Areactor Posted March 28, 2004 Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 According to the Youth for International Socialism site Human beings rose to the top of the food chain not by competing against each other and crushing one another in the struggle to "get ahead", but through cooperation. Only by cooperating were humans able to combine their resources to hunt, build shelters, and eventually domesticate plants, animals, develop pottery, build the pyramids, etc., etc. Just look at a human baby! Compared to a deer, which can stand up and run within minutes of birth, human young are totally helpless for years. Baby humans could not survive even a few days without the help of others! So you see, primitive humans needed to cooperate if they were to survive the elements, wild animals, find enough to eat, etc. For the vast majority of human existence, there were no classes, and we lived communally in small bands, dividing up the work and dividing up the wealth in the interests of everyone. And although on the surface is appears that nowadays we are all "individuals", the truth is we are even more dependant on literally thousands and even millions of other humans around the world. Can any one person design a car, mine and process the metals and other materials needed, build the factory, and the put together a car themselves? To even pose the question shows how absurd the idea is. And what about the gasoline to fuel it? Or the roads to drive it on? What about the food we eat? The list goes on and on - and we have only scratched the surface. Think about it carefully, and you will see that under capitalism, almost everyone is indirectly linked to everyone else through the world market and the exchange of commodities. We work together, live together, hang out together, go to the movies together, go to the park together, etc. Do we have police around 24 / 7 to make sure we don't all kill each other? Do we run around murdering each other "to get ahead"? If that were the case, then nothing would ever get done and we would all starve to death in a matter of days! So why do people have this strange idea that we are all "individuals"? Well, getting back to the first point we made, which is that conditions determine consciousness - the ruling class (the capitalists) do everything in their power to affect the way we think. Through our education, through the media, religion, etc., we are raised to have the values of the capitalist system. And what values are these? Precisely the "dog eat dog" attitude which states that the only way to get ahead is to stomp on your opponents. We are raised to look away and think nothing of the homeless, the starving, those killed in war, etc. - or at most to say a prayer for them and give a little "charity" to ease our conscience. http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/faq/human_nature.asp Now there's tons of arguements in this one quote but I believe the main idea is that Cooperation and Compeition are literally the anti-thesis of each other. How is that true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Geezer Posted March 28, 2004 Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 "Only by cooperating were humans able to combine their resources to ...build the pyramids, . "from Socialist article above LMAO how fitting that the socialists would give an example of LITERAL SLAVERY as "cooperation" On a more serious note, Desmond Morris has some worthwile reading on evolutionary theory and cooperation/competition (and how it came to be that human nature synthesized the two concepts) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areactor Posted March 28, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 LMAO how fitting that the socialists would give an example of LITERAL SLAVERY as "cooperation lol. I just realized that! After reading it again, it seems as if someone was to say that by mouth, they would murmur the pyramid part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Rexton Posted March 29, 2004 Report Share Posted March 29, 2004 Taking the argument seriously for a moment, how do the socialists base their assertion that man's life is the property of the state on the fact that humans are by nature social beings dependent on each other for long-term survival, happiness and prosperity? It's completely non sequitur, and yet people still--after a century of despotism, death and destruction from such an evil social engineering--actually believe it. The evasion is astounding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted March 29, 2004 Report Share Posted March 29, 2004 Back to the main point of this thread, just for a second, ... how exactly were the pyramids, aside from their being public works projects designed to create jobs in a foundering economy, in the interests of everyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areactor Posted March 29, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2004 Back to the main point of this thread, just for a second, ... how exactly were the pyramids, aside from their being public works projects designed to create jobs in a foundering economy, in the interests of everyone? That’s the thing, it isn't. A character in Atlas Shrugged who I love to hate is Ivy Starnes. I remember a part in the tramp’s story(The Chapter Sigh of the Dollar) when he mentioned Starnes giving out rations and how Starnes secretly had this deep rooted desire to rule and expel all those who opposed her. A worker who bad mouthed her had received fewer rations then he had received last time. From her eyes her delight showed. That’s the thing about every person who had rose to become a "leader of the common worker." They always end up ruling and expelling anyone they deem unworthy. That’s the kind of people the socialist system attracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Rexton Posted March 29, 2004 Report Share Posted March 29, 2004 "So you see, primitive humans needed to cooperate if they were to survive the elements, wild animals, find enough to eat, etc. For the vast majority of human existence, there were no classes, and we lived communally in small bands, dividing up the work and dividing up the wealth in the interests of everyone." Indeed, and for the vast majority of human existence, we were communists, living properously and happily and there was no poverty--unlike the last two centuries of industrial revolution when major portions of the population would be frequently wiped out by plagues, when the majority of children were not expect to live beyond their third birthday, when those who survived their childhood lived only up to their twenties toiling in fields for 18 hours a day everyday, when all people lived in clay houses or huts or caves, freezing to death in the winter, when there were no cures for any disease, when one died easily from cold, flu, if not killed by the weather or some wild animal, when we might be the unfortunate sacrificial offering to some god, when we were all slaves of some monarch without a life of our own, with nothing to do but suffer all kinds of diseases, starvation and abject misery in all our life and die without ever having truly lived. Yes, before capitalism, we had so much wealth to divided in the interest of everyone! If only we went back to the good old days of communal existence! Greedy, selfish, evil capitalists exploiting and impoverishing us all! How dare they uphold the value of the man's life and the power of his reason!? No individual is an end in himself! He is but a means for the ends of society! -------- On a more serious note, I am surprised how people can so easily be fooled by that line of reasoning--or by any line of reasoning in the brief passage you've quoted. I guess I haven't yet completely come to expect such nonsense from some people. I still get frustrated, impatient and indignant when I hear such things. How do you guys tolerate reading, hearing and listening to them? When I hear such tripe from my teachers and classmates it takes some effort on my part to stay calm and silent, knowing only that I would be ridiculed and ignored if I challange their claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areactor Posted March 29, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2004 In class last Friday, the topic of discussion was "Is the love of money the root of all evil?". On the overhead was the question and below it was the Bible verse. The teacher asked "if you believe the love of money is the root of all evil, raise your hand." This class is a class of around 27 students. What was more disgusting was the teachers indifference and succumbing to mysticism when she shrugs and says, "well it's from the bible." I was one out of four with my hand down. (Sighs) Anyway, to the main topic. Does Competition get in the way of cooperation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted March 29, 2004 Report Share Posted March 29, 2004 If it is human nature to exist scarequotes "communally" as per NewYouth, then it is human nature to exist below subsistence, as humanity has done in all its existence as primarily community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelical Capitalist Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Under capitalism, almost everyone is indirectly linked to everyone else... We are raised to have the values of the capitalist system. And what values are these? Precisely the "dog eat dog" attitude... They were right the first time; couldn't be more wrong in the second statement. It is, in fact, under a socialized system, where everything is owned by everyone and by no one, where every ounce of food one eats or clothing one wears is necessarily at the expense of someone else, that the "dog eat dog" principle applies. A capitalist system, under which everyone must produce the material values required for his survival or trade for them with others, encourages the kind of social existence conducive to human life. It is socialism, where everyone draws his material survival and creature comforts from a common pot, which encourages neighbors to regard each other as threats to be overcome, rather than partners in trade whose superior skills can benefit all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucentBrave Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 People oftentimes forget what makes up a team..... The author of that article has demonstrated this by starting her article with: "Human Beings" (individuals) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 That, and I don't pride myself most in that other things aren't eating me right now. Talk about a horrendous outlook on life. "Hey, I wasn't eaten by a lion today. How about you?" "Me, just my left arm. But my right arm's still good. I gave that bear a good whacking." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucentBrave Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Y Fledblum, Are you referring to my post? It wouldn't surprise me if there was something wrong with it. That seems to be the trend around here lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 "That" referred to your post, in the sense that both "that" and my point demonstrated a "horrendous outlook on life" on the part of NewYouth. Your post was perfectly fine - and some might say accurate . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucentBrave Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Woo Hoo!!...I'm making progress!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearster Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 Human beings rose to the top of the food chain not by competing against each other and crushing one another... Wow, so few words so many errors... First is a non-sequitor. The sentence begins with food chain and segues, as if smoothly, into competition. Men do not eat men. Second is package-dealing. "Competition" doesn't mean mortal combat. Third, zero-sum fallacy. There is not a finite quantity of food or other values in existence, that one man takes from others. Values are created (or destroyed) by men. "Competition" means each man is trying to be more productive than others, and even those who lose out are winners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmbivalentEye Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 "So why do people have this strange idea that we are all "individuals"? Well, getting back to the first point we made, which is that conditions determine consciousness " -From: Youtrh of International socialism quote AHHHH, THAT THING WAS EVIL! (the quote) It's like having to sit and read one of the speaches by Elsworth Toohey, or evn worse, one of those people from the "councils" of The Anthem. that is disturbing...that they actually beleive themselves. I can't really comment or answer to your post though, sorry. But the post itself did set an impact. I'm suddenly bothered.... people actually listen to stuff like that and think it's greatness?!? uhhh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.