"Far from being a “dogma” Marxism draws upon all of the cultural achievements of mankind, including and particularly, science. Marxism, or dialectical materialism, recognises that everything is constantly in a state of change, and that static descriptions of things, or logical categories, are at best incomplete and at worst obsolete or incorrect. Marxism seeks to understand, at any given point of time and over history, by analysing its internal contradictions and the external forces acting upon it (i.e. attempting to view something in its entirety (or at least what we know of it)), at what stage in a PROCESS something, and in particular human society, is. A Marxist theory or conclusion, being scientific, is always open to modification, or abandonment, if sufficient evidence becomes available to disprove or invalidate it.
Posted by tao, Sunday, 1 April 2007 11:37:19 AM"

HAHAHAHAHAHA
Good one tao, April 1st right? At least you got it in before noon!

tao: I was going to post a big, long response, but I thought I'd just summarise it like this (which might be perceived as being a bit glib):

Marxist, do you acknowledge these flaws in your theory?
/Marxist endlessly rehashes Marx, and then goes on to argue that what everyone thinks was an example of socialism wasn't really socialism.

Capitalist, do you acknowledge these flaws in your theory?
/Capitalist endlessly rehashes Smith, Friedman, Heinlein, etc., and then goes on to argue that what everyone thinks was an example of capitalism wasn't really a free market.

Religious person, do you acknowledge these flaws in your belief system?
/Religious person endlessly rehashes major prophet, and then goes on to argue that what everyone thought was an example of said religion wasn't actually a true faith.

Etcetera.

On another matter, I think I should have used the term "self interest" instead of greed. It's much more encompassing of human behaviour. I stand corrected.

I also should have said "so-called higher notions of man" rather than just "higher notions of man". As to people who buy into these, if they're really genuine, I think they're suffering from some sort of mental illness. Honestly, if I said I believe in Zeus and talk to him, people would think I was off my tree, or at least having a laugh. Likewise, the notion of "fighting for peace" or invading and occupying someone's country to free them is bizarre to me. Maybe that sort of double speak is necessary to justify a power grab, but to me, anyone who really, truly believes any foreign expedition is about so-called higher notions of man has either been had, is lying to himself, or is off his tree. I think the Iraq War is a complete balls up, not because I give a rodent's earlobe about the Iraqi people (I figure if those clowns were too stupid or lazy to get rid of a dictator and are stupid enough to fight a civil war, then there's not much I could do for them even if I wanted to, but then the majority of them also believe in imaginary friends), but because anyone with half a brain could have seen that Iraq was certain to turn into Vietnam Phase 2. Also, if anyone really cared about helping people, there were, and are, a whole lot of higher priorities than Iraq. Zimbabwe doesn't have oil though.

Yabby, 1 April
“Tao and Rob, no flaws in my thinking at all!”
Anyone can make a statement – which is all you’ve done here.
Your lack of an actual defence demonstrates your lack of an actual defence.

“The thing is, there are alot smarter people then you two,
working in the field of neuroscience and understanding
how the mind works.”
You are obviously not one of them.

“Altruism and reciprocal altruism are part of human nature
too, but once again, there is a compotent of self interest.”

This is different from what you said before,
I have no problem with the idea that self-interest
is a component (I presume that is what you meant)
in altruism – you stated previously that it was all self-interest.

“Look at the two wealthiest men on the planet, giving their
fortunes away to charity.”

Yeah, old Bill Gates only kept US$58 billion for himself
He is really doing it tough now.

“Under Marxism, there is simply no good reason of self interest
to bother getting out of bed. I will be provided for anyhow,
so I might as well let others do the work and screw the system.
So of course it fails again and again.”

The world is full of people doing work for no monetary reward
I believe Australia has one of the highest volunteer rates in the world
For example, almost the entire bush fire brigade is volunteer.
People contributing to this forum do so without monetary reward.
I guess this means your theory falls apart or perhaps you would
Care to explain why the things that motivate people to volunteer
Would not also motivate people under a Marxist type of system.

“You ignore human nature at your peril”
And you ignore common sense at yours.

"I guess this means your theory falls apart or perhaps you would
Care to explain why the things that motivate people to volunteer
Would not also motivate people under a Marxist type of system."

My theory does not fall apart at all! People volunteer their
time for much the same reasons as philanthropy. Firstly they
have the choice to do it or not. They are not being compelled
by the state or anyone else. Clearly they believe in whatever
they are giving their time or money to.

Given that choice, they then make it as they believe in it,
then feel good about being able to pat themselves on the
back for being so altruistic. Following your feelings is
common human behaviour.

Now if the state forces you or tries to force you to do
something, thats quite different. Tell me how many people
feel great about sending off their income tax cheque.
Yet the same people will willingly give large amounts to
charity, for the reasons I have explained.

Your volunteer firefighters are a great example of that.
I have a firetruck here and when smoke rises in summer,
we all rush off to help extinguish the blaze. People enjoy
the cameraderie etc that goes with it. Yet if the Govt
tried to compel us to do all that without compensation,
there would be a huge outcry!

I remind you that Bill Gates has donated more to charity
then anyone else, he has also stated that he intends to
give most of the rest of his money away too. He is still
young after all. The hardest part with philanthropy is
making sure that its spent wisely and not just wasted,
as is often the case. Thats the problem with giving
the Govt any extra. The huge waste that we all see,
in the way its spent.

Yabby said it pretty well, but there's an additional factor which wasn't mentioned: the fact that whatever economic system we choose has to apply to everyone.

There is really no comparison between volunteering and contributing to a state system.

Aside from the points Yabby mentioned, there is the fact that not everybody contributes to charities. Many people are only interested in rorting the system.
It is the way of things, that those who are most skilled at looking after their own interests have a way of reaching positions of importance. This occurs under capitalism, but capitalism recognises that people look after their own interests.

People often to charitable things because they feel good that they have made the choice to do these things.

Is it still philathropy if you are forced to do it? Would people still feel good about it?

Rob - it's fair enough to make those points. To try and say that this bowls over these theories really is putting the cart before the horse.