The Current Events/Issues Thread - Read the First Post

[wildnexu]

Quote:

---

meant those who volunteered for the military and went overseas to help even BEFORE we were directly attacked in Pearl Harbor.

---

I admire them.they recognized that Japan and the other axis powers were a threat to freedom everywhere.They went out to do something abou it instead f ignoring it and hoping it would go away.



Is it honorable to stand around and do nothing whentyrants cause sufferng and painto the inncent masses.



Peace is not only the absence of armed conflct but also the absence of oppression.The Cambodian people no longer had war after the US pull out in outheast Asia but they did not have peace.Thousands were massacered during "peace time".



Knowing Japaneese atrocites against civilian populations men like the Flying Tigers who volunteered to fight the Japaneese threat while this country stood on i thumbs have my admiration.



A true Warrior hates war but understands that peace without freedom is meaningless.

Quote:

---

Sorry, one more brief comment from me, because my brain's so full of economics it must spill over somewhere.



4% unemployment is pretty damn good and is actually considered full employment or at least close to it. I don't know the actual natural rate off-hand, but I think it's somewhere around there or maybe a little less? I dunno. But, this is because there is always at least a little bit of unemployment. There is no zero unemployment, because there's always gonna be some people who are in transition between jobs.

---

thank you Mandy.



4% is wonderful.)% unemployment isonly possible therough communismand we see how well that worked in eastern Europe.



The gap between the Rich and poor is growing however,It is part greedy pseudoconservatives exploiting the conservative beliefs that benefit them and forgetting about the others(the arline owners did not seem to mind goverment intervention in buissness when John and Jane Q Taxpayer bailed them out so the Head cheeses could all take a raise) and part failed liberal social engineering that has whole generations trapped in a cycle of dependecy.



Both phislosiphies have flaws and advantages.

Quote:

---

Now, if I were under attack myself, just sitting here minding my own business, and someone or some force came at me intending me grievous harm or death, hell yeah, I'd blow them the fuck up if I could. But we aren't exactly minding our own business in Iraq, are we? Who invaded whom there? Who are the aggressors there? Who is defending what, exactly?

---

i do not agree with the conduct of th war and hate being lied to but Human Liberty is our Buissness.



so what do we do sit back and let riuthess dicatotors fill mass graves?



Although the execution has been botched and the way Bush got the go ahead scks what we are doing in Iraq is no less humanitarian than Clinton's action's in Kosovo.



The notion that force never solved anyting is just not real.



Saddam was contained,he was not a threat.tell that to the eople in the mass graves



How can we sit back smug in our liberties and do nothing when there is a world of injustice.I believe injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.Do you think the Taliban was going to step down from power and treat femaes as human eings on their own.



My Uncle is a devout qauker who served in Nam.He never carried a gu as a concie medc but he saved many a life and got a Bronze Star and purple heart for wading into the middle ofa rice paddy and pulling two wounded ARVN soliders out of harm's way. He can't get a MRI becuase of the shrapnel still in his back.



He hates killing but he served and saved lives.



My dad wakes up screaming from his nightmares that the people he killed in Nam are coming for him.He sounds like a heartless killer to you?





So if somebody threatened you you would blow the fuck out fo them bt you would do nothing to help others enjoy the liberties many of us take for granted?i don't understand that.



It would be great if all conflcts can be solved by talikng.That would be great.



For the record i admire pacifists.I just believe there are thins worth fighting and even killing for.





My cousin Kara drives me craz,even though i admire her committment to her principals.y.She was attacked by a creep and raped.She got up on the stand an urged leniency if e would seek help and stay in treatent.



Part of me still would like to do a slow death three shot to the bastard who raped me.



Kara invited the dudes who where trying to inteerut her committment ceremony to come and join in.All but one hghtailed.The other stayed and actually apologized for his hate.I admire her.I used to be a self hating homophobe,I knew how these guys where trouble.i thought she was crazy but she was right.



part of the way I believe can be credited with how i wasraised.I was spanked for walki9ng away from fights.Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth s all I have ever known.



Tabby

Edited by: wildnexu at: 6/10/04 11:54 am

[justin]

Quote:

---

4% is wonderful.)% unemployment isonly possible therough communismand we see how well that worked in eastern Europe.

---

Except we don't since those countries were never actually communist.

"To mess up a Linux box you need to work at it; to mess up a Windows box you just need to work on it."

[Diebrock]

Quote:

---

Saddam was contained,he was not a threat.tell that to the eople in the mass graves

---

You realize that Saddam's mass graves where filled at a time when the West was blowing money and weapons up Saddam's ass because he was their friend and was helping to kill those pesky Iranians (in the case of the Kurds), and after Bush senior urged the Shiites and Kurds to rise up against Saddam and then stood by and let them be slaughtered by the thousands?

Then, I would have understood intervention. But funny thing, when it might have made a difference, the US was silent.



Find me a link to mass graves after 1991. I think you will find them starting again in 2003.

