The Great problem with Socialism

[Anonymous]

Hello in 1989 i fled a country filled with lies and insanity. The Socialist takeover simply traded one lie for another, instead of one man owning the work of all the people, all the people owned the work of all the people. So I came to America were a man can own his own work, were a man could benefit from the brilliance of his own mind, the might of his own will. I had thought I had left the parasites of Moscow behind me, now American's are drinking deeper and deeper into the Bolshevik poison. Let me ask you, what is the greatest lie ever created. What is the most vicious obscenity ever perpetrated on mankind. Is it slavery, the holocaust, dictatorship. No its the tool with which all that wickedness is built, altruism. Whenever someone wants to do there work they call upon there altruists, never mind your own needs they say, think about the needs of whoever, of the state, the poor,of the army, of the king, of god, the list goes on and on. What catastrophes were launched with the words "think of yourself", its the king and country crowd that light the torch of destruction. This ancient lie has chained humanity to this endless cycle of guilt and failure.

[sarda karaniwan]

stanislavdoskocil wrote:

Hello in 1989 i fled a country filled with lies and insanity. The Socialist takeover simply traded one lie for another, instead of one man owning the work of all the people, all the people owned the work of all the people. So I came to America were a man can own his own work, were a man could benefit from the brilliance of his own mind, the might of his own will. I had thought I had left the parasites of Moscow behind me, now American's are drinking deeper and deeper into the Bolshevik poison. Let me ask you, what is the greatest lie ever created. What is the most vicious obscenity ever perpetrated on mankind. Is it slavery, the holocaust, dictatorship. No its the tool with which all that wickedness is built, altruism. Whenever someone wants to do there work they call upon there altruists, never mind your own needs they say, think about the needs of whoever, of the state, the poor,of the army, of the king, of god, the list goes on and on. What catastrophes were launched with the words "think of yourself", its the king and country crowd that light the torch of destruction. This ancient lie has chained humanity to this endless cycle of guilt and failure.

I feel your sentiment Stan and it has been what I am trying to say. You are right about altruism but this is only a part of a bigger problem and that is transcendentalism. This is the one that has failed the socialism of your country, and for as long as the socialist keep on ignoring this problem, it will continue to have a setback.sardaan Ordinarian

[robbo203]

stanislavdoskocil wrote:

Let me ask you, what is the greatest lie ever created. What is the most vicious obscenity ever perpetrated on mankind. Is it slavery, the holocaust, dictatorship. No its the tool with which all that wickedness is built, altruism. Whenever someone wants to do there work they call upon there altruists, never mind your own needs they say, think about the needs of whoever, of the state, the poor,of the army, of the king, of god, the list goes on and on. What catastrophes were launched with the words "think of yourself", its the king and country crowd that light the torch of destruction. This ancient lie has chained humanity to this endless cycle of guilt and failure.

 This is a ridiculous argument, frankly. Its the same naff argument trotted about by the likes of Ayn Rand and the Objectivists.  It doesn't even make sense. You are misattributing the blame to "altruism" yet telling us that the problem arises when some call upon others to behave altruistically in the name of whatever cause. You could just as easily argue that it is the egoism of the former in cynically exploiting the altruism of the latter that is the real cause of the problem. Altruism and self interest are two sides of the same coin that is our human species. Neither are dispensable. Its what makes us human beings In evolutionary psychology there is an argument gaining ground that "group level" selection – not just individual selection – may have been a powerful factor in the evolution of our species. That is to say, groups exhibiting a stronger degree of solidarity amongst it members tended to be those that survived.  In other words, concern for the wellbeing of others – and the word "altruism"  derives from the Latin word “alter”, meaning “other” – was a factor in group cooperation and survival.  Put simply those groups whose members did not display a minimal degree of altruistic feeling towards others in the group simply perished.  The development of Game Theory in the post war years has massively reinforced these conclusions and has shown that purely egoistic strategies are very clearly sub-optimal.  Google the "Prisoners Dillemma" and see for yourself. Altruism is the basis of morality and there is a strong argument (promoted by the likes of Chomsky  and others) for saying that our disposition towards moral behaviour., like our capacity for language,  is something that is hardwired into us. Its not the specific moral beliefs or practices that I am talking about – these things are indeed culturally and historically  conditioned – but the fact that we are inclined to think and behave in moral terms at all.  The discovery of “mirror neurons” in the brain by Giacomo Rizzolati and his colleagues in the 1990s, which neurons seem to be linked to our capacity for empathy – a basic building block of morality – supports this argument. At the end of the day we are neither purely egoistic or altruistic but both – and necessarily so.  The nonsensical rant of the Objectivists against what  they call  "altruism" underscores their totally impoverished worldview.  It hasn't got a leg to stand on.  To use Peter Singer's classic example of the Drowning Child, would you pass by a pond  in which a child was drowning without being perturbed in the slightest, without wanting to help? No of course you wouldn't.  No normal human being would – though a clinical sociopath might.  Your "praxis" in the world , to coin a phrase, thus stands in total contradiction to your absurd claim that altruism is some kind of unmitigated evil.

