Marx and Darwin

[SamBridge]

Don't confuse capitalism with a form of government. This is about communism and democracies. capitalism is an economic model that is adaptable by either. It is a system of economic reward for taking risk. With great individual monetary reward comes the likelihood of abuse of those without. Democracies do better at preventing these abuses than communist bureaucracies.

While capitalism itself is not a form of government, you can still have a capitalistic society. Capitalism has nothing to do with risk, it means individuals can control production and distribution and that wealth is maintained privately.

 

 

I reiterate: "Communism has failed repeatedly in economies of scale." What did you think I was referencing?

And I replied "it doesn't matter if you personally think it's 'failed', societies should be able to choose their own government, and each type of society or government has it's own ups and downs.

 

 

This debate is not comparable to tribal units of populations. You might as well said "high school senior classes"

You're only focusing on examples of abuse of communistic societies in the 20th century, while I'm considering at all sorts of forms of communism in all of history. Communism comes from the word community, and there have been "communities" with thousands of people in the past and tribes generally don't have a government, but a "community", and even in other species work in various communal ways like river otters, dolphins, ect.

 

 

These are large industrialized nations that due to the limitations of a communist central control structure the government bureaucracies tend to be corrupt, with graft moving money up to the top just like the Mafia. The difference between democracies and them is the accountability at the voting both is a powerful weapon against corruption. The communists have nothing to protect the public from abuses of police and the bureaucrats that they are in business with. Communism has change little in this way since changing their economic model. There's just more money involved. billions and billions more!

If you live in a communal home, tribe, or a place like the Ashram in India, you will find there is not a single person making all the decisions unlike in industrial sectors. Any government can be corrupted and there's plenty of evidence for that, so the notion that communism can't work because it can get corrupted is meaningless. If you think about the word "community", you will see that it does not make sense that a true form of communism would have a select few people making all the decisions, and thus communism was merely a mask for propaganda, as any idea or concept ever created can be. Do you honestly think there is little corruption in capitalism? To Vietnam, the US was ruthless and evil, and from their point of view, it was the capitalists that had become corrupt. Once again, you fail to understand the relativity of government, failure and success.

 

 

Are stars alive?

Started by SamBridge, Jan 13, 2013

 

with this current knowledge it's possible stars are alive under current scientific definitions of life.

Obviously a strawman and troll, you purposely misquoted to support your own argument because you were afraid of looking bad even though it is blatantly obvious whether not stars are alive has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

 

First off, the quote was

 

 

I'm wondering if it's in any way possible they could be alive.

 

Not one place did I state that I thought or knew stars were alive unlike your misquote, and if you read later in the topic I even defend the notion that stars are not alive.

Edited May 26, 2013 by SamBridge

[moreinput]

Well this topic sure has turned into a totally new beast.

[arc]

Well this topic sure has turned into a totally new beast.

Sorry about that. I think Sam is great guy. We're just having some fun. I hope my posts reflect that, Sam your having fun right?

[moreinput]

Sorry about that. I think Sam is great guy. We're just having some fun. I hope my posts reflect that, Sam your having fun right?

Oh no, totally okay with me. Debate, especially when heated, draws out the best and weeds out the rest. I am just trying to steer clear of this one, if I get started talking about social issues I get sucked in. I spent the first few semesters of college battling my history teacher, who would dickishly play devils advocate to get a rise out of me. Oh, how I hate and love that woman.

[SamBridge]

Sorry about that. I think Sam is great guy. We're just having some fun. I hope my posts reflect that, Sam your having fun right?

No, quantum physics is fun, this is you trying attempting to forbear the severity of purposely and blatantly skewing information in your own favor.

[arc]

No, quantum physics is fun, this is you trying attempting to forbear the severity of purposely and blatantly skewing information in your own favor.

I'm sorry Sam. I enjoy debate and the give and take of the battle. It's so much like chess, don't you think? If you feel I crossed a line please accept my apologies I do not want to have you as an adversary outside of the cordial debate we both seem to enjoy.

Again my sincere apologies, arc

[SamBridge]

I'm sorry Sam. I enjoy debate and the give and take of the battle. It's so much like chess, don't you think?

Ok, here's your problem: this isn't chess, this isn't a battle, this is suppose to be an intelligent discussion where we attempt to find a solution or answer using logical concise points, evidence, and citations when asked for.

[arc]

Ok, here's your problem: this isn't chess, this isn't a battle, this is suppose to be an intelligent discussion where we attempt to find a solution or answer using logical concise points, evidence, and citations when asked for.

It is like chess because you carefully choose your words as if your argument depends on the effectiveness of each for the support of the many. A simple misuse or poorly phrased idea leaves your position vulnerable to a counter argument. Sometimes you may realize you have overextended your argument so a retreat to a smaller safer position is your only choice. This is seldom accomplished without losing many pieces of your argument and possibly any chance of winning.