_________________

Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Gatito Grande]

I really hate discussing my pacifist beliefs. Not because they are unpopular---Kieli, I can't believe you're seriously contending that "general" assertion re the U.S. (though I'm sure I could find a Gallup poll if you really insist)---but because I've come to the uncomfortable conclusion that it may be nigh-impossible to persuade anyone of their validity. It may (note, "may") be a nature over nurture sort of thang (or at least set by later childhood). Either one believes that for one's self to kill another human being is, literally, the worst possible outcome, bar none, or you don't. Some other principle, either abstract ("freedom" ) or concrete ("What if someone was attacking your child???" ), trumps it.



The word "pacifism" itself may be hopelessly subject to misinterpretation. Its resemblence to "passive"---combined w/ the fact that too many "pacifists" have in fact been passive in the face of injustice---invokes in the majority POV that pacifists, out of either apathy or cowardice, Do Nothing (or worse, expect others to do their fighting for them).



While a pacifist like myself may cry unto the heavens "Gandhi! My model/teacher is Gandhi!" that still may be insufficient to dissuade others that one's basic response to injustice (esp. when violent) is to hide away and hope for the best. For those who even have a fairly solid understanding of Gandhi's role in India's nonviolent struggle for independence from Britain, the fact that it was *Britain* they were struggling against is cited as a mitigating factor in satyagraha's effectiveness: "If Gandhi had tried that against Hitler, it woulda been 600 million Indians, not 6 million Jews, wiped out."



Arguing against hypotheticals is a no-win game. I obviously have no way to prove what would have happened if Hitler had invaded India in the way he did Eastern Europe (though the few examples of Gandhian-type nonviolence against the Nazis were quite effective). Nor can I literally answer the most common "What if?", some permutation of "What if [worst person ever] was ax-murdering [person who is best/most innocent/most loved by myself]? What would you do?"



My standard response (should I be baited into this game) is to say "I hope I would physically insert myself between [worst] and [best]."* But that rarely (if ever) convinces my interrogator, presumably because my non-violent bodily intervention does not give the same assurance (satisfaction?) than if I said "Well, I'd take a gun and blow [worst's] head off!"



I always wonder, is there some metaphysical supposition that, if my satyagraha merely resulted in me getting *my* head lopped off, along w/ that baby's, said baby [theoretical "best/most loved" person, whatever] is going to be confronting me somewhere, saying "Why the heck didn't you blow Ax-Wielding Hitler's head off? We could be having this conversation, living and breathing, over AWH's corpse!" Then again, if one believes there will be no post-mortem conversations of any sort, one might come to the conclusion that there just isn't any fate worse than death (one's own, or the extension of one's own in those one loves most: family, tribe, country). How the heck would I prove otherwise there?



It goes back, more or less, to "Them's my beliefs/gut intuition/conscience/leap-o-faith: like Luther, 'Here I stand, I can do no other,'" and leave it at that.



GG Good googly-moogly, this is morphing from Politics to Scary Religion, so shutting up now! Out



* Last week, I saw the movie Troy: it provides a sobering example of when romantic principle (in this case, Prince Paris's) gives way to "I really don't want to die!"

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 6/10/04 2:16 pm

[wildnexu]

Quote:

---

Then, I would have understood intervention. But funny thing, when it might have made a difference, the US was silent.

---

I agree.I was furious.I understand why Bush SR. did not go in,but to get the Iraq resistance stirred up and then to stand by and do nothing while they were slaughtered pissed me off..That is one of many reasons i voted for Clinton (that was a mistake).



to be honest I am probaly going to vote for Nadar.I do not see eye to eye on a lot of issues with him,but I respect him immensely.



If it were not for nadar running I would probally vote none of the above.



contrary to popular belef I am not a Bush fan.Watching him reminds me of Disney's old goofy shorts.I am a slightly right of center conservative and on the issues that he needs to be closer to left of center(gay marriage)he is ultra right ad on the issues were he needs to be on the right,(small goverment,entilement programs that sound good but do not work,sorry AARP but his medicare package is a crock.,he has sold conservatives out.He actually ordered the RNC to make sure the son of a conservative retiring senator did not get elected becuase the Senator would not vote his way



Instead of calling the Senatr on the carpet and taking him on man to man,he strikes through the son.



Compassionate Conservativism is not an oxymoron.



unfortunately idgits like the Heritage foundation,NRA and wubya have not a clue what it s.



I support the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms but telling parents of kids killed by firearms that common sense gun control laws would not have saved there kids was a scum sucker thingto do.although I agree we need to enforce the laws on the books closing the gun show loophole and banning assault weapos are good things.The only thing I would add is we need to set a definition of assault weapon that is not so broad it changes every other week and turns law abidng gun owners whoese weapons were legal when they purchased them into criminals.



Under the current laws a semi auto 22. can be construed as an assault weapon.





Back to Iraq.

I thought we needed to do something yestreday,this half ass disorganized mess is not what I had in mind.Our soliders are fighting well enough to get things accomplished but our idiot CaC structure over there keeps getting in their way.



Either let them win the peace and do their job or bring them home.



We have the best trained,best euipped(when we have competent supply officers)Army in the world.Unfortunatey the leadership is lacking.



