruption that comes with undemocratic systems.

So any democracy is hypocritcal from the word go. An autocracy is not, because it makes no pretences. You can't corrupt what makes no pretences to be incorrupt.

"You can't corrupt it because it is already 100% corrupt". That's like saying "you can't kill him because he's already dead". I don't think a dead man appreciates the fact that he can't be killed.

No they won't. There is (and always will be) too much hate, anger, disagreement, stupidity, and other various traits in our society that will stop such a perfect system as communism ever coming to pass.

I'm sorry, I was here to discuss politics, not call the Psychic Hotline.

If you want to claim that something is impossible, or that something "is and always will be", then PROVE IT. I'm sick of you pulling universal truths out of thin air.

Besides, communism is not a perfect system. It can work even if some people are hateful, angry or stupid, and there's nothing wrong with disagreement.

You say yourself that the government is relied on to make decisions. So why not all of them? Makes things much easier.

Because the point is to give the power to the people. The government is only a necessary instrument, during the period of socialism.

Under what authority do you? We both think we are working for the best reasons.

Ah, but I don't make any decisions in the name of Humanity. That's the difference between you and me. I want to give the people the power to make the decisions for themselves.

Yes. That doesn't mean to say they have to know this. And if they don't know it, they can't exploit it.

Oh, they WILL know - because I'm going to tell them. ;)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

And one last note: If you think all those posts were too long to read, then please read at least the post right before this one. I believe that was my most important post in this topic.

[TMA_1]

I know this is spam, but jsut have to say it.

Edric, you are one busy poster! hehe no wonder why you are the uncrowned king of fed2k. lol ;)

[Dante]

I for one have no record of my posts at all... I tend to delete old files regularly. Fortunately, with the constant quoting I think I can piece together what I was saying...

The "moral code" I use for my political views is actually very simple: Life and happiness are good, while death and suffering are evil. That's all there is to it.

From this simple philosophy comes the conclusion that the best social system is the one that maximizes life and happiness while minimizing death and suffering. Hence communism.

Nothing wrong with that. I just happen to disagree about the feasability of communism. And as for morals, well I'm subjective about them. You can hold whatever opinion you like, my own is that morals are a matter of choice.

That's perfectly true. You can't keep everyone happy. So the best system is the one that keeps the greatest number of people happy. And that system is communism.

Why bother? No matter how hard you try (and believe me, I've tried) there will always be people who want more, or want something different, or just happen to dislike you for the heck of it... I tried being nice and hated it. People aren't worth the concern you heap on them, so concentrate on number 1.

Your argument, as I understand it, goes like this: "We can't keep everyone happy, so we should just forget about keeping the majority happy and enslave them for the personal enjoyment of a tiny minority". That is just plain illogical. If happiness is a good thing, then it follows that we should keep the greast number of people (i.e. the majority) happy.

Not worth the effort. Keeping some people happy will by default make others unhappy and when you try to please everyone you fail miserably... Happiness is a good thing so do the only thing you can be certain of and make yourself happy.

NOTHING ELSE AVAILABLE??? You much farther removed from reality can you get? See my previous post.

Rephrase: Nothing realistically possible available.

Autocracy is NOT efficient. History proves this. All autocracies have been shown to be horribly inefficient and wasteful when compared to more democratic systems. When was the last time a more autocratic system scored a long-term victory against a more democratic one?

Scenario: A man in a democratic court.

Man: Not guilty! *Trial continues for weeks, months, maybe years*

Judge: Guilty!

Man: Aw no!

Judge: You can appeal now...

Scenario: A man in an autocratic court.

Man: Not guilty!

Judge: Guilty!

Man: But-

Judge: Next!

Efficiency.

Evolution designed us to be social animals that co-operate and care for each other. That is what has kept us alive, and that was the key to our evolutionary success.

Oh, and by the way, since when can you read people's minds?

I don't need to read people's minds. I examine our history, psychology, and biology. Our eyes are on the front of our heads, an inherantly predatory trait. We are (mostly) intelligent, another predatory trait. We care only when it suits us, we co-operate grudgingly and only when necessary. If we could survive as individuals, we would. And history speaks for itself.

Oh, this is just ridiculous. When are you going to support your statements with any actual proof or logical reasoning, instead of whining about how the whole world is evil and anyone who says otherwise must be wrong by default?

Humans are inherantly selfish, humans do not give for no reason, humans give to charity for an ulterior motive. Reasons. That first claim is vital to the others and is dealt with elsewhere.

On the contrary. Take away their hard-earned wealth and they start bonding together to claim their rights. Reduce them to poverty and they start building organizations based on altruist ideals of brotherhood.

Strength in numbers, ulterior motive. And it's not altruistic brotherhood it's the banding together of predators too weak to do anything as individuals. Like wolves.

The poor are generally more compassionate (and donate a greater proportion of their incomes to charity) than the rich. We grow selfish when we have everything we need, and we can also get selfish in an emergency (for example, if we find ourselves on a sinking ship, it's often every man for himself). But in a long-term period of danger and/or suffering, we become more altruistic and our bonds to our fellow human beings grow stronger. That's because we know that the long-term survival and well-being of the individual always depends on the long-term survival and well-being of the group.

And through the group, the individual. Without the group there is no individual therefore to preserve the individual one must preserve the group.

