Natural Disasters and Socialism

Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2017 01:41 pm
I have been watching the relief efforts in Texas and Florida and thinking about the socialism in terms of the aid provided to the unfortunate. Most of the recipients are poor people. They are provided with food, a warm place to stay (usually safe), food and water. I am sure that many of the providers would normally say these people are shiftless and not deserving of any aid. Yet, many of the people who would gladly let poor people starve most of the time either risk their lives or sen substantial checks to help them during a natural disaster.

I emphasize the word "natural" in the last paragraph, because, for some reason, I don't remember it happening following man-made disasters. (I am discounting here the small groups of selfless people such as Doctors without Borders but writing about large numbers from the general population.)

I have a tentative answer, but would be grateful for other opinions. I believe (for reasons I hope to expand on in a later post; I am laboring under an injury) that our species shares by nature but hordes by training. That is to say, that we are naturally socialists but have been propagandized to behave as capitalists.

If you have other ideas, I would like to hear them.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 550 • Replies: 2
No top replies

Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2017 07:18 pm
No, we have to be taught to share.

Mankind is territorial and selfish by nature.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 02:32 pm
Then, please explain the following. Since all of humankind has descended from hunter/gatherers and there has been no time for significant genetic change from the time we became city dwellers. Thus, it would seem that if you want to know mans true nature, you should study hunter/gatherer societies.

In fact, anthropologists have done just that and found several in the past hundred years or so that have had no previous contact with Caucasians. In addition, we still have a number of American Indians who practice the culture of their forefathers (these are sometimes referred to as traditionals).

I am not a professional anthropologist, but neither am I ignorant of their findings. It is universal among hunter gatherers that no hierarchy exists. (There are minor exceptions, such as a warrior who has demonstrated a marked ability for military tactics may become a defacto battle leader. However, even here, no one is obliged to follow orders or even to participate in battles. And the warrior's special status ceases to exist as soon as the war has ceased.) There is certainly no-one who tells anybody what work to do or how long to work. Perpetual slackers are often shamed into following tribal custom by derision. It is generally recognized that quitting early occasionally is everyone's right and is not discussed.

The hunter/gatherers have very few personal possessions, usually fetishes of little value to anyone else and herbs for healing (which are made available to anyone who needs them). There may also be specifics for religious reasons (Traditional Navajos, for example. carry corn pollen. I realize that they were not hunter/gatherers when we first encountered them, but the corn pollen is an example of what I mean by articles for religious purposes). While it is true, that younger people give a certain amount of deference to the elderly, they are under no obligation to act on any advice they receive. Furthermore, except for these few trinkets, all property is shared communally. If a hunter kills an animal, he is sometimes offered the most desirable piece of meat, but he eats his normal portion; the same as if someone had brought in the meat. If a group of women find several baskets of an edible plant, the produce belongs to everyone equally.

I believe that the above provides ample evidence that the most natural state for humans is to live communelly (or as socialists in todays parlance). If you have any empirical evidence to back up your claim about greed or to refute the claims above, I would love to hear it. I emphasize empirical because I was raised to believe the same bullshit that you seem to have swallowed. The difference between us may be that I question any statement which doesn't make sense to me, and you are more easily propagandized.

By the way, 'in addition to the description above, there is another significant difference between todays robot-like humans and the hunter/gatherers. If a sociopath is born into a hunter/gatherer tribe, he is banned from the tribe as soon as the monstrosity is observed. In capitalist countries, sociopaths are promoted to positions of power, where they take 90% of everything produced by other people.
0 Replies

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
  1. Forums
  2. » Natural Disasters and Socialism
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2017 at 07:20:30