[ALB]

And of course Russia, Moscow, the Bolsheviks, etc weren't "socialist" but state capitalist. But by the sounds of it you'd be against even the mildest milk-and-water social reformism and no doubt in favour of selling your grandmother for medical research.

[alanjjohnstone]

I wouldn't bother replying to the original poster. He merely joined the list to post this message and he'll disappear forever. Perhaps i will be proved wrong…whereupon i will apologise for my assumption that he is merely a troll, uninterested in any exchange of views. 

[jondwhite]

Which men can 'own their own work' in America?

[steve colborn]

There are a "few" men in America, who "own" the work of 10's of thousands of others at a time but these 10's of thousands of others do not/cannot "own" their work, because it has been "legally" expropriated by these "few" men. Men/Women who do not in/of themselves do any work, nor contribute in any meanful way, to the society the inhabit.A flea, tapewom, leech spring instantly to mind!!!

[sarda karaniwan]

So if altruism exist in every human being then we don't need to change anything at all, all we need to do is wait for those capitalists to show their altruism and everything will work out fine.Let me remind everyone that we are still living in an exploiter's world where everyone have the tendency to exploit everyone, this is still a dog eat dog world. They will feast on you the moment you start showing a saintly attitude.I'm sorry, but I don't believe altruism exist and those capitalists have proven that.About that "drowning child" (the usual argument case), it is not about altruism or being a hero, it is only about responsibility, if everyone took up responsibility accident will not happen.Boy! This problem is bigger than I thought.sardaan Ordinarian

[ALB]

This is what our pamphlet  Are We Prisoners of Our Genes? has to say about altruism:

Quote:

Nor does socialism require us all to suddenly become altruists, putting the interests of others above our own. In fact socialism doesn’t require people to be any more altruistic than they are today (a behaviour which is greater than biological determinists like to admit and which presents them with the insoluble theoretical problem of how a gene for such behaviour, which they have obliged themselves to believe in, could have evolved). We will still be concerned primarily with ourselves, with satisfying our needs, our need to be well considered by others as well as our material and sexual needs. No doubt too, we will want to “possess” our toothbrush, our clothes and other things of personal use, and to feel secure in our physical occupation of the house or flat we live in, but this will be just that—our home and not a financial asset.Such “selfish” behaviour will still exist in socialism but the acquisitiveness encouraged by capitalism will no longer exist. Under capitalism we have to seek to accumulate money since the more money you have the better you can satisfy your material needs, and as an insurance against something going wrong (like losing your job) or as something to hand on to your children or grandchildren. People are therefore obliged by their material circumstances to seek to acquire money, by fair means or foul and if need be, when push comes to shove, at the expense of others. This is why capitalism has earned the name of “the acquisitive society”.Socialism won’t be an "acquisitive society" and won’t need to be, as everybody will be able to satisfy their material requirements as of right and without needing to pay money. In fact, because productive resources and the social product will be owned in common there won’t be any need for money; just products—useful goods and services—ready to be distributed for people to take and use. And, because people could always be sure that the stores will always be stocked with the things they need, there would be no incentive to grab and hoard; that would be an irrational and pointless behaviour in the new social conditions.

[robbo203]

sarda karaniwan wrote:

I'm sorry, but I don't believe altruism exist and those capitalists have proven that.About that "drowning child" (the usual argument case), it is not about altruism or being a hero, it is only about responsibility, if everyone took up responsibility accident will not happen.

