polyfrag

Are there any Marxists here? I'm not a Marxist myself, but my parents were born and lived in Soviet Russia and Soviet Ukraine. After my father passed away from heart problems in 1996, my family moved to Canada. Unlike a lot of the people I talk to about politics, I have had the chance to reflect on modern attitudes and learn from my mom's first-hand experience. I've learned (both from research and my mom) that there's a lot of stupid and completely false myths about "commie Russia": that everyone gets paid the same income, that government picks your job, that everyone is athiest, that all the people are brainwashed, that technology is primitive. My mom's not a Marxist and not particularly patriotic. She tells me I should work hard at school and start a business, says that USSR was corrupted, and that politics is a waste of time. She doesn't know much about Marxism, so she isn't the best person to be debating over the finer points of theoretical Marxism (which probably debunks the myth that all Soviet people were indoctrinated into Marxist ideas). But I can also see that Marxism meant a lot to some Russian people, and capitalism allowed criminals to rob the nation. So I'm part sympathetic to Marxists. But then again I see the the 9-year old *idealists* on politics forum advocating *equality*, *fighting* against the evil forces of the *bourgeois* exploiters... and I don't want to be associated with them. I tried to understand Marxism by reading the books (so complicated) and discussing it online. I've learned much about attitudes and opinions (more than most people learn in their lifetime), but there's still so much technical aspects about Marxism I don't understand. So anyways, I was wondering what is the error of Marxism? Yeah, you could write essays on this subject, but a lot of the stuff I read is garbage. They mostly hinge on the argument "there's no incentive to work or innovate"... Which is based on an uneducated myth. But I'm not here to debunk myths or argue that USSR was better than today. Now that Russia, Ukraine, and most of the other ex-Soviet states have abandoned the Marxist model, what conclusions have they reached about the flaw of Marxism? Can this giant piece of theoretical work be redeemed and saved by making corrections? Or otherwise, is the revolution, all that effort, all those lives in complete vain and waste? And I'd like an educated answer (since too many people enjoy being "armchair philosophers" but not enough understand what they're talking about).

I think you're talking about me, so in my defence... I'm not obsessed with the 'perfect body' (oooh, quotes, must mean it's a crazy idea). People seem to think I'm obsessed. Is that where we disagree? I don't know, I'm not obsessed, so maybe I'm not a *normal* anorexic (not to say being anorexic is normal to begin with). But I think something we CAN agree on is... 1. Skinny bodies do LOOK more appealing (up to a point, beyond that it's disturbing) 2. Being skinny demonstrates self-discipline (in a country where, what, 1 out of every 3 people are overweight?) 3. It can be a sign of culture (person cares what others think of him/her; might mean that he/she is thoughtful and tries to be hygienic and sociable) Hopefully you can agree with at least SOME of that (even though I'm being the devil's advocate here).

And in case anyone knows why I got light-headed from anorex-ing, please explain (on the physio-chemical level)...

Yeah, you're right. But I didn't think I'd get beyond "don't do it" if I didn't defend it...

By the way, this was more of a joke... Just look at his pictures. Compare them to the stuff I said about 'self-control', 'higher culture'... I think now I gave the wrong impression, but whatever.

No, I'm not on crack or marijuana or ANYTHING. I don't believe in souls, I couldn't care less about Gandhi... You people are paranoid. And appearantly I've already violated several forum rules and got some warnings, so I have to change my stance on the subject or stop posting. =/

