From: che-AT-pseud.pseud
Subject: RE: M-INTRO: Right on GDA? or not?
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 07:54:32 -0700




The argument that GDA brought up and that others have commented on seems
to boil down to the old Nature vs. Nurture argument.  Are we born as
greedy takers, or does the society we live in drive us to take or die?
I think bsw8 brought up a good point, 

"Under capitalism and previous economic systems selfishness has been
rewarded while selflessness had been punished (financially).  Therefore
an individual under such a system has incentives to behave selfishly,
this behavior isn't natural, it is learned.  Would individuals continue
to behave so selfishly if such behavior wasn't rewarded and kindness
wasn't punished?"

I believe that it is nurture, I don't believe that all humans are born
with the innate tendency to steal, extort, or exploit, at the cost of
other human beings.  But I do believe that it is in our nature to seek
after rewards for our deeds, or seek after pleasure, and retreat from
pain.  If we could see outside of ourselves and view the pain that comes
from selfishness, and the pleasure that comes from giving, our society
would change dramatically.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
[mailto:owner-marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU] On Behalf Of
bsw8-AT-pseud.pseud
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:02 PM
To: marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: M-INTRO: Right on GDA? or not?

In response to GDA
Human behavior or nature can't be so easily derived as being something
inherent 
in all individuals.  This basically goes back to the relationship
between 
structure and individual agency that has been discussed so many times
before.  
That is, individuals make their own decisions, however the structure
impacts 
how those decisions affect the individual, which in turn influence what 
decisions an individual will make.  For example if an employer decided
to 
increase the wages of his workers to provide them with a higher standard
of 
living, chances are his business would be adversely affected by this.
These 
extra costs would make it difficult if not impossible to remain
competitive 
with businesses that don't behave in this manner.  As a result the
employer may 
go out of business.  However if an employer is able to exploit his
workers and 
lower the costs of production, profits increase, thus he is rewarded.
Under 
capitalism and previous economic systems selfishness has been rewarded
while 
selflessness had been punished (financially).  Therefore an individual
under 
such a system has incentives to behave selfishly, this behavior isn't
natural, 
it is learned.  Would individuals continue to behave so selfishly if
such 
behavior wasn't rewarded and kindness wasn't punished?  

You also state "could we have that same comfort level in a socialist
society?  
Maybe some people could, but not nearly as many as those in a capitalist

society."
Why do you believe this?  The lack of empirical evidence makes this a
difficult 
to assert.  Many will point to communist regimes as proof when these
regimes 
were only socialist in name, infact you incorrectly stated this as
evidence in 
your last message.  The workers under communist regimes didn't own the
means of 
production any more than workers under capitalism.  You say that under 
socialism only some could live at the same level of comfort as under
capitalism 
but most would not, when the whole driving ideology behind socialism is
just 
the opposite.  So why is it that you believe that this is the case?  Do
you 
mean that capitalism would be more productive and therefore provide a
higher 
level of comfort for everyone?  I'm not trying to be insulting I just
don't see 
your reasoning behind your statement.

Marx didn't provide much of an alternative to capitalism, instead he
send most 
of his time critiquing capitalism.  This is not to say others have not.

Recently I was recommended "Looking Forward" by Michael Albert and Robin

Hahnel.  This book describes what a socialist system might look like.  I

haven't bought the book yet however it's available for reading online.
I'll 
provide the link in case anyone else is interested.  So far it's an easy
read 
and very interesting.   http://www.parecon.org/lookingforward/toc.htm


--- GDA-AT-pseud.pseud wrote:
Where would be without capitalism? Is socialism the better of the two?
Human 
nature would not change in a socialist society. People would still be
people, 
and greed and want would still be there. We as humans have evolved to
want 
comfort in our lives. Could we have that same comfort level in a
socialist 
society? Maybe some people could, but not nearly as many as those in a 
capitalist society. We have become very materialistic, very property
oriented. 
Is that a bad thing? If we chose not to buy the material possessions
what would 
happen to the jobs of the people who produce such things?Also, when we
talk 
about the worker, who has to work to survive. The capitalist has to work
to 
survive as well. They take great risks when starting a company, they
take out 
the loans, they are responsible if anything happens. Karl marx lived in
a 
different era then we do, thats obvious, a lot has changed since then.
So what 
do can we do? I think one thing is volunteer, help others who cannot
help 
themselves. There always be people who 'take' the 'sucker fish' as a
friend 
calls them. But that is human nature, there are people who are content
with 
doing nothing and taking everything. And there are those who enjoy
working and 
doing their part, we need more of those. GDA 






     --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---