.

In Nam we would take a hill at great cst of lfe and let the VC and NVA have it right back only to waste more life the next day,gve it back again and retake it the next day.We are repeating the same docy in Iraq.



sorry to ramble



Tabby

[wildnexu]

Quote:

---

Furthermore, as long as the United States has had military power, it has turned a blind eye to atrocities all over the world. Why did we ignore the genocide in Rwanda

---

The US miltary has no power to set policy.Policy is sat by the elected cvilian officials.the decisio to use military Force

shoud be the US congresses call.



Unfortunately they have abdicated their repnsibilty through the unconstitutional war powers act.



The presdent should not be abe to deploy the US military in a offensive capabilty without a formal declaration of war.The only exception should be when our nationals are in danger in other parts of the world she should be allowed to send troops in no longer to get our pepe's out of harm's way.





I have been wandering why we have people screaming about reparations for slavery but we are content to sit back and let muslims enslave and murder Christians in the Sudan.



I will make an admssion.We suck as administartors.



Our troops are trained to win the war,not keep te peace.



I also have to admit Bush made a huge mistake not arranging for a better peace keeping team.



Defense should never had been in charge of administering the country.Rumsfeild cannt stand Powell so State has been shoved to the side.In every way that really and truely matters the US military is running Iraq.The civilian adminstrator is nothing more than a figurehead.



Leave war to the warriors,leave civil administration to the beauracrats.That s what they do.



Also there was no reason to conduct the war the wa we did.The Kosovo air campaign was the model how to affect change within a country without committing air power.



also the WMD thing was a mistake,Iraq had been violating the conditions of the cease fire for years.



I am not a huge fan of the UN when it coems to using miltary force when nessecary but they kick bootie at humanitarian and civil aid.



In Rwanda,Sudan,Somalia and other countries where tere are atrocities going on If it were up to me i would send the US marines backed up by the British SAS,Naval Seals and Us and Nato Air power.I woud use the Marines and Airpower to secure a safe zone that any who are willing to come can go and get fed and protected but where ethnic violence will not be toerated.After the area was secured I would then rotate our forces out in favor of multinational peace keepers.



the UN would be in charge of taking care of the victims and the US and then allied military forces would keep the enemy forces away.



The problem with most UN(and US )peace keeping efforts is they think to big.Instead of invasion and the no fly zone if the coalition had went in and set up southern and nothern safe zones in Iraq in 91 a lot of innocents would have



If Bush trully was concerned about innocent Iraqs this woud have been the way to go.It would be expensive but not as expensive as nation building and the loss of innocent life would be far less.



The main problem woud be a tyrant woud try to stop his people from getting to the safe zone.That is where the special operators come in.



Tabby

[darkmagicwillow]

---

Furthermore, as long as the United States has had military power, it has turned a blind eye to atrocities all over the world. Why did we ignore the genocide in Rwanda

---

The US miltary has no power to set policy.

---

---

True, but the quote above says nothing about military directly setting policy. The problems with a powerful, offensive force--750 overseas bases, 14 carrier battle groups--are that such a military is hideously expensive and thus must justify its existence and that it's such a handy tool for whoever's in power at the time. The only way to keep the US out of trouble is to downsize its offensive capability.



In any case, the US can't afford to spend 10X the next nation's military budget forever, so it's going to have to cut that spending eventually. The SS "fund" supports much of the US government's deficit spending by buying treasury bonds, but that's going to stop in the next couple of decades. The fed will have to try to sell more treasury bonds abroad when that happens, but that will depress the dollar, and the US is tremendously dependent on the US dollar being the world's reserve currency. If the dollar was no longer the reserve currency, then the US would no longer be able to run its huge trade deficit, and that's going to cause a lot of economic problems.



The question is whether the US is smart enough to stop spending early enough to avoid the kinds of problems Spain faced after bankrupting itself (the state literally went bankrupt...twice in one century) by funding wars all over Europe to defend Catholicism.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[yana]

justin said:

Quote:

---

Except we don't since those countries were never actually communist.

---

Well, there hasn't been a real communist state ever because all the principles go against human nature. But we do in fact see how well that turned out since many many states have tried communism and haven't managed to get it right. It's just not a viable idea as there are too many individuals that try to take advantage of it.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I am not sure about the former."

--Albert Einstein

[dekalog]

Yana why do you say that it is a fact that communism goes against human nature? Can you please explain this. I don't really feel you can just say this and leave it without backing it up. Could you also please add whether you believe the same could be said of capitalism?



Just for reference from Wikipedia!:



Communism in its original meaning is a social theory and political movement for the direct and communal control of society towards the common benefits of all members, the society being the communist society.



Capitalism generally refers to a combination of economic practices that became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, especially involving the centrality of wage labor and the formation and trade in ownership of corporations for buying and selling goods, especially capital goods (including land and labor power), in a relatively free (meaning, free from state control) market; competing (and contentious) theories that developed in the 19th century, in the context of the industrial revolution, and 20th century, in the context of the Cold War, meant to justify the private ownership of capital, to explain the operation of such markets, and to guide the application or elimination of government regulation of property and markets

and beliefs about the advantages of such practices.



