General Understanding of "Well being"

All systems claim to be valid since, theoretically, all systems' aim is to get to human wellbeing. However, in order to be able to discern wether a system leads to wellbeing or not and thus is valid or not, wellbeing is to be defined.

The problem with "wellbeing" it is not a concept with an enclosed meaning. Just as "good" and "bad" are subjective terms, "wellbeing" is subjective.

We can talk about health or education as factors influding wellbeing, however, for example in the case of education, we would have to get into a certain education's details in order to jugde its validity. We can talk about access to water, food etc. as factors of wellbeing. But wellbeing is also influded by the rules that lead a society.

Many capitalists, for example, believe that as all of us are different and all of us have different abilities, those with greater abilities should be rewarded over those with lesser abilities. In their view that is fair enough. So unavoidably capitalists do not believe in a class-less society. They think society should be devided in superior and inferior classes and those superior classes should get profit from the inferior classes. They think that a quasi animal struggle for survival is correct and that those strong enough to survive and progress are the ones with right to enjoy certain wellbeing.

Well, this is merely introductory, I don't want to fully develop my ideas on the issue yet. I invite you all comrades to post your ideas on the subject

Edit: I made this a sticky because I consider it as a main topic when debating politics.

I fully agree with this. My vies is similiar to yours. I think I will expand on it soon.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

All systems claim to be valid since, theoretically, all systems' aim is to get to human wellbeing. However, in order to be able to discern wether a system leads to wellbeing or not and thus is valid or not, wellbeing is to be defined.

The problem with "wellbeing" it is not a concept with an enclosed meaning. Just as "good" and "bad" are subjective terms, "wellbeing" is subjective.

We can talk about health or education as factors influding wellbeing, however, for example in the case of education, we would have to get into a certain education's details in order to jugde its validity. We can talk about access to water, food etc. as factors of wellbeing. But wellbeing is also influded by the rules that lead a society.

Many capitalists, for example, believe that as all of us are different and all of us have different abilities, those with greater abilities should be rewarded over those with lesser abilities. In their view that is fair enough. So unavoidably capitalists do not believe in a class-less society. They think society should be devided in superior and inferior classes and those superior classes should get profit from the inferior classes. They think that a quasi animal struggle for survival is correct and that those strong enough to survive and progress are the ones with right to enjoy certain wellbeing.

Well, this is merely introductory, I don't want to fully develop my ideas on the issue yet. I invite you all comrades to post your ideas on the subject

Edit: I made this a sticky because I consider it as a main topic when debating politics.

this is wron capitalism assumes evryone is born eqal and have the same chans for a good life it's up to the indevidual to choose wether he tries hard to succsed or not.

mattabesta wrote:

this is wron capitalism assumes evryone is born eqal and have the same chans for a good life it's up to the indevidual to choose wether he tries hard to succsed or not.

Capitalism doesn't assume everyone is born equal, and those who think so are pretty ignorant or simple fools.

Two people with same intellect and willingness to progress are born in different families in the same country but of course with different conditions.

Individual 1 is born within a rich urban family.
Individual 2 is born within a poor peasant family.

Individual 1 doesn't have any majour concern while he grows up: He can easily play, get toys, diversions, he has access to entertainment, to food, nothing to worry about. he can freely observe the world and learn from it, from his experience. He has access to all comodities: food, a comfortable house, literature, electricity, telecommunications, mass media. His development is not truncated by any factor.

Individual 2 does have majour concerns: he has to work to be able to wat. he and the members of his family have to work so that they can have enough, just to simply survive. They barely have water, they don't have electricity and are too busy working to survive to even think about something else. This guy's even physical development is truncated from the very infancy.

As Individual 1 grows he's been able to learn to read and write, he's had contact with mathematics, he has possibility of instruction not only at school but in his own home. he has nothing to worry about, just learn, play and relax, just develop comfortably.

Individual 2 on the other hand hasn't been able to change much of his situation. he still needs to work to help sustain his family and, while individual 1 has already got basic education, Individual 2 doesn't know how to read yet.

Individual 1 is able to travel to other countries, is able to open his outlook.
Individual 2 is not able to travel and has few notion of what goes on beyond his community.

Eventually, individual 1 develops quickly and already counts with an economical basis given by his family.

Individual 2 develops incompletely and at a much lower rate than Individual 1, else, in case he got a lucky shot and was able to develop in the spheres he was unable to develop, he still doesn't count with an economical base.

--- Now Matthías, on those very real grounds how can all people be born equal?

And even probably more important. How is that linked to your understanding of wellbeing?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

this is wron capitalism assumes evryone is born eqal and have the same chans for a good life it's up to the indevidual to choose wether he tries hard to succsed or not.

Capitalism doesn't assume everyone is born equal, and those who think so are pretty ignorant or simple fools.

Two people with same intellect and willingness to progress are born in different families in the same country but of course with different conditions.

Individual 1 is born within a rich urban family.
Individual 2 is born within a poor peasant family.

Individual 1 doesn't have any majour concern while he grows up: He can easily play, get toys, diversions, he has access to entertainment, to food, nothing to worry about. he can freely observe the world and learn from it, from his experience. He has access to all comodities: food, a comfortable house, literature, electricity, telecommunications, mass media. His development is not truncated by any factor.