 

It is like a battle because as one side is attempting to outflank the opponents argument they are in turn strategically looking for a weakness in the attackers argument. It is also like a battle because you may know the field, you may know your strengths but your opponents capabilities are unknown many times until its to late. And as in war, cooler heads will prevail. And, as moreinput said so well; "Debate, especially when heated, draws out the best and weeds out the rest".

 

I am not aware of any academic "intelligent discussion" teams although debate has been a cornerstone of education since antiquity, they apparently have found some merit to it. Debate is the forge where idea's are tested against the heat and pressures of an adversaries hammer. Intelligent discussion is what takes place after, when figuring out why you lost. arc

Edited May 28, 2013 by arc

[SamBridge]

It is like chess because you carefully choose your words as if your argument depends on the effectiveness of each for the support of the many. A simple misuse or poorly phrased idea leaves your position vulnerable to a counter argument. Sometimes you may realize you have overextended your argument so a retreat to a smaller safer position is your only choice.

So what if there's a counter argument? In fact it's good that there is one because it means there is someone to work out different flaws of something and that there's other people thinking about the topic besides the OP.

 

 

It is like a battle because as one side is attempting to outflank the opponents argument they are in turn strategically looking for a weakness in the attackers argument. It is also like a battle because you may know the field, you may know your strengths but your opponents capabilities are unknown many times until its to late. And as in war, cooler heads will prevail. And, as moreinput said so well; "Debate, especially when heated, draws out the best and weeds out the rest".

 

I am not aware of any academic "intelligent discussion" teams although debate has been a cornerstone of education since antiquity, they apparently have found some merit to it. Debate is the forge where idea's are tested against the heat and pressures of an adversaries hammer. Intelligent discussion is what takes place after, when figuring out why you lost. arc

 

Formal debates are not in any way similar to a battle, they exist merely to bring up different points, point out flaws in assumptions and discuss the plausibility of something, there is not necessarily a winner or loser in a formal debate. I've encountered plenty of debates in my life that were in no way heated at all and function exactly as I mentioned formal debates do, the only reason debates ever resemble a battle is because people like you turn them into one.

Edited May 28, 2013 by SamBridge

[arc]

Again my sincere apologies, arc

[SplitInfinity]

Ok, here's your problem: this isn't chess, this isn't a battle, this is suppose to be an intelligent discussion where we attempt to find a solution or answer using logical concise points, evidence, and citations when asked for.

 

I do not believe arc has a problem at all. It would seem that YOU are the one with a problem. I have noticed now on a few topics your conversations or debates with others ending with a snide comment by you about another members posts and then a statement such as the one I have quoted where YOU have the audacity to actually label another member as HAVING A PROBLEM.

 

The whole purpose of such forums and topics if for people to discuss concepts and ideas and come out of it for the better. I see no issue with a person siting a mistake made by another but to be so character flawed as to label that person having a problem...especially a person like arc who has been polite and constructive in the midst of your belittlement...well...it really shows all of us exactly WHO has a problem.

 

Split Infinity

[SamBridge]

I do not believe arc has a problem at all. It would seem that YOU are the one with a problem. I have noticed now on a few topics your conversations or debates with others ending with a snide comment by you about another members posts and then a statement such as the one I have quoted where YOU have the audacity to actually label another member as HAVING A PROBLEM.

 

The whole purpose of such forums and topics if for people to discuss concepts and ideas and come out of it for the better. I see no issue with a person siting a mistake made by another but to be so character flawed as to label that person having a problem...especially a person like arc who has been polite and constructive in the midst of your belittlement...well...it really shows all of us exactly WHO has a problem.

 

Split Infinity

You're the one that followed me to this topic just to troll me, so I'm obviously not the one with the problem.

[SplitInfinity]

You're the one that followed me to this topic just to troll me, so I'm obviously not the one with the problem.

 

I have posted on this topic that is why I came here.

 

You place way too much value upon upon yourself as far as someone replying to your posts.

 

Split Infinity

[SamBridge]

I have posted on this topic that is why I came here.

 

You place way too much value upon upon yourself as far as someone replying to your posts.

 

Split Infinity

Except you only posted directly after you posted in response to me in another topic where I showed you had no evidence to support your claims. Furthermore, I was not discussing much with you on this topic.

Edited May 30, 2013 by SamBridge

[SplitInfinity]

Except you only posted directly after you posted in response to me in another topic where I showed you had no evidence to support your claims. Furthermore, I was not discussing much with you on this topic.

 

Not that I intend to argue with you...when I checked out my content list Marx and Darwin were highlighted telling me that a new post had been added to this topic which I had not yet read.

 

The fact it was your post among a few others was just coincidence.

 

Are we getting a bit full of ourselves? LOL!

 

Split Infinity

[SamBridge]

Not that I intend to argue with you...when I checked out my content list Marx and Darwin were highlighted telling me that a new post had been added to this topic which I had not yet read.

 

The fact it was your post among a few others was just coincidence.

 

Are we getting a bit full of ourselves? LOL!

 

Split Infinity

You're the one who has the audacity to posts random rants without any evidence, I wouldn't be so sure that I'm the one full of myself.

