• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Navy deployed to Venezuela airports, seaports

What would a person acting concert both for themselves and to a lesser extent someone else be defined as?

Would their act still not be considered selfish?

It depends on the action, but I don't see how this applies to your original definition of the word "selfish," which completely hollowed out all meaning, unless you are conceding to me that I was correct.

I have, both you and Agnapostate assume that individuals inside a community like the one described before will not act in their own self interest against the community at large.

I don't think I've ever made such a claim, nor has Agnapostate, as far as I've read. But I'll let him respond to this, as I've only read Mutual Aid once many years ago and am not concerned with defending what he has said.

A with a breath of reason and history your claim has been debunked.

Can a king not come to power through militant means?
Seeing as how this has happened so many times in the past, I'm surprised you ignored it.

Of course it can, and I am not ignoring it by any means.

Quite the contrary, actually. The king, in rising to power, must make them recognize him as their King or he will have popular revolt on his hands.

Capital has developed in societies not built on the academic recognition of capitalism.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Domesticated animals were used as capital, as had gold, shells, beads, etc etc.

On the contrary, they were used as commodities, not capital. Also, I am not saying that capital presumes capitalism as a world system; indeed, the development of capitalism from feudalism itself refutes such a claim.

You have made claims about the findings of psychology but are only relying on one school of thought to make those claims.
(Edit: only some portions of an individuals development rely on environment)

Then aside from instinctual habits which we previously discussed, what do you believe? Why did you not bring up your disagreement earlier and provide some substantiation for it?
 
It depends on the action, but I don't see how this applies to your original definition of the word "selfish," which completely hollowed out all meaning, unless you are conceding to me that I was correct.

Because even though someone can think of a social group before making a decision, there decision is in regards to self.

"What will happen to me if I go against the group, what will happen to me if I go with the group."


I don't think I've ever made such a claim, nor has Agnapostate, as far as I've read. But I'll let him respond to this, as I've only read Mutual Aid once many years ago and am not concerned with defending what he has said.

The entire argument hings on this one part.

For your or Agnapostates society to exist it requires that people make a conscious decision not to go against the cooperative out of personal desires.

Of course it can, and I am not ignoring it by any means.

Quite the contrary, actually. The king, in rising to power, must make them recognize him as their King or he will have popular revolt on his hands.

The capital can be forced or it can be naturally developed.

In such a society if there is a shortage of something it will hold more value and thus can be considered capital.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Capital develops whether or not someone recognizes it as such.

On the contrary, they were used as commodities, not capital. Also, I am not saying that capital presumes capitalism as a world system; indeed, the development of capitalism from feudalism itself refutes such a claim.

Commodities can be capital.

If two parties can trade on an agreeable value of the commodity it can be capital.

Then aside from instinctual habits which we previously discussed, what do you believe? Why did you not bring up your disagreement earlier and provide some substantiation for it?

There are several schools of thought relating to psychology.

I do believe that behaviorism has a lot of relevant information, studies and other works but it is not the only school of psychology to understand.

I'm slightly in favor of cognitive-behaviorist theory, but overall I'm an eclectic theorist.

Eclectic borrows from all schools.
 
Because even though someone can think of a social group before making a decision, there decision is in regards to self.

"What will happen to me if I go against the group, what will happen to me if I go with the group."

Not really; I don't really think that individuals necessarily put their own needs/wants over the needs/wants of society. Humans are social animals by nature, and because of that I severely doubt that what you are saying is accurate.

For your or Agnapostates society to exist it requires that people make a conscious decision not to go against the cooperative out of personal desires.

No it doesn't. Not at all, actually.

The capital can be forced or it can be naturally developed.

In such a society if there is a shortage of something it will hold more value and thus can be considered capital.

Capital is in the first place an accumulation of money and cannot make its appearance in history until the circulation of commodities has given rise to the money relation.