There has been a lot of talk of facts lately in this thread that seem to have more to do with opinions and regional beliefs. That is fine - everyone has and is entitled to them but can we please refrain from calling them facts because they suit our own interests.



edited because I made a oppsie with spelling a word.

Edited by: dekalog at: 6/15/04 3:59 am

[darkmagicwillow]

Human nature is not as simple as either capitalist or communist economic theory claims that it is. When Kahneman was awarded the 2002 "Nobel" Prize in Economics for integrating simple facts about human decision making under uncertainty to the overly simple view of the completely rational and knowledgeable greedy capitalist man, it made it pretty obvious just how threadbare the model of human nature used by capitalist economists was. The communist model of human nature is no better, with its focus on the tabula rasa model.



The question "capitalism or communism?" is fundamentally flawed. If economics is ever to be a science, we need an economic theory developed from evolutionary biology-based psychology and sociology.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 6/15/04 5:41 am

[dekalog]

dmw I actually wasn't posing the question as an either or one. I was posing the question to see if Yana's issue with communism was that it was a man made theory with flaws due to human enactment of the theory and therefore applicable to capitalism as well or if her views were based on emotional and historical bias against one form of man made theory over another.



I've been reading this thead for awhile now and have seen the word fact used over and over in questionable contexts. Relating the word fact to human nature throws up all kinds of flags for me, and I felt I needed to challenge Yana's statement.



dmw - sorry - I guess with this cold I'm feeling vunerable

Edited by: dekalog at: 6/15/04 8:02 am

[darkmagicwillow]

I understood what you were saying, dekalog. My post wasn't intended as a direct reply to yours, but as a general contribution to the thread started by yana's post.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

The question "capitalism or communism?" is fundamentally flawed. If economics is ever to be a science, we need an economic theory developed from evolutionary biology-based psychology and sociology.

---

Agreed...but even science is flawed to some degree. This is something that people need to realize. There are some measured truths in science. However, IMHO, psychology and sociology are inexact sciences. There are always exceptions to what is "observed". And economics is already a science, from what I can tell. There is a good website that tries to simplify the explanation of the discipline of economics and what not: www.eco.nm.ru/



I do agree that we need an economic theory that is more in-tune with that patterns of human behaviour. As far as I can tell, the focus has been mostly on the societal aspects...however, I have been noticing that there has been at least some attempts to move in the direction of which you speak. Check out this list of sites for more info: dir.yahoo.com/Social_Science/Economics/Behavioral_Economics/

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

Edited by: Kieli  at: 6/15/04 9:01 am

[yana]

Dekalog: I used a common expression, "in fact," to mean something like "actually," not to mean "this is set in stone and I know it." I was under the impression that that was the appropriate usage of it, but I guess you can't learn everything about a language in 14 years.



However, the current information about communism and its many MANY failed incarnations over the past century do tell us something. The reason I think it's against human nature is that, no matter where you go, there's someone that's going to want more than what is allotted to them by the system and they're going to be able to manipulate the system to get it. It doesn't have to be everyone. Just a few individuals would do it to ruin the system. Additionally, people tend to get really resentful of working 10 times as hard as someone else and getting exactly the same thing. There's no carrot and stick in communism, at least not in any of the places it's been tried. I could go on with other examples if you'd like.



Furthermore, I think capitalism works quite well, and by that I mean it functions as it is originally intended, not that it's absolutely wonderful for everyone in a capitalist economy. That's all I was saying to begin with about communism: it's not viable. I think if it were, it would be very beneficial.



I'm also curious about these "regional beliefs" that you mention. What exactly are you referring to?

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I am not sure about the former."

--Albert Einstein

[dekalog]

Regional beliefs meaning beliefs that are held at a local & or regional level. As an example how someone in the United States (or a State) would look at or believe something differently than from someone in another part of the world strictly because of their upbringing or living in that region for a period of time. I also wanted to make clear that it wasn't just your post I was refering to.



Thanks for taking the time to explain your pov. I still don't understand how human nature causes communism to work against it but allows capitalism to work - I think your argument would work against both.



Personally I agree that both are flawed and that we do need to work on getting ourselves a different system.



edited to fix the glaring typo

Edited by: dekalog at: 6/15/04 9:58 am

[Kieli]

Yana, if you spoke to a native Russian who was raised under Communist rule (depending on the position of the native), they might disagree with your assessment of Communism. IMHO, both communism and capitalism have their faults but neither are "against human nature". Communism's goal was to eliminate classism and focus on community sharing of property, duties and responsibilities. Webster's dictionary defines communism as

Quote:

---

"A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.

---

Honestly, that's not a bad ideal....too bad that, in the grand scheme of things and knowing how human nature can be, this goal is virtually unattainable.



Capitalism is defined as:

Quote:

---

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

---

One can see that these are polar opposites of each other...total ends of a spectrum of philosophy. They're not necessarily against human nature per se, just wholly unattainable in and of themselves. There can be no pure economic "ism" in a society. Human behaviour is rarely so black and white and rarely tolerates such extremes whether it be in philosophy or in political structures.



