Calling all marxists

Post Reply New Topic

Well, then I'll never be in the situation you describe. I'm gay and if I have children they'll be adopted. So I have no genetic reason to act as you say. (I'm not being serious here. But since there would be no Darwinian reason for me to rescue my child at all it would show a degree of selflessness to put myself in that dangerous situation).

I actually didn't assume that. I figured that the anthem (which I didn't actually listen to, I admit) would be one of those idealistic things that sounds great that was never actually lived by (like the various Soviet constitutions). Just from a purely strategic view I think that it is unwise for people on the left to speak of the Soviet Union with anything other than criticism or an explanation for why it ended up as it did.

Do you have siblings for whom you care. Or nieces or nephews for whom you care? Or cousins for whom you care? None of these kin attachments require heterosexual preference.

Most likely children of your own flesh and blood are not likely but the other kin attachments I described can be operative.

ruveyn

I'd be more likely to save an adopted child than the other relations that you list.

If your adopted child and the neighbor's child were both drowning and you only save one, which one would you save?

Of course you would try to save your adopted child, proving you are self interested just like the vast majority of humans beings are self interested.

ruveyn

And here we go again. I believe that I (and others) already addressed this point, so I'm not going to reiterate.

Not necessarily. You shouldn't just assume. Some people have as*holes for relatives.

the flaw in ryuven's argument. conservatives keep talking about this selfish gene that we all have but there is no selfish gene that you can point to so i dont get what theyre talking about.

for a split second i thought Almajo88 was a stalinist but then i saw the song was the internationale. before the ussr used it as its national anthem it was a workers song written after the paris commune. its not really associated as much with stalinism on the left, we sing it sometimes and then chant the workers united will never be defeated after. i like alistair huletts version. dunno how its viewed outside though. it was one of those things the soviet union never lived by.

Human beings would fail as a species without the inherent ability to cooperate with others beyond self-interests of their immediate bloodline. That is obvious considering that populations of over 300M, and over 1B, manage to cooperate well enough to survive as nations.

Social animals inherently cooperate as a group for survival. Self-interest and interest for the group are one and the same.

There is evidence that it's not just a cultural phenomenon in human beings; research provides evidence of this phenomenon as early as 15 months of age, suggesting inherent factors are at play just as they are in other species of social animals.

And there is evidence that those that did not cooperate at the beginning of agrarian societies, were culturally selected against per what was required to maintain the cooperative element of agrarian societies. The degree of self-interest varies among human beings; some are evidenced as leaning toward self serving behavior and some are evidenced as leaning toward altruistic behavior. There are evidenced factors both in biology and environment/culture that impacts this phenomenon.

Dogs are domesticated, as well as human beings; it is a cultural phenomenon that is based on the elements of cooperation that are inherent in human beings and canines. Human beings that don't cooperate are still culturally selected against as they were in early agrarian societies, however they aren't killed off as they were before prisons were available. Prisons provide some rights to those that refuse to cooperate with the rest of society.

The pill and abortion has had an impact on the reproduction of those that were less inherently suited to nurturing behavior, and having children.

These cultural tools have provided the acceleration of further cultural domestication of human beings, not only through self-interest but also through biological factors associated with the pill in inherent mate selection preferences.

While humans do not appear to be eusocial by nature, technology is providing a cultural adaptation that provides similiar results, bypassing elements of biology.

Information technology provides a "world wide hive" of sorts, that has led the way and continues to lead the way through the sharing of resources beyond the boarders of nations. But, it is at best a hybrid model of biological eusociality, in that many of those whom are of the most self-serving of natures feed off the efforts of thousands of others, across the globe.

Even so, in a sense, the queen bee is the ultimate capitalist per inherent nature, even within the biological borders of eusociality.

Ironically, Capitalism, one of the most self serving of economic systems, through the tool of information technology, is increasing the social welfare state requirements in the US, while serving "eusocial-like needs" across the globe.

There were/are some "worker bee/drones" involved in the effort that provided the tools of information technology to make this new global mix of Capitalism/"cultural eusocialism" possible. That appears to be one of the biological factors in the mix.

