Modern arguments for communism?

[ QUOTE ]
While teh actual working conditions have improved forthe working class (in america and the west perhaps) the essential problem of the working class has not been solved. The working class are still exploited for their labor and the upper classes still unjustly profit from the lower class labor. Because the upper class does it less overtly doesnt mean they working class has really gotten anywhere

[/ QUOTE ]

Exploitation only occurs when people are enslaved. Otherwise, they're working and receiving a market wage. This is not exploitation.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure, but thats a question of defination. To me the reasons behind the act of altruism don't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make any sense at all. Comitting an generous act for selfish reasons does not prove men are not inherently selfish. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

But if a generous act could only be done for your own gain, generousity couldn't exist in the way we're describing it. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[The Don]

The main difference between Adam Smith and Karl Marx...

Smith's primary intellectual tool: Logic

Marx's primary intellectual tool: Rhetoric


I could make up a word, we'll call it 'utterfailure'. The definition of this word is "any individual with a net worth under $10 million." Of course, the definition has nothing to do with what people will assume given the name. I, like Marx, chose this "arbitrarily."

This is the way Marx uses the word 'exploitation'. His definition has little to do with the one people are used to. It simply represents the clever manner in which Marx influences people through rhetoric.

Marx believes that the worker is not appropriately compensated for his labor, placing no weight on the value of capital in society. He does not give credit to the capitalist for using his mind (the most powerful tool to any individual in a capitalist system) to pool the resources necessary to provide employment for the worker. Instead, he believes that the worker is "exploited," regardless of the fact that the capitalist and worker enter an agreement in which both parties consent.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
It's just not going to work. No amount of education can overcome people's natural tendencies towards selfishness. I'm not a pessimist about people be a-holes but a certain level of selfishness is inborn and actually good in many regards.
Going to some classes is not going to wipe out hundreds of millions of years of evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

To use this argument you are going to have to prove that humans are inherrently selfish, which no one has yet to do.

Stating that children are selfish does not prove that all mankind is inherrently selfish this is easily explianed as a learned action from society.

[ QUOTE ]
But if a generous act could only be done for your own gain, generousity couldn't exist in the way we're describing it. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it could. I can perform a generous act because it makes me feel good to do it. I get an emotional benefit from it. This is not selfless. This is selfish and generous simultaneously.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's just not going to work. No amount of education can overcome people's natural tendencies towards selfishness. I'm not a pessimist about people be a-holes but a certain level of selfishness is inborn and actually good in many regards.
Going to some classes is not going to wipe out hundreds of millions of years of evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

To use this argument you are going to have to prove that humans are inherrently selfish, which no one has yet to do.

Stating that children are selfish does not prove that all mankind is inherrently selfish this is easily explianed as a learned action from society.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because it's already been done to death. Pick up an introductory psychology or sociology book.
And even if it wasn't everyone, you'd only need a small percentage of people slacking to screw everyone else.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
The main difference between Adam Smith and Karl Marx...

Smith's primary intellectual tool: Logic

Marx's primary intellectual tool: Rhetoric


I could make up a word, we'll call it 'utterfailure'. The definition of this word is "any individual with a net worth under $10 million." Of course, the definition has nothing to do with what people will assume given the name. I, like Marx, chose this "arbitrarily."

This is the way Marx uses the word 'exploitation'. His definition has little to do with the one people are used to. It simply represents the clever manner in which Marx influences people through rhetoric.

Marx believes that the worker is not appropriately compensated for his labor, placing no weight on the value of capital in society. He does not give credit to the capitalist for using his mind (the most powerful tool to any individual in a capitalist system) to pool the resources necessary to provide employment for the worker. Instead, he believes that the worker is "exploited," regardless of the fact that the capitalist and worker enter an agreement in which both parties consent.

[/ QUOTE ]

The agreement to which you refer is a dubious concept. The worker has to work or else he will starve, this is a pretty unfair situation for the worker to be in. To many it seems like borderline extortion, work or die. This is especially evident in smaller fields of work, ie mining towns in West Virgina. Here people are born into a situation where they have limited employment and almost no chance to escape to a larger market.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Here people are born into a situation where they have limited employment and almost no chance to escape to a larger market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like communism?

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's just not going to work. No amount of education can overcome people's natural tendencies towards selfishness. I'm not a pessimist about people be a-holes but a certain level of selfishness is inborn and actually good in many regards.
Going to some classes is not going to wipe out hundreds of millions of years of evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

To use this argument you are going to have to prove that humans are inherrently selfish, which no one has yet to do.

Stating that children are selfish does not prove that all mankind is inherrently selfish this is easily explianed as a learned action from society.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because it's already been done to death. Pick up an introductory psychology or sociology book.
And even if it wasn't everyone, you'd only need a small percentage of people slacking to screw everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Modern psychology has proven that man is man is an inherrently selfish creature? I doubt it. Your reference to evolution could be used to provethis worng in an instant, humans evolved to exist in groups, where they could work together in order to increase chances for survival. A selfish member would expose not only himself but the entire group to danger and would most likely be weeded out.

It doesn't matter if people are inherently selfish or not. All that matters is that people are not inherently selfless. I believe it's much easier to argue that people are selfish than it is to argue they're selfless. The only way a communist society could work or be justified as morally right is if every single person is selfless. This whole selfish/selfless argument is pretty silly anyway. I'm pretty sure most people would agree that almost no one is completely one or the other.