Because in a group that small, everyone's watching everyone. Yes communism can work in small groups but when applied to a group larger than a single illager the system starts to break apart. You can get alway with it in large groups, becuse they have to have more impersonal governance.
Not to mention men also have better spatial awareness. Now I know this study only says that heterosexual men drive better, but I'm only using this sentence to pad this out because I feel the link itself makes the point well enough.
Science actually suggests that men actually feel about half as much pain as women do. The exception is child birth since the mother's body has spent the entire gestation building up natural painkillers in preparation.
There's one simple reason communism can't work, simple human nature. Humans, like all animals, seek to amass influence and resources for themselves and no matter what system we use, someone will always use their postition to acquire them, the difference is that under capitalism, it's the businessmen, under communism, it's the government. People will always do this and changes the system will only change who succeeds and how.
Yeah, because all men are respected solely because they have a penis. I'm going to tell you a secret, a secret so secret that no one's ever even descovered it. no, it's time it got out and here it is. get ready to have you're mind blown into a pulsar.
...men don't get respect simply for having a penis.
Shocking isn't it? Yes, it's almost as though people are expected to earn respect by something like, I don't know, doing something other complaining about every little thing and expecting everyone else to go out of their way to fix it. Stop the world, this word is offensive and nobodies doing anything until I get an apology.
Simply because our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat does not mean that we are perfectly adapted to it, in order to have and system be multifunctional inevitably requires compromise between the two. The fact that the human digestive system is more optimized for plant matter means that the ratio of meat to plant matter that is consumed is tipped in favour of the latter, but does not mean that the former is not meant to be ingested. In the early days of man meat was hard to come by, but was desired, while meanwhile fruits and vegetables and grains were much more plentiful and easier to acquire so the digestive tract developed to accomadate meat while still being suited to plant matter. Your entire argument hinges on all omnivores preferring meat but most omnivores in fact prefer plant matter, but bolster this with meat
If production workers take the whole of the products value, that means administrative positions would bring no benefit to those who hold them, as such they will remain vacant, and the economy would collapse. Sure the executives are greedy but so is everyone else, it's basic human nature. Capitalism works precisely BECAUSE of this greed, using it to motivate peopleto strive toward innovation and efficiency and thus leading to greater economic prosperity, because under capitalism, the best way to make money is to line everyone else's pockets and that's precisely what the corporations do. If we remove this motive, we dispose of the most successful economic system the world has ever seen.
People don't try to sell their sweat, they try to sell the product of their sweat. Rarely are laborers paid what their sweat-product is worth. Instead, they are paid the minimum wage and most of the value of their work is stolen by the person who merely organized them.
1/ Most production workers don't provide all the labor or any of the materials for the product.
2/ There are workers who make above minimum wage.
Did you know that men are actually just as sensitive as women, and that the main difference is a double standard in our society whereby women are encouraged to make a big detail about everything while men are expected to just take it, thus men put on the illusion that they are unaffected by such things as relationships to avoid ridicule?
You've made this same point 3 times already, not counting all you supports and disputing. The fact is that the economy is complex and is not controlled solely by 1 factor. Did you ever consider that maybe there is more to stress than whether you have to stand. It's clear that all you want is an excuse not to become employed, to merely live off welfare your entire life and live better than everyone for it. The fact of the matter is that you merely use large, archaic words to hide the fact that your entire position is based entirely on a complete misunderstanding of economics as a whole.
That is merely because once they get into office, they become privy to information that makes their campaign promises unreachable, or at least disasterous. It's easy to say you're going to end world hunger until you actually start trying, and then you realize that the problem is far more complicated than you initially believed.
You would have a point, except for one big, rather obvious detail, you are playing with more than one person. In any online game play dozens of people, at least, not just one person, so you're forced to adapt your strategy to cover up it's weaknesses. In fact if you only played one person, you'd still develop new tactics, because that's what happens when two intelligent beings interact with each other, we don't use a flow chart to think, hell not even AIs do anymore.
It's a game, not a real war, there is a difference. In fact even in real war people have been known to be kind to each other, and they're killing each other, so do you really think that playing a game is more anti-social the actually shooting a man?
Did you know that teachers from China have openly admitted that their education system sucks. For instance, they have stated that the typcial Chinese engineering graduate knows about as much as your auto-mechanic, who's only trained to work a specific kind of engineering, rather than the much broader subject.
Please direct me to where I have said otherwise.
It's the entire point of the movement.
We have an incredible amount of natural resources and land at our disposal.
We had those before capitalism, never worked then.
That would be the agricultural scientists.
Who are mtivated and funded by big business.
The workers are doing the majority of the work but are being paid as little as is possible to prevent them from looking for work elsewhere.
Okay, what? So people LIKE working for nothing?
"Slightly" would be a gross understatement.
Sure, if you only look at the basic income, but the thing is that having money quickly reaches a point of diminishing returns, especially in the modern world. In addition one could argue by that the whole point of life is to be happy, and money is continually becoming less of a luxury. In fact studies have shown that Nigeria is the happiest country in the world and they live off what you make in an hour, as such following that line of thought, money is a curse.
You've never had to manage anything have you? even in a game like Starcraft, which cuts out a good majority of the intricasies of management, it is still a skill which can take months or even years to hone and running a business is even more complicated.
you do realize that studies have yet to show that video games cause autism, right? Just because their hobby is done indoors, does not mean that they have no contact with other people, in fact they often have friends over, as evidenced by the fact that party games are big sellers, one of the biggest in recent years is actually Super Smash Brothers Brawl, which was intended at every stage in it's development to be played with friends. Their is actually such a thing as having friends over, and when they're not playing video games, it gives them something to talk about. Finally, it is only by failing that one can achieve excellence, if you don't have the self-esteem to try again when you fail in a video game, you clearly didn't have much to begin with.
Okay, you know what, clearly you're a perfectly rational human being, perfect in everyway, and it is clearly because you have never been exposed to any kind of media in your life, not even, say an internet forum. It stands, completely self-evidently, that all violence in the world is caused exclusively by violence in fiction, causality is retroactive, right?
Okay, clearly you are a misanthrope, because when you actually look at murder cases, you see that television never comes up as a motive. You know what does, money, harassment and mental illness. You assume that human beings only have the ability to copy what they have seen, but then how did we come up with fire, the steam engine, electricity.
Okay, clearly you know absolutely nothing about DOTA, or WOW. WOW doesn't even involve any level of strategy, you just hit the hotkeys when you can use a spell and the rest is all random chance. Also DOTA was a map for Warcraft 3, an RTS and was the inspiration for the entire MOBA genre, which are also strategy games.
And you're saying that the only people in the world who have absolutely any influence in the world are corporate executives, that simply not being on top means you have no significance in the whole. What about Steve Perkins, who single handedly raised oil prices because he was drunk, it wasn't even his own money he was dealing with, he bought a fuckton of oil with his clients' money, he was just the negotiator. Augustus Heinze owned nothing more than a copper mine and managed to cause the stock market to fall 50% with his get rich quick scheme. Marx's theories almost destroyed all of eastern Europe and he was just a random guy. You the universe just popped into existence with Steve Jobs as a billionaire, he was innovator who built a transnational corporation from the ground up.
and notice how they're both critisized by economists the world over, in fact Austrian business cycle theory is based on the assumption that literally everyone with a penny to their name is an idiot. In short, just because the theory exists, doesn't mean it's true. Could you imagine a world where every theory is true, where every religion is the one true faith, where every explanation for something is scientificly correct, that wouldn't be science at all, that'd be like having a billion different writers each working on a seperate chapter of the same novel, you can never get anythin coherent out of it.
Exactly what decade do you think this is, what do you think minimum wage is, or disability, we didn't have those in 1926. And for that matter no one's even been able pin down anything but the Dust Bowl down as a major cause, at least not conclusively, you think corporations controlled the weather and for that matter do you think they wanted a recession? It blew away 3/4s of usable topsoil away from farmland in affected areas, you don't think that could have something to do with it. The fact is that we DID have systems in place to protect workers before the recession started and it still happened. The entirety of the States' modern government is designed to safeguard against such corruption, and it's just like that in the rest of the 1st world, and it's been moving in that direction everywhere else since before the recession started, you think all politicians the world over are corrupt? And what about other possible causes, you think shit like hurricanes have no impact on the economy? The fact is that the OWS is in actuality an expression of college students greed and laziness, not that of corporations. Corporations are the ones doing everything, have been for decades, and do you know what the effect is? We're living in the 1 period of human history where even the poor can eat.
You are an idiot, of course some people are more productive than others. You think facing shelves is as important as organizing the entire infastructure of the economy? It is because these people organize the entire corporation into one coherent and efficient system that we have the quality of life we have now. They've increased the Earth's carrying capacity, provided enough food for the entire world, and still produced billions in luxury items on a regular basis. So what if they live slightly better than you, they deserve it, organizing thousands of labourers and support staff like that is a herculian task, even for a moderately sized group, and they've managed to do. And you think all they do is sit around and look important? Steve Jobs invented the mouse, Bill Gates gave millions to charities in his life time, you don't think that means anything, you realize how hard it is to invent?
And your point would seem to be that administrative positions are useless. I did not say that labor is useless, I said that it takes corporations to organize a large labor force into an efficient productive flow, and that once said flow is established, it will accomplish far more than the laborers could have done without a corporation to organize it.
BRILLIANT, because everyone knows that all fiction is based entirely on fact, that all futuristic settings are inevitable, that all of fiction is dictated solely by reality and can never say anything, explicitly or otherwise, that is not true
