Trust

[Doll]

oh you kid. you kid, clever slick.

uhhhh. no. -.- i am too tired for this so i will just watch and stop being dumb because of my lack of sleep, SOWWIES lol

 

[Mitton]

I live my life by trust.
I trust that my sister can look after herself when she goes out,I trust myself when I drive. When people say they cant trust anymore they forget to mention they can't/won't trust a certain thing anymore, but if trust wasnt a sense we were all born with we wouldnt get out of our house's we all have trust in all aspects of our lives.

 

[Horus]

You live by trust? That's not a good way to live. If you live by trust, you're living by assumptions. You're assuming your sister will be able to take care of herself, but what if something happens that she accidentally burns down your house or something like that? What if something like that happened to her, because you werent home to protect her, because you trusted her?

 

[ARC150]

You make it sound as though you could not conceive of sacrificing your own life to help someone else. Many people do this though, and it is often the sensible thing to do, biologically speaking.

I mean to say that individuals have two drives - to protect the self and to protect others. The drive to protect the self is sensible, biologically speaking; the drive to protect others at the cost of protection of the self is sensible in terms of protecting the species, but not sensible in terms of protecting the self.

The strength of each of these drives varies from person to person; but in the general case, the desire for self-preservation overpowers the desire for species-preservation when the two drives are at odds with each other.

 

[Anvil]

I dont really trust, nor do I distrust. I live realistically, and am usually prepared for anything. I don't however look at the worst side of things. I'm not quite sure how I do it, but if my a close family member were to be murdered tommorrow, I wouldn't be bothered by it. I guess its my outlook on death, the future, etc. thats keeps cool about things.

 

[Keltoi]

I dont really trust, nor do I distrust. I live realistically, and am usually prepared for anything. I don't however look at the worst side of things. I'm not quite sure how I do it, but if my a close family member were to be murdered tommorrow, I wouldn't be bothered by it. I guess its my outlook on death, the future, etc. thats keeps cool about things.

You wouldn't be bothered by a close family member being murdered?....I think that says more about you than anything about trust.

 

[Anvil]

I figure I was quite inebriated when I wrote that last night, but I do stand by most of it... That death part should be taken out... Im not quite sure what I meant by that, but it DEFINATELY wasnt that.

 

[infoterror]

Until there's a common direction for civilization, there will be no trust. Everyone's out for themselves... and the result is a feast of parasitism.

 

[ARC150]

I dont really trust, nor do I distrust. I live realistically, and am usually prepared for anything. I don't however look at the worst side of things. I'm not quite sure how I do it, but if my a close family member were to be murdered tommorrow, I wouldn't be bothered by it. I guess its my outlook on death, the future, etc. thats keeps cool about things.
***********
I figure I was quite inebriated when I wrote [the above statement] last night, but I do stand by most of it... That death part should be taken out... Im not quite sure what I meant by that, but it DEFINATELY wasnt that.

I would bet that you are in your late teens.

There is a certain...nescience that intertwines itself with notions of independence at a certain point in a person's idealogical maturation. This is not a slam on you, by any means, but perhaps an (ill-formed) inquiry into ambivalent statements like:

• I dont really trust, nor do I distrust.
• ...usually prepared for anything.
• I'm not quite sure how I do it...
• I guess its my outlook...

Apologies for perhaps picking apart your statement; but this is a very unclear statement of self that you have put forth...a notable point in a thread on distrust.

 

[ARC150]

Until there's a common direction for civilization, there will be no trust. Everyone's out for themselves... and the result is a feast of parasitism.

Do you think Communism would work?
(Not the ill-structured psuedo-communism that has been adopted by certain people, but the true nirvana that Marx and Engles originally put forth)?

 

[speed]

Do you think Communism would work?
(Not the ill-structured psuedo-communism that has been adopted by certain people, but the true nirvana that Marx and Engles originally put forth)?

There's too many economic and social flaws and too much utopian faith in Marx's communism, for it to ever work. He put way too much emphasis on labor and property, did not foresee the rise of credit, or a service/information based economy.

However,a similar economic/political state may evolve in a few hundred years once there is less and less work and even money available. Marx in my view, was quite stupid in writing the second half of the Communist Manifesto (advocating the Communist party, revolution) which contradicted Das Kapital, The GRundrisse, the first half of the Manifesto, and his previous essays, where he delineated a slow gradual Hegelian form of history, where a form of communism would naturally emerge. I think he was ahead of his time, and if he was writing today, he'd come up with a similar but new theory. Really in America, 65% of jobs are basically service based. And more and more jobs are being created in the service industry which are low paying, whereas higher paying jobs are disappearing or becoming harder to find (going to India, or even being subcontracted out), and high paying manufacturing jobs keep disappearing. Anyway, I do enjoy talking Marx. Sorry for the lenghty post.

 

[infoterror]

Do you think Communism would work?

No, for many reasons. It's still based on economics. There needs to be an actual ideal beyond materialism.

I am a Socialist, but only in combination with another culturally-derived belief system.

 

[ARC150]

There's too many economic and social flaws and too much utopian faith in Marx's communism, for it to ever work. Marx in my view, was quite stupid in writing the second half of the Communist Manifesto (advocating the Communist party, revolution) which contradicted Das Kapital..

Good point.

When I think of Marx's communism, I am referring (in my mind) to Das Kapital. I keep the Communist Manifesto in a shoebox with Mao's Little Red Book and last year's copy of TV guide.

 

[speed]

Good point.

When I think of Marx's communism, I am referring (in my mind) to Das Kapital. I keep the Communist Manifesto in a shoebox with Mao's Little Red Book and last year's copy of TV guide.

Haha. You get T.V. guide? But the first half of the Manifesto is excellent: the historical criticism of capitalism.

 

[3200]

I think the distrust that has been building in this country for decades now lay firmly on the shoulders of the media.

They continually try to polarize people with political and religious misinformation and hype. There is too much emphasis on whether some one has a "D" or an "R" behind their name and not enough on who they are, what they stand for and what they can do for the country.

Conspiracy theories sell... they keep people tuned in... to watch comercials and be told what to believe.

Is it any wonder that the polarization of America has left so many of us in the middle?:Smug:

 

[ARC150]

Haha. You get T.V. guide? But the first half of the Manifesto is excellent: the historical criticism of capitalism.

LOL - No, I don't get TV guide - I don't even watch TV.

And the CM is not a worthless document (though this was the point I was jovially making by throwing it in a box with a TV guide), but it was a document, IMHO, created for public consumption and is unnecessary if you have the opportunity to read everything else that Marx wrote. The same goes for Mao's LRB - with the necessary exception that he never put forth anything that I find valuable. The CM attempted to make clear to the masses what Marx rolled out in earlier works; the LRB is a nauseating example of the tradgedy that can occur by taking communism only half way.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Charles Fourier (18th-19th c French socialist)"The Jews,by virtue of their dedication to trade, are the spies of all nations,and if need be informers and hangmen, as one may see in Turkey today, where they denounce, at so much per head, outcasts in hiding , and commit a thousand other infamous deeds" ("Theorie de l'unite univereselle").
"It is extremely odd, now in this day when 'socialism' is virtually a Jewish private preserve, that all of the great pioneers in the revolt against predacious capitalism were anti-Jewish. From Fichte through Blanqui, Fourier, Leroux and Proudhon to Bakunyin, the Jew was always seen as the oppressor and the exploiter par excellence".

Bakunyin (19th c Russian Revolutionary - Anarchist): "I am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschilds appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschilds. This may seem strange. What could there be in common between communism and high finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labour of the people, will always find the means for its existence."

Socialism is creative and constructive, and is the natural way for people to cooperate for mutual benefit. It is the basic foundation of society. If every man laboured only in his own selfish interests, in other words was completely immersed in "individual enterprise", as certain political parties eagerly espouse, humanity would still be back in the stoneage. Even building a family takes the cooperative sacrifice of the individual for the good of the group.

It's really unfortunate that people should see socialism as being some kind of version of communism. There is very little difference between Marxist communism and the same old suicidal destructive advice Jesus gives in the Sermon on the Mount. All just repackaged.

 

[speed]

Charles Fourier (18th-19th c French socialist): "It is extremely odd, now in this day when 'socialism' is virtually a Jewish private preserve, that all of the great pioneers in the revolt against predacious capitalism were anti-Jewish. From Fichte through Blanqui, Fourier, Leroux and Proudhon to Bakunyin, the Jew was always seen as the oppressor and the exploiter par excellence".

Bakunyin (19th c Russian Revolutionary - Anarchist): "I am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschilds appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschilds. This may seem strange. What could there be in common between communism and high finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labour of the people, will always find the means for its existence."

Socialism is creative and constructive, and is the natural way for people to cooperate for mutual benefit. It is the basic foundation of society. If every man laboured only in his own selfish interests, in other words was completely immersed in "individual enterprise", as certain political parties eagerly espouse, humanity would still be back in the stoneage. Even building a family takes the cooperative sacrifice of the individual for the good of the group.

It's really unfortunate that people should see socialism as being some kind of version of communism. There is very little difference between Marxist communism and the same old suicidal destructive advice Jesus gives in the Sermon on the Mount. All just repackaged.

I love Bakunin. But did you know Norsemaiden, that Lenin followed Bakunin's advice for revolution--from how it is set up, the select few that leads it, etc--to a T. He even followed his advice for how to set up the government. Thats right, Lenin based the communist party's structure largely on Bakunin, a anarchist.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I love Bakunin. But did you know Norsemaiden, that Lenin followed Bakunin's advice for revolution--from how it is set up, the select few that leads it, etc--to a T. He even followed his advice for how to set up the government. Thats right, Lenin based the communist party's structure largely on Bakunin, a anarchist.

I haven't read anywhere near as much about it as you have Speed, and that is interesting information.

There are some passages on a couple of sites that I found that seem relevant to this however.


"After the October Revolution, anarchists started to denounce the Bolshevik regime and call for a 'Third Revolution' which would finally free the masses from all bosses (capitalist or socialist). They exposed the difference between the rhetoric of Bolshevism (as expressed in Lenin's State and Revolution) with its reality. Bolshevism in power had proved Bakunin's prediction that the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would become the 'dictatorship over the proletariat.' In April 1918, the Bolsheviks began the physical suppression of their anarchist rivals using the Cheka (Lenin's secret police formed in December, 1917).

All this happened before the start of the Civil War in late May, 1918, which most supporters of Leninism blame for the Bolsheviks' authoritarianism. During the civil war, this process simply accelerated, with the Bolsheviks' systematically repressing opposition from all quarters -- including the strikes and protests of the very class who they claimed was exercising its "dictatorship" while they were in power!"

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/leninism/legacy.html

Previously the Bolsheviks had cynically used anarchist mottoes, instead of the Marxist rhetoric, as they found it was more popular with the public.

"It is also significant that, unlike Lenin, Bakunin explicitly argued that 'this organisation rules out any idea of dictatorship and custodial control' and 'these groups would not seek anything for themselves, neither privilege nor honour nor power.' Rather, 'the revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and supreme control must always belong to the people organised into a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations . . . organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary delegation.' "

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchists/bakunin/reply_swp_may01.html

 

[Magrathean]

Should we distrust people until they have proven themselves trustworthy, or should we trust people unless they prove they are unworthy of trust? Is it as simple as that?

I wouldn't say it is as simple as that. In fact, i cannot give a definite answer. I suppose it all depends on the social circle you live in, the experience(s) you've had and the way you are. A couple of years ago i would have said that distrusting everything/everyone is the best way to avoid damage done to oneself, but if i hadn't (half-blindedly) trusted my girlfriend/fianceé in the first few days i wouldn't have such a beautiful life as the one i have now (now i can trust her and be sure that she won't betray me, because i know her like that). Then again, i have been betrayed by almost every friend i've ever had. Since without pain life cannot be beautiful and one cannot become a beautiful person (although that might be only my opinion), i'd say it's good to trust sometimes and to be hurt/betrayed some of those times. I think it all goes down to what to trust and what not to, as opposed to trusting everything or trusting nothing.