Secondly, the distinction between money which is capital, and money which is money only, arises from the difference in their form of circulation. Money which is acquired in order to buy something is just money, facilitating the exchange of commodities. [Marx represent this as C - M - C or Commodity - Money - Commodity.] On the other hand, capital is money which is used to buy something only in order to sell it again. [Marx represented this as M - C - M.] This means that capital exists only within the process of buying and selling, as money advanced only in order to get it back again.

Thirdly, money is only capital if it buys a good whose consumption brings about an increase in the value of the commodity, realised in selling it for a Profit [or M - C - M'].

MIA

Capital develops whether or not someone recognizes it as such.

Capital is a social relation, and therefore it cannot develop unless it is socially recognized and socially perpetuated.

Commodities can be capital.

If two parties can trade on an agreeable value of the commodity it can be capital.

This makes no sense. See the above definition. Capital is not simply something you trade for money or for another good.

There are several schools of thought relating to psychology.

I do believe that behaviorism has a lot of relevant information, studies and other works but it is not the only school of psychology to understand.

I'm slightly in favor of cognitive-behaviorist theory, but overall I'm an eclectic theorist.

Eclectic borrows from all schools.

You have yet to provide me with any information showing the inaccuracies of my assertions.
 
Not really; I don't really think that individuals necessarily put their own needs/wants over the needs/wants of society. Humans are social animals by nature, and because of that I severely doubt that what you are saying is accurate.

They are social your are right, but are they social because they care more for the group or because they have an individual need to be social.

What I'm saying is that humans are social because of a self need.


No it doesn't. Not at all, actually.

That assumes that mutual aid is the best form of individual stability.
Or that it will be the method that brings the biggest individual returns.

Capital is in the first place an accumulation of money and cannot make its appearance in history until the circulation of commodities has given rise to the money relation.


The commodities themselves were money and capital.

before the rise of gold as a commodity money, cows were used as such.

Whoever had the most cows had the largest amount of capital.

Secondly, the distinction between money which is capital, and money which is money only, arises from the difference in their form of circulation. Money which is acquired in order to buy something is just money, facilitating the exchange of commodities. [Marx represent this as C - M - C or Commodity - Money - Commodity.] On the other hand, capital is money which is used to buy something only in order to sell it again. [Marx represented this as M - C - M.] This means that capital exists only within the process of buying and selling, as money advanced only in order to get it back again.

What about C-C? That is just bartering but again if one has more perceived value on one commodity than it can be capital.
It could also be money if it is the most desired commodity.

Thirdly, money is only capital if it buys a good whose consumption brings about an increase in the value of the commodity, realised in selling it for a Profit [or M - C - M'].

It can happen with a commodity. C-C-C can represent an increase in value based of several factors like regional supply and need.

A trader trades 3 cows (which are in short supply) in one area for gold (which there is a surplus of and then later trades the gold (where there is not a surplus of) for 4 cows.

Its simplistic but I think it makes my point easier.

Capital is a social relation, and therefore it cannot develop unless it is socially recognized and socially perpetuated.

I guess I was saying that someone doesn't go "ohh this is capital, now I must use it". Looking back that was a bit stupid.

What creates it as capital is a recognition that it has a higher value order over other goods inside the structure.


This makes no sense. See the above definition. Capital is not simply something you trade for money or for another good.

It can be. A commodity can be capital.

You have yet to provide me with any information showing the inaccuracies of my assertions.

The general fields of Psychology

Psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why I think that current environment alone won't affect a persons thought process.
Prior evolutionary environments have a big affect on the way a person thinks and acts.

Evolutionary psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I dunno... we might end up discussing whether Murray Rothbard kicked Murray Bookchin out of his house. Not topics I'm particularly interested in.

:2wave:

Then you'll want to avoid exposure to capitalism.

"Anarcho-left theorist Murray Bookchin became an occasional visitor to the Rothbard living room-until Rothbard one day angrily kicked him out of the house." (Radicals for Capitalism, p. 240)

:2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom