Just to recount, we were debating on the reasons for the failure of socialism. You argued that it was because of the resistance it faced from the west, and i disagree, point out to the faults within it(socialism), i.e: it's aim of eliminating the competitive nature that is part and parcel of humans. So far, this is where the debate has reached.
It seems kuwa theory ya evolution inakuuma kwa ndani. Dont know why, but that's the message i am getting. Hapa hatu-debate where humans came from, that is on another level, hapa tunaongelea nature ya humans iliyokuwa represented ndani ya hiyo theory - yaani survival of the fittest. My argument has been, whether the evolution of human is right or wrong, we can still prove the existance of competition for survival within us. Yaani hiyo part ya theory iko correct. Inaelekea wewe huijui, na unadhani mimi na-base argument yangu katika mwanzo wa binadamu.
I have pointed out to the everyday proof of the existance of this part of the theory and you have failed to dis-prove them.
wewe umeishia kutoa mifano yako mmoja mmoja wa ku-counter prove the competitive theory. Mfano ulikuwa wa NK, sasa umekuja na huu. Sawa twende na mifano yako. Where are these societies? Have they managed to develop as compare to the other societies which have embraced competition among its members? These societies you have referred to live in the most extreme of conditions. They need each other just for pure survival. One lives in the dessert, the other in rainforest and the last in artict conditions. What would you expect from such societies. The conditions they live in, i.e: lack of food and need for shelter, etc, occupies their need, that they do not get time to compete. Such conditions cater for a society based living. You can argue this might be a better example of proving circumstances cause human reaction than the ice cream one you provided earlier....hehehe! But may argument stands, these societies have been pushed to the brink of extinction by our more dominant societies which had allowed for their best products to live on through competition. Kama wangekuwa na a better system, wao ndo wangekuwa na maendeleo na sio sisi.
I have done my research. I know what i am talking about. You have just failed to defend your position, causing you to turn the argument into a research issue. Goodluck with being an observer. Failure to argue should not deter you from competing. On the contrary, it should urge you to make better arguments.
I never said capitalism is perfect. I just disagree with socialism, as i believe it totaly contradicts human's nature. I am competitive by nature, and i would not live in a society that supresses my ability to compete. Competition allows for the weak to be replaced with the strong, for the better survival of human's race.
Kwa heri!
Mh., mtoto if u you took it, me choosing to be an observer is due to not justifying my arguments then i think i have to clear my position before i signoff.
debating has many angles, lawyers go to court to justy and try to interpret the law, therefore its the battle of words based on what law says. not guilty until proven so without a reasonable doubt. on the other hand scientific debates (social sciences) are based purely on proven evidence rather than speculation.
if i'm correct you centred our natural compepetive-ness due to the way we are built (the nature within us) and Darwin theory proved so. Ok for starters Darwin was not a Social Theorist (Psychologist, Sociologist nor an Anthropologist) he was Palaentologist, therefore he dealt mostly with carcasses, especially old age ones in trying to prove the connections of our evolution that we have with other species. Second his survival of the fittest ideology he mostly used on early molecules formation (early life under water) he claims that early life was not stable, therefore matter returned into particles easily therefore life occured to those molecules which formatted a strong bond, this is where his survival of the fittest ideology began. He then went on to suggest this survival of the fittest ideology during the times where all creatures shared the same environment, and the context of it was purely based on the food chain of the time, what creature ate what creature for its survival, the weaker creature did not make it as they ended being at the bottom of the food chain. this terminology is like like Freud's libido most people use it has highsex drive, but freud himself had a different interpretition of it. third and lastly Darwin has never done a reseach on how societies are formed nor how people intercact in society this is why i keep insisting you do your research properly matter of fact most of his research work was done in isolated Islands of Galapagos investigating species.
another thing you keep insisting that we have natural tendency towards competition, i gave you a scientific evidence of the foraging societies, that those communities were far apart as continental distance, with different atmospheric surrounding, but as hunters and gatherers they shared a common life style of sharing naturally, on the naked eye it may seems that is what they were naturally. but exploring, them you'll find they have to if they are to survive, as i mentioned this was life before man started farming, therefore humans had figured out in the survival of the fittest era to deal with large beast they have to be a team or else they could be an easy target as individuals, clearly that was the case au? if so then humans are resonable people.
lastly since we are reasonable then we adopt to new situations to fulfill our needs as humans hapa tunarudi tena kwenye Capitalism yako, the structure creates competition therefore again on the naked it may appear humans are competitive individiuals, no we are not just as the foragers are not sharers but we adopt to the environment we have to survive.
while on the same topic of capitalism. this method was not created for humans to compete at first, the whole thing was based on exploitation of humans and creating social pyramid at first. the earliest form of captialims was that of Kingdoms and ruling classes, as more people joined the ruling classes it moved into ancient slavery (such as Egyptian, Greek and Roman), it moved into Fiefdom, Feudalism and lastly the African slave trade, early merchants relied on wealthy upper classes at first to finance their voyages, before the banks decided to jump on the lucrative slave trade, however though it has spread worldly bit it mainly based on greedy rather than competition. for instance today less than 10% (people)of the world population own almost 90%(wealth). since humans are caught up by birth in this ideology then humans have to learn where do they want to end up in this new pryamid. this is where our competitive-ness begin. because the systems has owners at the top and workers at the bottom. so workers have to offer their manpower, manual, admin, research etc, etc basen on the level of edu. deters where you are likely to fit in the organisation.
this is not to say we are competitive, kama ulivyosema we ni mmbishi na competitive but i think that is, more to do with being given too much attention with fellow students, having most your all the time rather than being naturally Mmbishi. this argument lies more in the lines of Pavlov, Skinner, Rogers, Freud, Vygotsky, Durkheim, Maslow etc, etc or else to say we naturally competitive based on Darwin ni kulopoka tu Mkuu, if we can go there to prove that yes i'm there or else good-bye unless otherwise.