 Sarda,Of course altruism exists! I suspect you have a very narrow and misleading interpretation of what altruism means.  All it boils down to basically is concern for the welfare and wellbeing of others.  Everyone exhibits such a concern in their daily lives – perhaps barring the odd sociopath – from the  mother who provides milk for her newborn  to the young person who vacates her seat on a crowded bus to allow some elderly person to sit. Charities would cease to exist if altruism did not exist.  Come to think of it, even the capitalists exhibit altruism contrary what you claim.  Capitalists  after all frequently  bequeath their worldly goods to their kin or  endeavour to assist the latter in numerous other ways in life.  This is a variety of altruism dubbed "kin altruism" in evolutionary psychology; another is "reciprocal altruism".  Google the terms and see for yourself As for your argument about the Drowning Child example – well, how on earth do you figure this is not altruism.  The "responsibility" you refer to presupposes an altruistic concern for the child in question and the moral imperative to act on that concern. Being altruist doesn't make you a socialist but it does make you a human being . So, no, you are quite wrong to sayIf altruism exist in every human being then we don't need to change anything at all, all we need to do is wait for those capitalists to show their altruism and everything will work out fine. This is a misunderstanding of what the argument is about.  Altruism doesn't necessarily have socialist implications.  Actually, the rabid nationalist -or indeed suicide bomber – who professes to be willing to die for his or her "nation" is, in  an important sense, thinking as an altruist.  Socialists reject nationalism, of course. Our concern lies primarily with the welfare of our fellow workers with whom we express solidarity. That is why we refuse to cross a picket line when workers strike. That is why we protest when workers are evicted from the homes. And so on and so forth.  We take these actions because the welfare of those workers matter to us.  We are being altruistic in other words We need much more of that kind of altruism – socialist altruism.  The ridiculous idea that seems to be implied in your position – that socialism is purely a matter of self interest – is actually the most insidiously anti-socialist argument imaginable.  If self interest is all that matters – the Smithian paradigm of the Market's Invisible Hand  – then socialists might just as well shut up shop and busy themselves with  advancing their own careers and stabbing their fellow workers on the way up the greasy pole of job promotion. Self interest is part of the reason for wanting socialism but it can never ever be the whole reason.  If it were that would negate  everything that socialism stands for which is implied in the very word itself – SOCIALism

[robbo203]

stanislavdoskocil wrote:

 Let me ask you, what is the greatest lie ever created. What is the most vicious obscenity ever perpetrated on mankind. Is it slavery, the holocaust, dictatorship. No its the tool with which all that wickedness is built, altruism. Whenever someone wants to do there work they call upon there altruists, never mind your own needs they say, think about the needs of whoever, of the state, the poor,of the army, of the king, of god, the list goes on and on. What catastrophes were launched with the words "think of yourself", its the king and country crowd that light the torch of destruction. This ancient lie has chained humanity to this endless cycle of guilt and failure.

 I would still like to hear from  this poster how he or she can come to this conclusion when manifestly it is not the altruist that is the cause of the "vicious obscenity" referred to but rather those who "thinking only of themselves" cynically exploit the good intentions of the altruistically inclined This whole line of argument  presented here is positively Randian in outlook. The poster refers to the "Bolshevik poison"  and the "parasites of Moscow" he or she left behind behind and in so doing perhaps unwittingly echoes  a comment made by Ayn Rand in a lecture delivered at Yale University on February 17, 1960,  namely  that the “ultimate monument to Kant and to the whole altruist morality is Soviet Russia” (http://freedomkeys.com/faithandforce.htm) But hold one here! That doesn't make sense at all does it now? How is a "parasite" compatible with  altruism, eh? Soviet Russia cannot possibly stand as the "ultimate monument" to altruism if it happened  to be administered by a bunch of parasites which in fact it was.  The Soviet capitalist class was a tiny parasitic class – effectively,  the apparatchiks – that brutally and systematically exploited the Russian workers through its complete stranglehold on the state machine and economic decision makingOf course the Soviet Union would have talked about "working for the common good" etc  but – Hells Bells! – name me one capitalist state that doesn't talk in these terms?  Cameron is forever going on about working together for the "good of the nation".  So is Obama. So is Hollande or Merkel .  So is every other capitalist statesman.  Whats so unusual about that?.  All this disreputable  bunch of good-for-nothing smooth-talking inveterate liers have in common is that they are more than willing to cynically exploit the altruistic tendencies of people for their own ends and the capitalist class they represent.  Just like in the Soviet Union in fact…..

