No offence, m8 but you are not a pro in this area, are you? Other than a well structured society, economy and political sphere, trust is the necessary condition for predictability in all things human. Difficult to build but necessary! (Oh, here we go... ) Aha, now it's clearer: you just must NOT try to judge from some piece of reality you know best and extrapolate that quickly into the rest of the Human world. This leads to enormous difficulties, some of which are classical Stalinism (FYI). Your cryptographic assumption is basically the worst political programme we have today (both on the Right and Left), which starts - in its purest form - at least from Hobbes. The darker you paint Human Nature/Condition, the more severe the consequences for building a decent society... Conservatives, especially the "hard kind", by and large, claim the knowledge of Human Nature and hence demand legislative/normative powers, everybody else is "living in a cloud-cookoo-land", according to them. The hard Left (Stalinists/Bolsheviks) claims no less than "Knowledge of History" (the totality of), hence they will take us by the hand and lead us to the promised land. Both have proven themselves equally arrogant, ignorant and incapable of creating a good society! Thankfully, there are other possibilities! One of which is Scandiland type of Social Democracy. This is not to say that this Human product is perfect - but the least crappy we have on Earth!
Not to forget: This is just about the most conservative/ideological/dogmatic ground from which one starts in one's efforts to understand the world one lives in... Leave it out, m8 - this is utter right wing propaganda of the worst sort... Try searching for "critique of the idea of 'cultural Marxism'"... EDIT: This is the mostly jargon free text to see... https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim Or here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism Ooopppsss.... One more fun article to read: https://theredphoenixapl.org/2011/08/26/debunking-william-s-lind-cultural-marxism/
And I must post this here, as well, since it's dead right on the money, so to speak... Well now, Einstein, Tesla, Yen and co. were right all along... NASA-funded study: The way to save Western civilization from collapse is communism http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/19/n...tern-civilization-from-collapse-is-communism/ http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Communism-1024x682-e1389736604144.jpg Gu on, great big Con brains, continue conning yourselves and everybody else...
I am NO adherent of legacy communism!!!! I am honored to be named in one row with Telsa and Einstein..but Communism the way it appeared in history had failed as we know. The communist ‘approach’ however reflects more of real human nature than any other form of society. Legacy Communism has failed because of human’s self-identification as individual that seemingly grows by ‘things’….which brought a dictator/dictatorship and some individuals who cooperated and tried to supress others (STASI and control)..short: active ego mechanisms. Communism that emerges from a self-identity as individual cannot coexist. Self-awareness has to come from a universal principle whatever name it has got ‘absolute consciousness’…. Only from an identity that is already what it is and appears as human being a social or communist society can emerge. Yes this one is more human than any other and the only way to let humankind really grow and survive. I’d say socialism 2.0 which requires a total different self-identity…which is still missing. The suggested measures mentioned in this article will fail though since they cannot be ‘prescribed' to an individual that is convinced to grow by capital. A new form of society has to emerge....from a changed consciousness. I do not say humankind does not grow by (individual) achievements. But they need to be recognized as relative growth that have a temporary value within lifespan of human life. Also to share / give away things has a human value in this regard. To have a sole focus on the part of lifespan where things accumulate is not all..later one has to know to let things go again for a non-individual 'goal' There are a few rich people who have got this (later in life)....
There are serious thinkers who state that without Soviet Union and its allies the UN charter on Human Rights etc. would be considerably poorer and that while the US was pushing for individual rights, the USSR pushed the collective ones... In short, our lives would have been considerably (neo-lib) poorer, had it not been for "communism"... Go figure... EDIT: Leave it out, m8, when it comes to "absolute" anything - this totalising BS cost us dear...
Note: "communitarian" is quickly (sensation-seeking BS journalist method) turned into "Communism" - and we all know what kind of connotations it has, as we can see from Yen's post (and he should have known better! )...