[SplitInfinity]

You're the one who has the audacity to posts random rants without any evidence, I wouldn't be so sure that I'm the one full of myself.

 

Sam...I hope that someday you will come to realize it is not necessary to get yourself all worked up about what another person thinks, believes or feels.

 

Perhaps that persons logic or idealism or theories might be flawed or perhaps it is just a matter of your not liking what you read for whatever reason.

 

But to react and respond in the manner you have of late that does not take into account what another person might feel when you so blatantly disregard any manner of etiquette, civility or concern for your fellow human beings state is or might be...well...just my typing this has changed my feelings about you from irritated to concern as usually when a person acts in this manner there is another preexisting issue that will drive them to do so.

 

Good Luck.

 

Split Infinity

[SamBridge]

Sam...I hope that someday you will come to realize it is not necessary to get yourself all worked up about what another person thinks, believes or feels.

 

Perhaps that persons logic or idealism or theories might be flawed or perhaps it is just a matter of your not liking what you read for whatever reason.

 

But to react and respond in the manner you have of late that does not take into account what another person might feel when you so blatantly disregard any manner of etiquette, civility or concern for your fellow human beings state is or might be...well...just my typing this has changed my feelings about you from irritated to concern as usually when a person acts in this manner there is another preexisting issue that will drive them to do so.

Why would I be worked up in any way shape or form when all you do is rant on about random incoherent things and claim an uncivil tone to change the subject stifle providing evidence for your claims?

Edited May 30, 2013 by SamBridge

[SplitInfinity]

Why would I be worked up in any way shape or form when all you do is rant on about random incoherent things and claim an uncivil tone to change the subject stifle providing evidence for your claims?

 

As I said...

 

Good Luck.

 

Split Infinity

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

OK - Stop the off-topic snipes! Back to Marx and Darwin.

 

Discuss the topic, possibly criticise the content of other members posts, and refute arguments with evidence. Do not negatively characterise other posters and do not question fellow members posting motivation/honesty without very good reason.

 

If you believe a member has crossed the line and broken our rules (and I would ask that you have a quick check of the rules) report the post and a moderator will swing by to have a look-see once we have washed down the last of the cheese nips with a nice chianti. For the sake of clarity - arguing a point and continuing to do so is not against the rules as long as notice (not necessarily agreement) is taken of counter-arguments. By the way - threads are open to all members.

 

Do not continue to take this thread further from the OT by responding to this moderation in the thread. You can report it if you feel it was unwarranted or unfair.

 

 

[arc]

Again my sincere apologies, arc

[Ophiolite]

Hello all. I am the property manager of Rose Hill Estate in Long Island. I joined this forum to learn and gain some exposure for my rental. Thanks you! Looking forward to contributing.

I thought all real estate people new the three rules are Location! Location! Location!

 

I have news for you. This is the wrong location for your spam. If you seriously want to learn great. If you want to indulge in cheap - and pointless - advertising, then please go away. I hope it is the former, but your post leaves me pessimistic about that.

[arc]

Again my sincere apologies, arc

[SSDS]

I just read that when Marx first read Darwin's Origin of Species in 186o, he wrote to Engels that "although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view."

 

How does is "contain the basis in natural history for their view?"

 

Also, I know that socialists later rejected Darwin and were proponents of Lamarckism, can anyone explain why Lamarckism was more consistent with socialism than Darwinism?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The discussion “why Lamarckism was more consistent with socialism than Darwinism?” here evokes, for those who lived in the USSR, nothing else then a smile. There wasn’t, of course, so and Darwinism was “official” standard science that was learned in school; Lamarckism was considered first of all nothing else then as some base for religions in the atheistic country. But it would be incorrect to think that Marxism is correct when it is stated as the base of socialism / communism (or something else post-capitalistic), just because of it is the base of the main Marxism’s “historical materialism” dogma that “the human existence determinates the human’s consciousness”. So the main goal of Marxism’s doctrine is a realization of “the great principle” – “for everybody - every need, from everybody - what he can” (possibly in native English texts that sounds a little in other words). When just satisfaction of needs is the main goal of capitalism, and so the “real socialism” in full accordance with Marxism transformed eventually (and inevitably) in capitalism in former socialistic countries. So it turned out experimentally proven that in reality such approach is incorrect. To understand why it does so and what approach should be more correct is necessary to understand, that the humans’ evolution did not start at some mutation of some monkey and it will not end as the biological species “homo sapiens”. The evolution started at combining of some chemical substances into a cell and will continue as a coming of the human (more correct – human’s consciousness) out the subset “human’s Consciousness” to subsets “human’s Consciousness-1”, “human’s Consciousness-2”, etc. The “historical materialism” is true for the humans’ societies up to (including) capitalism only. Next (post-capitalistic) society will not be the society, where “the human existence determinates the human’s consciousness”, but there will be “the human’s consciousness determinates the human existence ”… More - see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 (paper “The Information as Absolute”)

 

Cheers