db0's Comments

The Atheist Blogger : Six Things Meme

Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:28:50 +0000

There you go.

The LOLSuit : Meme! Meme! Meme!!one!!1

Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:28:02 +0000

(Done)

The Atheist Blogger : Linux Tutorials?

Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:02:27 +0000

Well, he can always disable the feedburner plugin

Atheist Revolution : Who's a Real Atheist?

Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:45:37 +0000

We don't need east and west when we already have left and right

The Atheist Blogger : Linux Tutorials?

Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:59:13 +0000

I’m not going to stop posting about atheism / religion, but it wouldn’t be a personal blog if I didn’t share my hobbies with everyone

Well, that's the problem with selecting a name like "Atheist Blogger". People end up expecting you to write about atheism all the time :P PS: You used to have a personal blog didn't you?

A Division by Zer0 : How much are we all to blame for the situation in the 3rd world?

Wed, 3 Dec 2008 12:03:47 +0000

Orly? Do you have any arguments to go with that or should I take it on your perfect knowledge?

A Division by Zer0 : Misunderstanding Communism: It's not anti-individualism

Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:00:18 +0000

I believe that social pressure is enough. You're not becoming a Christian because it's a belief and these cannot be shaped by social pressure. However going to church every sunday can really be achieved for you by social pressure. If you have the choice of going to church or being alone for the rest of your life (no internet escape either), you bet your arse you'd be there with suit and tie in no-time. Unless you're one of the very few special individuals who can do without human contact. The reason why corporations are not benevolent is not because social pressure does not work, but because they're not human.

A Division by Zer0 : Misunderstanding Communism: It's not anti-individualism

Wed, 3 Dec 2008 10:36:11 +0000

Social pressure. Fear of ostracism is a very powerful deterrent for an extremely social animal like a human. Even in working families, without any children (who are moved by authority) the enforcement is done through family pressure. Namely either the fear of divorce or separation, or in better working conditions, the wish to allow your partner have less stuff to do. The second way, doing your chores because you do not wish to make your neighbours bear the weight, can also work in a commune as well, but I this is I believe a far goal of Socialism which can only be achieved after enough generations have learned to live within it and the benefits such a desire has.

A Division by Zer0 : Misunderstanding Communism: It's not anti-individualism

Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:57:33 +0000

What is the liberty to do what you wish if you can't personally benefit from your endeavors?

If your benefit can only come at a reduction of the welfare of another person, then you need to seek other forms of benefit

A Division by Zer0 : Misunderstanding Communism: It's not anti-individualism

Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:56:11 +0000

First, Communism is not the USSR Second, do not believe everything the propaganda machine tells you about USSR and do not judge the USSR by the standards of capitalist nations who had a 400 years imperialist lead.

A Division by Zer0 : Misunderstanding Communism: It's not anti-individualism

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:41:00 +0000

But I do think that capitalism provides greater prosperity for all. ( Might be some contention on that point ;)

Some?! Don't get me started :)

I look forward to future discussions.

Excellent. I hope I will make you think and challenge ;)

A Division by Zer0 : Misunderstanding Communism: It's not anti-individualism

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:39:56 +0000

I am interested to hear your thoughts on the issues I brought up in in my previous post. Could a voluntary communal society deal with such things? Who would make the decisions for the group?

Certainly but as I said you questions are too many and too deep. I can present simplified versions which you'd be able to punch holes through in no-time and then I'd be forced to have a deep conversation that unfortunately I don't have time for. It is much easier for both of us if you read about it as I have done and then we can discuss concrete objections. Alternatively, stick around and feel free to criticize any posts on these issues I write. then we can discuss each in turn and be within the subject.

A Division by Zer0 : Misunderstanding Communism: It's not anti-individualism

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:36:55 +0000

Most of human history was spent in small groups like you propose, but as our numbers grew we developed nation-states. I suspect for greater cooperation and efficiency.

Indeed, most human history was communal in gentile groups. But nation states did not develop because we grew. States were created once people started splitting into classes of haves and have-nots in order to protect the society from imploding in violence. Nations developed only recently in order to avoid the internal class struggle. They did that by exporting the lower class to other nations and as such, instead of proletariat and bourgeois within a nation, you get a whole nation of bourgeois

A Division by Zer0 : Misunderstanding Communism: It's not anti-individualism

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:04:10 +0000

How would limited resources be applied? Or who would decided how to apply those resources? Would there be a price system to communicate supply and demand of goods and services? Or would some central bureaucracy decide what and how much to produce?

Too many questions all at once and a comment section is not the perfect place to go into depth in all of them. I suggest you read some basics of the Marxist theory to see how things can work. I suggest you start by checking out this leaflet

A Division by Zer0 : Misunderstanding Communism: It's not anti-individualism

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:01:23 +0000

how would a commune prevent leeches from benefiting from the group, but not contributing to the community?

I tackled this more in another part of this series but in short it would be mostly societal pressure and fear of ostracism (or expulsion as you said it).

A Division by Zer0 : Misunderstanding Communism: It's not anti-individualism

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 18:58:29 +0000

If you're proposing a voluntary commune, then I would say good luck to you. My objection would be to a government with laws, and men with guns to enforce those laws, forcing people to agree to do societal chores.

That was never my proposal. I simply wish this voluntary commune to span the majority of the world. In short: communism.

A Division by Zer0 : Misunderstanding Communism: It's not violent

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:17:58 +0000

Oh, I'm not saying we should ignore them. I'm saying that we should learn why they failed and make sure to avoid the same mistakes next time. I simply steadfastly oppose the assertion that because this or that revolution failed, communism is doomed never to be achieved or that the failed revolutions are an argument against the communist system as a whole.

A Division by Zer0 : Misunderstanding Communism: It's not violent

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:49:19 +0000

A lot of the leaders had it as a stated goal, though, even if most of the followers didn't really care.

And this is why it pays to know the history of the event you're talking about :) The leaders at the time of the Russian Revolution were caught unprepared. The first revolution of February happened organically and suddenly. Indeed, the socialist leaders who were there (the most famous ones like Lenin and Trotsky were exiled) didn't even realise it was a revolution until it was too late. Many tried to stop it. The second revolution, the October one, was indeed led by the Bolsheviks, but mostly because during the time in between, everyone else fhad betrayed the revolution and they were the ones who defended the workers unconditionally and thus ended up in the leadership position. Still most people didn't know much about communism which is why Stalin was able to seize the opportunity when Lenin died.

A Division by Zer0 : Misunderstanding Communism: It's not violent

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:26:22 +0000

Eh, everything is "Functional for a time", even slavery. I do not disagree with that, indeed I consider that Capitalism is a necessary step in our societal evolution but it's just that, a step. It's time has come to an end and now it only serves to hold us back. Either we discard it and continue, or we keep it and stay stagnant, or even move backwards. This is the same that happened in Rome as a matter of fact. While slavery proved valuable to create an empire, a time came to discard it and their failure to do that was a major cause for their subsequent decline.

A Division by Zer0 : Misunderstanding Communism: It's not anti-individualism

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:15:02 +0000

I'm not asking you to do that, I'm simply giving a relevant example of how this can work. In the same way that in a family you have house chores that you agree to share, in a commune you have societal chores that you agree to share. This allows each person to put only a small amount of time to necessary work that nobody likes to do and keep things fair.