You don't know much about survival, do you? Cruel, exploiting, sadistic, uncaring idiots became tasty snacks for whatever predator was lucky enough to stumble on their weak and disunited tribes. Or they starved to death because they failed to build a proper co-operative system to ensure the survival of the tribe.

Then why hasn't a tendancy towards cruelty been genetically bred out of us? It makes us strong and therefore it survives.

Stop trying to fit reality into your depressed dreams about how evil the world is and start looking at the real scientific facts: Compassion, love and kindness exist for a very good reason. Evolution favours altruism.

It most certainly does not! What happens to the mother that gives all her food o the children? She dies. And then they die. A whole family killed by altruism when she could have gone off on her own, left them to die, and raised another family when times were better. Compassion is nice but it isn't strong. I think it was Bertrand Russel that said the secret to happiness is realising that "the world is horrible horrible horrible."

Newfound? I guess you never heard of a guy called Buddha, or someone named Jesus Christ... and I guess you never heard of their followers, or any other examples of altruism and self-sacrifice before a couple of hundred years ago, have you? ::)

Buddha maybe. But this wouldn't be the same Jesus Christ who is part of a religion that has massacred people over centuries for the flimsiest of reasons?

Is that why we've been "stagnating" so badly in recent history? ::)

We sure had some serious "stagnation" in the 20th century... going from the victorian age to space flight and the internet...

And along with it massive rises in overpopulation, obiesity, prison numbers, superbugs, nuclear weapons, mindless drones...

[Edric O]

If autocracy is viable, why has democracy always defeated and humiliated it, in EVERY FIELD? (autocracy has been crushed in war, in economic competition, in industrialization and development - in just about everything)

If autocracy is efficient, why have all the autocratic systems of the past 200 years suffered from horrible economic catastrophes, incompetence and mismanagement?

If autocracy is natural, why have the vast majority of the people risen against it?

If humans are all bloodthirsty predators at heart, why have we created civilization in the first place? And why have we gone along with it for 5000 years?

I don't know why you cling to the myth that an autocracy is somehow "more efficient". An autocracy takes decisions faster, of course, but those decisions tend to be STUPID and WRONG, because they are taken by a human being, with human faults. A democracy takes decisions slower, but they are MORE INTELLIGENT and BETTER decisions, because they are the product of many minds working together.

Disagreement is good. Having a variety of ideas is like having a diverse gene pool. It helps the system to adapt to new situations. Democracy has a crucial adavantage over autocracy: adaptability.

And there's also the fact that the people themselves know their own interests better than anyone else. A democracy works better than an autocracy because the decisions are taken by the same people who are affected by them.

Of course that most human beings care more about themselves than about others. But that's exactly why we co-operate, and that's exactly why communism works: Humans are naturally inclined to build a system in which everyone wins. The common good is the sum of all the personal goods.

Just because capitalism favours the selfish, that doesn't mean that ALL the selfish people win. As a matter of fact, only a small minority of them ever make it to the top. The rest can be just as exploited and screwed by capitalism as everyone else. So a rational selfish person will think like this: "If everyone wins, I win. If only certain people win, I might lose". That's why he will prefer a system in which everyone wins - namely communism.

[Acriku]

Your last paragraph, Edric, is unclear. If you define winning as being financially well-off, then how can communism bring that to every citizin (which you state it would having said "everyone wins - communism")? The answer is, it cannot. Like you've argued before, communism would bring the essentials to everybody, and still let people strive for becoming better-off through hard work and determination. So, a rational selfish person would either look at capitalism and realize the great potential of becoming extremely wealthy, or look at communism and realize that even if he fails, he still is able to live a decent life with dignity. In my opinion, that is how a rational selfish person would choose communism.

[Edric O]

That is correct, Acriku. Although the system you describe is closer to socialism than full communism. Socialism is the system of social ownership over the means of production (i.e. economic democracy), which guarantees the essentials of life to everyone while distributing the luxury items on a meritocratic basis (so everyone can live a decent life, but in order to go beyond that you need hard work and determination).

Communism goes a bit further, since it is a system based on full communal ownership, and run according to the principle "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs". Meritocracy no longer applies because you've reached a level of social labour where you can't separate one man's work from his neighbor's work. You can't tell who made the biggest contribution, or who deserves more than someone else. So all resources and products are pooled together, and everyone uses what he/she needs. (of course, this assumes that the people living in those times are smart enough to realize that the "common stash" is not infinite, and that if they are wasteful or use more than they need it will only hurt them in the end, by causing shortages - communism requires a certain level of education and social awareness)

[filecore]

I acknowledge that there have been shepheards,like Einstein,Hitler(Not that he did anything good,but that he actually spoke out and took action with what he believed in)

Sorry in advance if the topic has changed by now but I'm slowly reading my way through it!

Anyway. It depends where you stand... Hitler did lots of good things, but toward a bad end.  If his plans had fallen through halfway for some reason, he would be remembered as the man who dragged Germany out of a (largely unfair) US/League of Nations debt, where the people were exposed to hyperinflation, he created jobs for a desperate, jobless workforce, he increased the focus on education (again, later on this became mere propaganda but don't make the black-and-white mistake of thinking it was ALL or ALWAYS like that), and basically enabled the German people to be able to earn money and buy bread again.

I'm not defending the evil things that Hitler or his regime did, and I'm sure somebody will flame me anyway, but it's just that seeing everything in terms of black-and-white simplicity is just idiotic.  Please don't make such sweeping comments.