Yea OK no more absolute since most do understand it different than me. I do not mean totalizing I mean not relative (to an individual). You need to read closely what I have posted… I agree with that when I said ..” reflects more of real human nature than any other form of society.” And “….is more human than any other and the only way to let humankind really grow” It got ‘sick’ because humans were not mature enough to live it….returning self-ident as individual... Also I know what to ‘ism’ means….I used it to refer to stay conform to the article. Anyway to live communitarian cannot be prescribed. Communitarian approaches in humankind had been before ‘UdSSR-communism’ already…. It has to start from within the society…the latest ‘appearance’ of a communitarian approach had been the hippie-movement. And there had been intelectuals who had a resonable political view like Tim Leary....but had overdone it with 'other' things... That also got finally ‘sick’….. the movement degenerated and died. But it also has left 'something'.... I think more of them will emerge until one day it survives on fertile soil…and the former have pioneered that...
Not relative to an individual is by definition totalising, for sure... The "relative" nature of "truth" must be rooted in its social substratum, in order to understand it properly... Btw, you seem to have a baby (romantic? ) concept of "true nature of Humans", unrelated to anything and/or anybody... (Sorry but... )
Romantic....lol why not. I guess it's better than an academic abstract (philosophical? ) concept of 'something' that's our nature. The question is: What would Humankind help on? Having 'access' to it /being aware of it versus intellectual concept. Btw IMHO it had been one of the reasons why ‘communism’ had failed. A pure intellectual approach derived from an concept of human nature… Nobody could live it a longer time because of no real feeling/love ('romanticism') to it ...so to say… the love to ego had been stronger...
Oh, dear... Read "Who thinks abstractly" by Hegel and then look back at what you have written and laugh your head off... Btw, every time we communicate - we say something about something (either a simple sentence or philosophical statement, it matters not) - unless you have a "better idea"... That's not a question. That is... nothing, really... Go on, you can do better and not be so (non-philosophically ) "abstract"... If you are alleging something you should be able to properly express it, so the rest of us can judge it. Otherwise, this is for kids, really... "Acchhh, us the initiated ones..." "Pure intellectual approach" (Marx) said in the Russian feudal quagmire "Socialist Revolution is not needed/possible", as the conditions for it are inexistent. Lenin, by comparison (and by contrast ), had a "pure practical approach"... But don't let that stop you in your superior "access to it/being 'aware' of it all... I did tell you that it IS fun watching you post when high... I just wish I could join you (no tobacco, mind - but I would inhale!!! )!!!
Lol. "Having 'access' to it /being aware of it versus intellectual concept." This is no superior at all, quite the opposite. Simple and lived by 'simple' people and plays 'a role' when circumstances of life require that people need to stick together and compassion for each others is the driving force to realize the mentioned 'non-individual' goal... Why are there for instance people helping refugees in their hard times? Surely not because of an intellectual approach/concept of 'socialism or communism' from others in their mind or because of findings of the mentioned article... They are people who are aware of the nature of every human which is the same so compassion can develop. Therefore nobody needs to smoke lol...
(Let's hope...) Here we goooo... http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads...il&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-aba0b0050b-189037377
A new and presumably better EU? The old one was fine, but they messed it up pushing their own interests too hard. The same way they'll mess up any new one.
You missed the point, m8: it's about structural change so these things are better mediated and then democratic faults are addressed...
My comment was general, and applies to any changes, corrections, re-formulations and re-creations from scratch. From experience and knowledge of human nature, I contend that any multi-party arrangement will eventually decline, as each party tries to get a better deal for itself, while objecting to anybody else doing so. Of course, this philosophy is not mine, its most eminent proponent was Cyril Nothcote Parkinson who formulated his apt and famous Parkinson’s Laws. I strongly recommend to everybody to read his highly witty book.
1) I have been studying "human nature" for quite a while and I don't think there's a definitive answer to that conundrum... 2) Why on Earth would anyone be surprised or disapointed by change, i.e. expect any permanence in a fast changing society, economy and then politics, too?
Maybe you should ask any of the 500+ American Indian tribes that are still in existence how change has worked out for them.