So to just single out communism as being "against human nature" is probably not quite accurate or even a proper assessment.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[justin]

Quote:

---

However, the current information about communism and its many MANY failed incarnations over the past century do tell us something.

---

One possible explanation for the failure of communism in those countries that have tried it is they were all AFAIK preindustrial nations with basically feudal economies.



However according to what Marx wrote Communism could only succeed in those countries which had undergone an industrialisation and which had a capitalist economy. This stage was necessary in order to build up the pruduction processes needed in order to make communism viable.



This is why he encouraged communists to work alongside capitalists in those countries.



Then again while Communism has failed in those countries that identify themselves as being communist, it has succeeded to a degree in countries that identify themselves as being Capitalist. While the state school system and national health service may have seen better days they are something I'm proud of and are both things recommended by the communist manifesto.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, I think capitalism works quite well, and by that I mean it functions as it is originally intended, not that it's absolutely wonderful for everyone in a capitalist economy.

---

Well that depends on what was origionaly intened. I'd argue that it's not a case of not being wonderful for everyone, but is in fact only wonderful for a small group of people. Also there are a lot of people for whom it's pretty much terrible. Some of the worst problems are:



The economy seems to constantly be on a knife edge. Economists are always telling us we need to save more but if we start to spend less then they start warning us that we're on the brink of a recession. In effect we need to both save more and spend more.



There are large populations of the world who are barely better off than slaves. However if the people employing them did pay them a decent wage then it would mean either reducing their profits or having to increase their prices, either of which would have a negative impact on the economy of the exploiting country.



But this is the root problem with Capitalism. It is based on exploitation. It is impossible (or at least very hard) for one person to prosper without someone else losing out.



Of course this is all IMHO and I understand that YMMV.

"To mess up a Linux box you need to work at it; to mess up a Windows box you just need to work on it."

[Gatito Grande]

Re Communism and Capitalism in actual (historical) practice, I see very little difference: they're both predicated on violence to back them up.



Capitalism: "We, w/ badges and guns behind us, declare that the market is god. Challenge that ("I work harder/have less than my neighbor Bornrich does---think I'll help myself to some of his goodies"), and we'll bust your ass."



Communism: "We, w/ badges and guns behind us, declare that the Communist Party is god. Challenge that ("I work harder/have less than my neighbor Apparatchik does---think I'll help myself to some of his goodies"), and we'll bust your ass."



However, I originally wanted to comment on this, by dmw:

Quote:

---

If economics is ever to be a science, we need an economic theory developed from evolutionary biology-based psychology and sociology.

---

I'm not refuting this, but I am questioning it, for this simple fact (pardon, dekalog! ): virtually everything I've read/seen regarding "evolutionary biology-based" human behavior, has been about one thing, heterosexual boinking and baby-making. Again and again, everything boils down to "passing on genes" via "successful reproductive strategies." Why should I pay attention to theories which seemingly have no interest in why queer people (among other animals) like myself exist . . . and have always existed?



GG See for example Helen Fisher (no relation to Yours Truly) Out

[darkmagicwillow]

---

I'm not refuting this, but I am questioning it, for this simple fact (pardon, dekalog! ): virtually everything I've read/seen regarding "evolutionary biology-based" human behavior, has been about one thing, heterosexual boinking and baby-making. Again and again, everything boils down to "passing on genes" via "successful reproductive strategies." Why should I pay attention to theories which seemingly have no interest in why queer people (among other animals) like myself exist . . . and have always existed?

---

Returning to the word fact, evolution is a simple fact--the change in allele frequencies over a population--as much as gravity is a fact. Note the absence of the mention of individual reproduction in that fact. There are, of course, theories explaining both facts, natural selection and sexual selection being among those for evolution, and general relativity for gravity.



Actually, there's always been quite a bit of interest in the existence of homosexuality in the evolutionary biology community. It's also a common tactic for fundamentalists to use their claimed lack of a connection between homosexuality and evolution either as an indictment of evolution (how could it explain homosexuality?) or as an indictment of homosexuality (it's unnatural.) Of course, they're wrong, homosexuality is natural and fits well into our understanding of evolution.



Homosexuals can and do have children, but they do have fewer children than heterosexuals, which given the assumption that homosexuality is purely genetic would naively seem to indicate that given a sufficient number of generations there would be no more homosexuals. Of course, homosexuality isn't a pure or simple genetic trait. See the Lesbian hand thread for some discussion of the iatrogenic, as opposed to genetic, nature of lesbianism. Scientists also aren't going to ever find a single allele responsible for homosexuality; all indications are that it's a complex set of alleles. The only way that all of those alleles would be selected out of the population would be if none of them enhance survival on their own, which is highly unlikely.



