At 2:47 AM +0200 on 7/10/99, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
>>Not having to work to ensure one's survival is in opposition with one
>>reality shared by many cultures, especially puritanical and/or
>>economically-centered ones. (And in truth, it's the primary reality OC
>>will exist/compete for attention in.)
>>
>>But it is only one reality experienced at one level of consciousness.
>
>Rob,
>
> I always accept the fact that my view of life might be limited by the
>world I live in and by things like education and social surroundings. But
>actually, I wasn't aming at the fact that they didn't make money, I was
>pointing out the fact that the way communism was supposed to work
>(everybody works to his best ability and the community sees to the
>well-being of all) wasn't accepted by the people, because it made the
>assumption that everyone was only good. Marx completely ignored the fact
>that what makes us human is the ambiguity of good and bad, busy and lazy.
Of course people did not work to the best of their ability. The harder you
worked, the more you are robbed -- in theoretical communism. The less you
work, the greater the percentage of what you earn that you keep. THat is,
the less you are robbed. The only _logical_ conclusion one cna come to is
to be a lazy bum, unless one has managed to convince onself that slavery
and serfdom to the state is right. Which it's not, and never will be.
>
>>I was born in 1943, and didn't travel to Europe until 1966; so I can hardly
>>claim expertise as to the failure of Communism. I would say any system
>>whose philosophy includes the use of force to obtain converts is doomed to
>>fail eventually.
>
> Please do not mix up communism and what became reality under this name in
>the USSR. Marx' concepts were very different from the way it turned out in
>the end. What happened in the USSR is often referred to as socialism
>(which, again, isn't social democracy).
What happened to the soviet union is the only thing that can happen when
one tries to implement Marx's concepts: Starvation. Death. Destruction.
Downfall.
Marx takes resources from the able, the people who do innovate, and gives
it to the unable (or unwilling) who sit around and do nothing. Marx would
have Einstein invent relativity without paper, Eddison, the lightbulb,
phonograph, etc., without a lab, and Ford build a car without a factory.
After all, it is not "fair" if those people get those things and others
don't!
>
>>But probably not. There is a weakness in any social support system that
>>creates dependency. Some years ago 60 Minutes or some similar show
>>documented what happened to the quality of life in a South Sea island
>>fishing community that became totally dependent on US aid.
>>(...)
>>So altruism can actually be damaging to the recipient (surprise??...wasn't
>>it a major justification for the Inquisition?), and in such cases I guess
>>it must be the epitome of egoism.
>
> You are completely right. I never said altruism was a good thing (OTOH,
>please don't think I want to say it's bad either -- it's in between).
Well, it harms the supposed benafactor and the giver, so what else can it
be besides bad? I'll say it:
Altruism is bad. Altruism is evil. Altruism is the end of
civilization. Altruism is starvation. Altruism is the philosophy
of death.
>Or
>rather, from my viewpoint (seemingly objective to me) I believe real
>altrusim doesn't exist. But it's a concept that has been proven over and
>over again to be one of the best ways in some cases to keep a community
>alive.
Real altruism is working for your neighbors without any concern for
yourself. Real altruism is becomming your neighboors' slave. Real altruism
creates dependancy, destroys independance, and leaves an entire society in
a the state of slaves.