Human beings have copied the aerodynamics of dragonflies and birds for the development of helicopters and planes through cultural innovation.

It is possible that human beings are copying some of the elements of eusocialism and prosocial behavior seen in the animal kingdom through cultural adaptations, likely unwittingly, but that is how the bees do it, as well.

It is almost as difficult for human beings to perceive the larger picture of the "hive" they inhabit, but there is the potential for humans to grasp part of it. And, not too surprising that those in the media that promote self-serving ideology/needs of a target audience present a not so happy presentation of aspects of the "hive" to this target audience.

The "Queen Bees", though, like Rupert Murdoch, continue to thrive and will likely continue to do so. The overall phenomenon does not appear to be possible without them.

The inherent factors that still remain in primate biology present a problem though, evident in protests like "occupy wall street" for those that do not want to be subject to the power of the "Queen Bees".

Interesting, that they have the same common enemies of those whom provide support against the new aspects of the "world wide hive", that they are fed through the media. They appear not to fully realize whom they are feeding with their support, through friends like Uncle Bill and Hannity, and until recently brother Beck. Bloodlines are a long past requirement of the new equation of the "Hive". It is an amazing phenomenon to watch humans behave like bees.

But, there are though, many people in other countries that are thriving as a result of this new "capitalistic/eusocial mix". It is a potential equalizer of sorts for a newly organizing "global hive of human beings".

Obama is a powerful influence in this phenomenon. He is a human mix of power and domestication that is both reflective and directive of this newly organizing "world wide hive".


http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0023223

Last edited by aghogday on 10 May 2012, 3:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

well said.

although i don't think soviet style state tyranny will do much to mitigate these problems. i'm rather hoping you just like the music.

i feel it was the visuals, rather than the song, that raised objections.

The "selfish gene" normally does not refer to the concept of a gene that makes us selfish (such ideas of a single genes giving us personality traits are rather absurd in any case) but the idea that in evolution everything is about the genes being replicated as much as possible, and that the survival of the organism (let alone other organisms of that species) is irrelevant. It's a flawed concept because you see collectivist behaviour in nature (bees and ants of course, but there are also bacterial colonies where one bacterium will essentially act as a suicide bomber against a rival colony).

Ahaha I seriously hope I haven't made people think I'm a Stalinist with my first post in this thread. I did pause for a second when I saw the hammer-and-sickle on the post preview but I figured you guys would "get it". Now I'm tempted to carry it off as a gimmick and post nothing but Stalin quotes forever

And ryuven, self-interest can manifest itself in different ways. It's clear that humans, being social creatures, are gratified by social relations. It's natural that we place a greater value on ourselves and the people close to us but that doesn't mean that nobody else has value. The problem comes when people fail to recognise that they're part of a large class of exploited people, necessary to the capitalist system, and that their interests are class interests.

indeed. the system perpetuates this. remember blair trying to tell us the class war was over?

[quote="AstroGeek"]
The "selfish gene" normally does not refer to the concept of a gene that makes us selfish (such ideas of a single genes giving us personality traits are rather absurd in any case) but the idea that in evolution everything is about the genes being replicated as much as possible, and that the survival of the organism (let alone other organisms of that species) is irrelevant. It's a flawed concept because you see collectivist behaviour in nature (bees and ants of course, b

There is no "selfish gene" i.e. a gene for selfishness. Selfishness is an emergent property of the total human genome.

Ants and bees are collectivists. Humans try to be (sometimes) but when the pinch is on, selfish prevails. All of the major collective regimes (with the exception of North Korea) have failed outright. North Korea stumbles on because they are fed from the outside by other societies. Left to its own devices, North Korea would starve inside of a decade.

ruveyn

I was talking about the scientific concept, as popularized by Dawkins. Nothing more.

As an aside, you forgot to mention Cuba. It is hardly a pleasant place to live, but it could probably continue as it is now if there was the will to. As it is, the reforms being made will still retain a large degree of collectivism. If that's what you want to call it. It is incorrect to suggest that any of the "communist" countries were working in the collective interest. They were and (in the case of Cuba and North Korea still are) working in almost exclusively in the interests of the party elites.

Last edited by AstroGeek on 11 May 2012, 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.