[Dave B]

Keep going Robbo. This was good I thought. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b04ykktv Dekard; an invention of the false consciousness Phillip K Dick Marxist was  an ‘android who dreamed of electric sheep’ and a replicant himself. Read the book as they say! One of Wittengenstien’s haunts when he was at Manchester Universitywas the Grouse Inn.   http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Grouse_Inn_near_Glossop.jpg A favourite launching pad of mine for walking kinder scout; a bus from Glossop takes you up the hill. Not a single photo of him or anything on the walls.

[alanjjohnstone]

i've always enjoyed reading the situationist inspired text "the Right to be Geedy" (and think of it as a supplement to Paul Lafargues 19th c Right to be Lazy)https://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everythingIt has its flaws such as its obtuse use of terminology and often interpreted as an amalgamation of individualism and communism but its essence is valid…if we are all greedy and help one another to be just as greedy, then we can be socialists and achieve socialism – self interest is mutual interest 

[sarda karaniwan]

I was reminded of a story in the bible, that is Matthew 19 whereupon a young man knelt before him, and asked him “Good Teacher, what must I do to receive eternal life?” but Jesus responded  “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” And proceeded, “just follow the commandments”. I guess his logic is, the reason why people makes laws is because no one is good.I would take it that the word “good” being mentioned here is a direct relation to, if not altruism itself. But since I don’t believe in God , or if God doesn’t exist, this virtue directly attributed to God alone would also not exist, but what would be left is all the people which he said not “good” in which he does not exempt himself. So, why would he not want to be called “good”? Because he was only human, not God.So if such virtue really exist in someone, then this someone must be coming in a level which is above ordinary human, this being must be God, or acting like God. Transcendentalism (I really hate nerdy words) is a relationship between higher being and lower being, they exist by being dependent on each other, one cannot live without the other, the higher has the power to give pity, and the lower always depends on that pity, and be grateful for it.The ruling classes of human history and now the capitalists, uses transcendentalism to legalize their existence, they promote the thought that life is a competition, individualism is natural, uniqueness or every individual is different, etc…, you see these in sports and every beauty pageant to prove that there will always be one who stands out. In other words, for you to become somebody special, you must look for anything in you that will make you different from the ordinary, instead of looking for something that will make you in common with others.  Where most of the time, this leads to arrogance.Also, there is a distinctive feature that the ruling class or that capitalists class can be identified with, that is, they want to be praised short of being glorified, like celebrities, they want to be adored close to being worship like idols. They want people to see that their existence is important. This distinctive feature is what we all know, hypocrisy.  They promote moral values as taught by the church, that “the way” to become human is by martyrdom and sainthood, the standard to be called a hero, the standard to be called “good”. How are the capitalist class going to fit themselves in this category of being called “good”? They have to make up an idea, an imaginary virtue, and make people believe that it really exist, and this imaginary virtue is called, altruism. Now it makes it possible to be called “good” by way of making themselves look generous and compassionate, through philanthropy and charity, it shows that they look at the poor with pity, and the poor of course is expected to be grateful for this pity.Altruism, from the word alt or alta, which means, to raise up, elevate, higher, above, because adopting this imaginary virtue is sure to raise ones being into a higher level, not the level to become human, but in a transcendental level, the near to God level, if not God.You see, even Jesus knows altruism is not true at all, to all human being, it only belong to the One Being up there who is the only one who has the power to give pity to all lower being. So if you started to look at people with pity, then you are playing god. This is the danger of atheism, one may not believe in God, but with transcendentalism, you will not be prevented from acting like God. We do want to create another Stalin, or the present “Good Leader” of North Korea, Kim Jung Un.sardaan Ordinarian 

[rodshaw]

Altruism comes from the Latin alter, meaning other. Its has nothing to do with elevation.

[Author]

Posts