But what if the 1 in a billion chance was the case, and none of those alleles had any purpose outside of causing someone to be attracted to members of the same sex. Would that cause a problem? No. Look back up at the definition of the fact of evolution and recall the absence of individual reproduction from it. Your siblings share as many of your genes with you as your children do. Genetically, two nieces or nephews surviving to reproductive age is equivalent to one son or daughter surviving to reproductive age, so if homosexuality enhances the chances of your siblings' or cousins' children surviving to reproductive age (and there are a number of papers supporting that argument), then it will be selected for, regardless of the fact that it reduces your own probability of having children. This is called kin selection, and it's also responsible for the evolution of altruism.



If kin selection seems unlikely to you, examine the example of the most extreme case of kin selection: the social insects. The vast majority of the colony's individuals, the workers, have been selected not to have children. Only one individual does, the queen. Why? Due to an oddness of social insect genetics, the workers are more closely related to their siblings, the queen's children, than to their own children, so it's disadvantageous to the worker's genes for the workers to have children instead of the queen. Humans don't share that genetic quirk, so we aren't as selflessly devoted to our tribes as the social insects are to their colonies, but we are devoted enough to give up our lives in certain situations.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 6/15/04 1:08 pm

[yana]

dekalog said:

Quote:

---

Thanks for taking the time to explain your pov. I still don't understand how human nature causes communism to work against it but allows capitalism to work - I think your argument would work against both.

---

Well, the way I look at it is this (this is a very simplified version): capitalism exploits human traits such as selfishness and greed, whereas communism tries to exploit human traits such as generosity and altruism. When you have the latter in capitalism, it doesn't screw up the system, whereas when you have the former in communism, it definitely screws it up. This is why I say communism is against human nature while capitalism is not.



Kieli wrote:

Quote:

---

Yana, if you spoke to a native Russian who was raised under Communist rule (depending on the position of the native), they might disagree with your assessment of Communism.

---

Well, of course they may disagree, particularly depending on who was (or they thought was) listening at the time. The likelihood of a native Russian having grown up with communism actually liking it is miniscule. If you sampled a random portion of the population, at least 98% of them would probably tell you that it sucks, it doesn't work, etc. Actually, I don't have to talk to ANYONE in Mother Russia (although I have). From all the people who grew up under communism that I have had contact with (and that would be quite a few, including myself, my entire family, friends, etc.), absolutely no one liked it unless they were a high ranking member of the Party.



Communism is idealistic, and much better on paper than lots of other things (such as capitalism), but it just doesn't work as an overall strategy.



justin opined:

Quote:

---

Well that depends on what was origionaly intened. I'd argue that it's not a case of not being wonderful for everyone, but is in fact only wonderful for a small group of people. Also there are a lot of people for whom it's pretty much terrible.

---

This is very true. However, it's still far more wonderful than any of the failed communistic experiments that have been occurring. Take, for example, the differences in East and West Germany when the Berlin Wall fell. Both areas started on a level playing field almost 50 years before. East Germany was doing so poorly that it economically sucked down the west part of the country quite badly once they reunited.



I do think that a correct mix of communist and capitalist ideals could be quite good for a greater percentage of people. We just have to figure out how to do it first...

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I am not sure about the former."

--Albert Einstein

[darkmagicwillow]

---

And economics is already a science, from what I can tell. There is a good website that tries to simplify the explanation of the discipline of economics and what not: http://www.eco.nm.ru

---

That site was down when I checked.



From the point of view of this scientist, most of the body of work called economics lacks the two essential characteristics of a science: following the scientific method and consilience with the other sciences. Instead of having consilience, most economic models are based on crude ideals of human nature, and it's obviously difficult to perform reproducible experiments on economic systems.

---

I do agree that we need an economic theory that is more in-tune with that patterns of human behaviour. As far as I can tell, the focus has been mostly on the societal aspects...however, I have been noticing that there has been at least some attempts to move in the direction of which you speak.

---

I agree that economics is moving in this direction (see my cite of the 2002 "Nobel" economics prize above), but it has a long way to go, and modern applications of both capitalist and communist theory lag behind those developments.

---

Communism is idealistic, and much better on paper than lots of other things (such as capitalism), but it just doesn't work as an overall strategy.

---

Capitalism is as idealistic about human nature as communism is; neither is realistic. I think the difference you're grasping for is that capitalism is based on a pessimistic ideal of human nature, while communism is based on an optimistic ideal. However, capitalism is optimisticly idealist about the corrective power of the "invisible hand" of the market.

---

If you sampled a random portion of the population, at least 98% of them would probably tell you that it sucks, it doesn't work, etc.

---

If you polled them immediately after the fall of communism, maybe I could believe numbers that high, though I don't recall any (do you have a cite?), but I've read surveys of inhabitants of Russia and the former East Germany printed in The Economist in the years since then and large numbers of those who grew up under their former governments have become disenchanted with their current ones. I don't recall the percentages of the disenchanted, but it was much higher than 2%.

---

From all the people who grew up under communism that I have had contact with (and that would be quite a few, including myself, my entire family, friends, etc.), absolutely no one liked it unless they were a high ranking member of the Party.

---

Are they comparing their past lives in the USSR with current lives in the US, UK, or another similar country, or are they comparing past lives in the USSR with lives in current Russia? That's a big difference and it's more than just communism vs capitalism; I could believe 98% of those who emigrated to the West would prefer it to the old USSR.