Was/is anyone on this board an anorexic? What are useful things to know about voluntary starvation? And I'm not asking for the bullshit drivel parents and school try to shovel into your head to keep you consuming. I'm considering going on starvation, because that's what all the cool raver people are doing. Like this guy -> http://superk.dj/partykid/archives/random_raver_shots_1999/ More 'thinspirations' are the anime-ish characters from the old MTV series of short movies called Aeon Flux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon_flux. The originals depict super-anorexic people in light of a higher culture and advanced civilization (hard to explain based on crappy pics from the net, without actually seeing the original movies). To me voluntary starvation seems like a self-refinement process and trying to achieve perfection, even though it goes against everything my parents and all the people I know would say. But anyways, that's another subject. I've gone on semi-starvation before, and I found progressively that each time I got up or moved around I became more and more light-headed (low blood pressure?) Eventually I stopped because I actually collapsed and blanked out on the floor (yeah, yeah, sounds bad, but that was more of an experiment to see how many days I could go without taking a 'break'; all this stuff went away when I began eating again). Does anyone know anything about that? I don't think it had anything to do with vitamins/minerals because I ate 2 or 3 childrens' pills a day, so what was the exact problem? Not eating, of course, but more specifically what about the physio-chemical processes? And I realize this might be shocking to some, since I'm saying all this without any restraint, so don't give me any annoying reminders of how terrible anorexia is supposed to be. I consider this to be an experiment, with myself as both the scientist and the test subject.

Don't be hatin' now. Love your inner ape. Proud to be ape, aight? Actually, seriously speaking, I thought we all agreed humans = apes + culture?

A little tidbit to add: A person is considered 'foolish' when they pursue an inferior strategy (with lower success rate), as opposed to the socially-accepted strategy. The exception is when the person has a lot of energy/will-power/happiness to expend on experimenting, like children, or those who've found other sources of happiness. So yeah, lots of logical extensions that can be made from the model. Some other stuff this model can explain: - copy-cat personalities - sociopaths - influence of the subconscious - mechanics of incentives

I've never had any education in psychology/sociology, except for some books I read on memetics and anthropology, but I'd like to share a model I've developed of human psychology/sociology since I've gotten interested in the subject. At the core of the human mind are drives. These are the deep-rooted animal instincts that we are all born with. Some examples: - hunger - sleep - social interaction - social power - sex - curiosity - etc... Satisfying these drives isn't as simple as "go up to the tree and get a banana". Homo sapiens would've never survived the cold winters if they weren't capable of quickly adapting to changing environment and following a complex strategy to attaining their needs. This general strategy changes and grows over a lifetime as the human animal has new experiences. The general strategy consists of super-goals, which are broken down into goals, which are broken down into sub-goals, and so on. The actions flow down the chain of intent, and the rewards/emotions flow back up the same path to validate/reinforce or invalidate/discourage the behaviour/strategy. An example of a strategy: > am hungry -> need to eat --> need to buy food ---> need to get money ----> need to get a job -----> need to work hard The general strategy is the behaviour of the human. It can be thought of as the software that runs the human hardware. It is hotwired into lower-level systems (conditioned responses, instincts) by a functionally-complex network. The human operating system has the ability to rewrite its programs, but not the hardware. It can change what it eats, how it chews, but not what foods taste good. Naturally, a certain amount of drives must be satisfied in day-to-day life to maintain sanity, but the human animal is mostly free to experiment and pursue a long-term general strategy for attaining happiness. The general strategy can be broken down into smaller parts that deal with attaining specific goals. Different strategies are competing for use by the person. For a given intent, different strategies can be employed at different times under changing circumstances. But it's not a top-to-bottom pyramid (functionally speaking). It resembles a giant mesh, with feedback loops, links back up, small clusters of tightly-knit units, etc. Ideally, the perfect strategy satisfies the most instincts the best for the least effort. Person naturally follows the strategy that's most successful. For a given intenet, the sucess of a possible strategy can be thought of as an equation: success = rewards / effort It can be thought of like running a business. Goal is to get money (happiness). Money (happiness) flows in as a result of doing work (actions), which required money (effort) to be spent in the first place. Happiness/energy/will-power is never actually spent/destroyed, but converted to internal drives/emotions/instincts. I suppose emotions are conserved, same way as energy or matter. Happiness/effort/will-power begets more happiness/effort/will-power. When a person is happy, he has more energy to experiment with other strategies and be creative. When rewards are diminishing (more effort is required, but less rewards are gotten), then person becomes sad, tired, depressed, etc. When a person is low on happiness/energy/will-power, he conserves internal resources, avoids confrontations, avoids unnecessary expenditure of effort, and chooses the strategy that takes least effort. This creates the basis for stable social classes. Those on the bottom have less happiness/will-power/energy and so must invest it on satisfying more essential drives, which overpower less essential drives. Those on top have an abundance of happiness/will-power/energy and can afford to pursue more effort-demanding actions, like consolidating social power and engaing in confrontations. Happiness also functions as a social signal. It tells others "I can satisfy my drives with little expenditure of effort". This makes others envious/respectful/friendly to this person (depending on social relation), and makes them try to imitate the same successful strategies/behaviour for themselves. Faking emotions goes against this social mechanism by distorting the success rate of strategies/behaviour. Other people percieve intent of the subject carrying out an action, and internally calculate the expected success rate. If expected success rate differs from the one transmitted emotionally by the subject, then the subject is "faking it" for the purpose of some other, social intent, and it is punished instinctively. Sadness, gloominess, depression, etc. also function as social signals. They tell others "my strategy cannot satisfy my drives without using up lots of effort". Emotions also function as social unifiers. A social group (short-term grouping) is united by emotions. They conduct the same emotions, like electric currents. Everyone is emotionally dependant on everyone else. This reduces internal disorder within the group so they can compete as a macro-organism to achieve the same intent/goal (like, bringing down an animal, killing the other tribe and stealing their women, etc). There are those who radiate/transmit the emotions (usually those most respected), and those who internalize/conduct them in a group (usually those least experienced). The group members form an emotional circuit. Imitation and communication facilitates the transfer of strategies and the information on which the strategies rely. That's enough for now... sorry, I realize the wording is wierd, but I'm finding it hard to express the ideas without destroying the meaning. So, does this model reflect/parallel how the current psychological theories picture the human mind? Do you see any theoretical flaws in my model? Any logical conclusions to derive from my model? Anything to add to the model?

What? Now I've completely lost you. Anyheck, I don't really care anymore to try. Bye, guys.

Well... nobody got me yet. But, just out of curiousity, what are people's reactions after reading this: http://www.worldthreats.com/russia_former_ussr/Krutov%20Interview.htm

Can you explain why, on anything other than a moral/religious basis? It can't be for the sake of happiness. Happiness can't be an end in itself, like money can't be an end in itself. You use money to buy goods, and you use happiness to do things you hate. Money is a lot like happiness. Nature probably used happiness as an 'accounting-system' to make sure ape did a certain number of things that ensured its survival. But too much money is worthless if it's not backed up by physical goods. And too much happiness is meaningless if it's not backed up by deeds. There's hippies that say "life is about enjoyment", "the sky is blue", "the grass is green", etc... but they're not the ones snorting coke with hookers, eating McShit everyday... that would be the most efficient way to get instant gratification. Really, that's their role-model, they just don't realize it. Even if they did realize it, they probably wouldn't accomplish it because they would get caught up on the insignificant details, or because of their moral-infexibilities. That's a fukced-up role-model. Can you imagine if that was somebody's actual goal in life? "When I grow up, I want to snort coke with hookers everyday..." Can you see my concern here? Individual is half genes, half ideas. Genes are out-dated, so they won't matter in the long-run. I'd rather manifest myself in ideas than die off like the rest. Everyone's a gear in the clockwork. Think what the world would be like if every gear was like you.

Seems like people aren't getting me... Evolution is working on the individual level, in the sense that it's in effect. But evolution is not working on the social level, in the sense that it's leading to lower fitness of the species. Evolution can't be purely individual-based in the long-run. Alleles are diffused within the genepool as individuals interbreed, so populations will evolve as one unit. Have you read the Selfish Gene Theory? I didn't mean behaviour "personality". I meant behaviour "processes" or "results" - congestion, pollution, car accidents. There's also many other reasons besides. For every owner, cars require resources to build them and to maintain them. They usually don't carry more than 2 people (1/2 operating capacity), and are only operated a fraction of the 24 hours. Mass transit system is better in all these respects. But this really isn't about cars. It seems you people are dwelling too much on the individual, specific details and can't see the whole picture.