---

I do think that a correct mix of communist and capitalist ideals could be quite good for a greater percentage of people. We just have to figure out how to do it first...

---

Well, both the EU countries and the US governments operate differing degrees of socialist programs. There are pluses and minuses to both systems, though they're not as simple as the unemployment numbers often cited to show the US is doing better (countries count unemployment in different ways, so the US numbers are always an undercount compared to the European numbers.)

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 6/16/04 4:44 am

[Kieli]

dmw: I've checked the site since you've mentioned it and had no problems getting to it. Reposting just in case: www.eco.nm.ru/.



I disagree with your assessment about the study of economics not following the scientific method. As a scientist myself, I've noticed that economic researchers tend to have a mostly mathematical POV when examining evidence. Most economical models (especially with the help of Dr. John Nash, the subject of the movie A Beautiful Mind, although most of his work initially centered around game theory, his Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 was in his contributions to economic sciences) The Economic Science Association is among several organizations that treat economics "like a science" using controlled, observable experiments on economic behaviour. The Economic Science Laboratory at the University of Arizona is one of the leading laboratories that studies economic behaviour. So I am hard pressed to accept your argument that the study of economics "lacks the essential characteristics of science". On what evidence are you basing your argument? Or is this just an opinion? On what are you basing your premise that economics lacks consilience?

Quote:

---

I agree that economics is moving in this direction (see my cite of the 2002 "Nobel" economics prize above), but it has a long way to go, and modern applications of both capitalist and communist theory lag behind those developments.

---

It is my observation that the study of economics if moving away from such cut and dried definitions...it seems to me as if there is more of an attempt to find a way to blend global economies to make them more stable and viable. Applying those two outmoded theories does not seem like a practical solution anymore.

Quote:

---

Well, of course they may disagree, particularly depending on who was (or they thought was) listening at the time. The likelihood of a native Russian having grown up with communism actually liking it is miniscule. If you sampled a random portion of the population, at least 98% of them would probably tell you that it sucks, it doesn't work, etc. Actually, I don't have to talk to ANYONE in Mother Russia (although I have). From all the people who grew up under communism that I have had contact with (and that would be quite a few, including myself, my entire family, friends, etc.), absolutely no one liked it unless they were a high ranking member of the Party.

---

yana: You're making the same mistake that American pollsters do...trying to assume that, because one has gotten the opinions of an EXTREMELY SMALL portion of a rather large population, that is not necessarily an indicator that ALL members of said population, or even a significant amount, share said opinion. Ahh statistics...I wish people understood them better and would misuse them. I actually know several native Russians, who weren't of means, that preferred communism to the present state of Mother Russia. So apparently your argument isn't quite valid.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[justin]

Quote:

---

capitalism exploits human traits such as selfishness and greed, whereas communism tries to exploit human traits such as generosity and altruism

---

And there's the problem, it doesn't just exploit selfishness and greed, it encourages them.

Quote:

---

Take, for example, the differences in East and West Germany when the Berlin Wall fell. Both areas started on a level playing field almost 50 years before.

---

But did they start on a level playing field? IANAH so take this with a pinch of salt, but ISTR that countries like France and Britiain got a lot of financial support after the war to help them rebuild whereas Russia got none. So it seems likely that west Germany would have recieved a lot more aid then east Germany.



Though I agree with the remarks that a purely communist system is as unrealistic as a purely capitalist one. Though I have the feeling that merging them will be as hard as merging general relativity with quantum mechanics.

"To mess up a Linux box you need to work at it; to mess up a Windows box you just need to work on it."

[yana]

dmw wrote:

Quote:

---

If you polled them immediately after the fall of communism, maybe I could believe numbers that high, though I don't recall any (do you have a cite?), but I've read surveys of inhabitants of Russia and the former East Germany printed in The Economist in the years since then and large numbers of those who grew up under their former governments have become disenchanted with their current ones. I don't recall the percentages of the disenchanted, but it was much higher than 2%.

---

What does being disenchanted with current goverment have to do with liking communism? When your country is poor and you're not living a good life, you're likely to be disenchanted with ANY government because they're not making your life better. What I was referring to were people during communism. And no, I do not have a cite. I only have years of using my own two eyes and ears.



Also, after the fall of communism a lot of countries started out very rough. The economies completely collapsed, a bad time was had by all. However, given enough time, most of them have recovered and are doing much better than they ever did in the communist era.

Quote:

---

Are they comparing their past lives in the USSR with current lives in the US, UK, or another similar country, or are they comparing past lives in the USSR with lives in current Russia? That's a big difference and it's more than just communism vs capitalism; I could believe 98% of those who emigrated to the West would prefer it to the old USSR.

---

Again, it wasn't a comparison. See above.



Kieli said:

Quote:

---

You're making the same mistake that American pollsters do...trying to assume that, because one has gotten the opinions of an EXTREMELY SMALL portion of a rather large population, that is not necessarily an indicator that ALL members of said population, or even a significant amount, share said opinion. Ahh statistics...I wish people understood them better and would misuse them. I actually know several native Russians, who weren't of means, that preferred communism to the present state of Mother Russia. So apparently your argument isn't quite valid.

---

Well, I guess since I just made up a number for the sake of argument (I really just wanted to say... the vast majority), that would be misusing statistics. ;o)



When I was visiting Bulgaria last summer, I was in a taxi and the driver was bemoaning how he actually had to WORK now that the communists were no longer in power. You see, previously, all he'd had to do is laze around for 8 hours, not worry about actually getting clients or being curteous with them because he'd get paid the same amount no matter what. Of course he was a little bitter at the current government. There are various exceptions to everything.



There's also the slight problem with communism that hasn't been mentioned yet (probably because this has thus far been an economy related discussion): it's incredibly oppressive and limiting to those under it. Now, before everyone asks me, I don't have any statistics, I only know what I've seen and experienced.



It's absolutely unacceptable for a human being to be constantly afraid of expressing ANY opinion against anything that communism, no matter how mild a dissent. People have disappeared (I don't mean just vanished, I mean any physical trace of their current or prior existence has been removed) for relatively minor infractions. Others who have managed to escape communism and have attempted to reveal its true nature to the west have been assassinated.



It sucks to not be allowed to leave the eastern bloc, or even the country at times. It sucks to go through life finding out about the rest of the world through whatever filtered garbage the Party decides to feed you. I could go on but I've probably gone on too long already.



For more information on life in a communist country, check out this book.



I don't know why I even bother. I've been trying to have this argument with people for years and I keep losing. It's kind of like trying to convince an atheist* of the existence of God. It's just not possible unless they somehow experience it for themselves.



Yana



*this is meant simply as an analogy, not as an insult to atheists

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I am not sure about the former."

--Albert Einstein

[kukalaka]

I didn't have the time to read the whole discussion of this, but I just had to chime in here, so bear with me, please.

Quote:

---

But did they start on a level playing field? IANAH so take this with a pinch of salt, but ISTR that countries like France and Britiain got a lot of financial support after the war to help them rebuild whereas Russia got none. So it seems likely that west Germany would have recieved a lot more aid then east Germany.

---

You can leave out the salt there, it's true. The Soviet Union did not allow East Germany to take part in the Marshall plan. Also, the Soviets dismantled more fabrics... for reparations than the other Allies.





Also, what yana said about freedom of information/travel/... is completely true. I'm from former Eastern Germany and I just shudder when I get to see old news shows from back than. It's not information it's propaganda. And most Eastern people didn't have the luxury of a neighbour country where people were speaking the same language and that didn't exactly try very hard to avoid broadcasting its TV and radio programmes beyond the borders.



There are lots of things I don't like about the system we now have, but when I look at the crosses of people who have been shot at the Berlin wall, I know for sure that that system is not what I'd rather have.

---

IDIC

Edited by: kukalaka at: 6/17/04 9:11 am

[justin]

Quote:

---

There's also the slight problem with communism that hasn't been mentioned yet (probably because this has thus far been an economy related discussion): it's incredibly oppressive and limiting to those under it. Now, before everyone asks me, I don't have any statistics, I only know what I've seen and experienced.



It's absolutely unacceptable for a human being to be constantly afraid of expressing ANY opinion against anything that communism, no matter how mild a dissent. People have disappeared (I don't mean just vanished, I mean any physical trace of their current or prior existence has been removed) for relatively minor infractions. Others who have managed to escape communism and have attempted to reveal its true nature to the west have been assassinated.



It sucks to not be allowed to leave the eastern bloc, or even the country at times. It sucks to go through life finding out about the rest of the world through whatever filtered garbage the Party decides to feed you. I could go on but I've probably gone on too long already.

---

Firstly, again, you're basing your opinion of communism on countries which called themselves communist and which weren't. Secondly what you're describing is the dangers of living under a totalitarian goverment. What economic system the eastern bloc had practiced (or claimed to practice) wouldn't have made any difference. Or would living in a totalitarian, capitalist country really have been better than living in a totalitarian faux-communist country?

"To mess up a Linux box you need to work at it; to mess up a Windows box you just need to work on it."

[dekalog]

Have you been reading Alex Berkman justin?



edited to add: justin it was more of a joke - sorry. (bad one)

Berkman was an American Anarchist in the 20's who wrote quite a bit about how what was being called communism in Eastern Europe in fact wasn't. A friend sent me an article the other week written by him and reading your post it was like I was reading one of his comments in it.

Edited by: dekalog at: 6/17/04 11:24 am

[justin]

Quote:

---

Have you been reading Alex Berkman justin?

---

No, should I?

"To mess up a Linux box you need to work at it; to mess up a Windows box you just need to work on it."

[kukalaka]

You're right there justin, but since I believe that (sad as it may be) Communism is against human nature I don't see it "work" in any kind of system that's not totalitarian.

---

IDIC

[Gatito Grande]

Well, kukalaka, there you're in the category of faith-claim (just like myself w/ pacifism, see above).



GG Though perhaps discussion could be furthered via unpacking of *both* "Communism" and "human nature" Out