Individual 2 does have majour concerns: he has to work to be able to wat. he and the members of his family have to work so that they can have enough, just to simply survive. They barely have water, they don't have electricity and are too busy working to survive to even think about something else. This guy's even physical development is truncated from the very infancy.

As Individual 1 grows he's been able to learn to read and write, he's had contact with mathematics, he has possibility of instruction not only at school but in his own home. he has nothing to worry about, just learn, play and relax, just develop comfortably.

Individual 2 on the other hand hasn't been able to change much of his situation. he still needs to work to help sustain his family and, while individual 1 has already got basic education, Individual 2 doesn't know how to read yet.

Individual 1 is able to travel to other countries, is able to open his outlook.
Individual 2 is not able to travel and has few notion of what goes on beyond his community.

Eventually, individual 1 develops quickly and already counts with an economical basis given by his family.

Individual 2 develops incompletely and at a much lower rate than Individual 1, else, in case he got a lucky shot and was able to develop in the spheres he was unable to develop, he still doesn't count with an economical base.

--- Now Matthías, on those very real grounds how can all people be born equal?

And even probably more important. How is that linked to your understanding of wellbeing?

ofcorse #1 should have a better life his family worked harder to get rich.
under capitalism even tho you are poor and have to hard for your food you can work harder or use yure brain. btw both #1 and 2 get eqal education under capitalism so i can't see were your going.

mattabesta wrote:

ofcorse #1 should have a better life his family worked harder to get rich.

No one is arguing wether it is correct or not if Individual 1 has a better life than Individual 2. No one is arguing about how fair this is.

I'm arguing that simply WE'RE NOT BORN EQUAL.

mattabesta wrote:

under capitalism even tho you are poor and have to hard for your food you can work harder or use yure brain.

Working consumes time and energy, lack of food make energy scarce. With few energy and time you can hardly use your brain at full performance.

mattabesta wrote:

btw both #1 and 2 get eqal education under capitalism so i can't see were your going.

Not only is that a phallacy, even if it was true.... 2 has to spend time and energies on work diverting attention from studies and being unable to develop and perform fully.

Now, get it very clear: I don't care if you consider it correct or fair that disparity, that is a matter of personal views. But, don't around writing ridiculous statements that "we all are born equal and then it's up to each of us" because that, from any perspective is wrong, not real. And ask to real capitalists they do acknowledge that we all aren't born with the same intelligence, under same conditions, etc. Capitalism is not based on the premise that all have equal oportunities and qualities from the start because that is fake.

And I insist, how is this linked to your concept of wellbeing?

And, please, stop overquoting. Quote only what you're going to use or, if you're going to quote a whole post organize the quotation and your reply.

mattabesta wrote:
"ofcorse #1 should have a better life his family worked harder to get rich."

So your saying because, the mistakes and success of the fathers the sons/daughters should have less or more of a chance at living a happy life, i think this is moraly wrong, ones life should not depends on the poor decisions of ones father

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

ofcorse #1 should have a better life his family worked harder to get rich.

No one is arguing wether it is correct or not if Individual 1 has a better life than Individual 2. No one is arguing about how fair this is.

I'm arguing that simply WE'RE NOT BORN EQUAL.

mattabesta wrote:

under capitalism even tho you are poor and have to hard for your food you can work harder or use yure brain.

Working consumes time and energy, lack of food make energy scarce. With few energy and time you can hardly use your brain at full performance.

mattabesta wrote:

btw both #1 and 2 get eqal education under capitalism so i can't see were your going.

Not only is that a phallacy, even if it was true.... 2 has to spend time and energies on work diverting attention from studies and being unable to develop and perform fully.

Now, get it very clear: I don't care if you consider it correct or fair that disparity, that is a matter of personal views. But, don't around writing ridiculous statements that "we all are born equal and then it's up to each of us" because that, from any perspective is wrong, not real. And ask to real capitalists they do acknowledge that we all aren't born with the same intelligence, under same conditions, etc. Capitalism is not based on the premise that all have equal oportunities and qualities from the start because that is fake.

And I insist, how is this linked to your concept of wellbeing?

And, please, stop overquoting. Quote only what you're going to use or, if you're going to quote a whole post organize the quotation and your reply.

why dose the poor one have to work?
in most capitalist cuntryes ther are very few poor pepole the number in iceland is less than 2% and unimplaoyment ius 0.83% i think the lowest in the world.

remember, 1% of the worlds population controles 40% of the worlds money, is that fair, do you think that 1% really does 40%t of the worlds work, I think not.

mattabesta wrote:

why dose the poor one have to work?

It depends on the country and siutuation you're talking about. In some cases sons have to help to get enough income for all the family even to simply survive.

And, even if that poor one didn't have to work, his didactic facilities are limited by logistics and aquisition of technology.

mattabesta wrote:

in most capitalist cuntryes ther are very few poor pepole

Taking into account that ALL the countries are capitalist and that THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE POOR what you said is a complete phallacy.

mattabesta wrote:

the number in iceland is less than 2% and unimplaoyment ius 0.83% i think the lowest in the world.

That's because Iceland is protected by the G7's imperialism. Iceland gives them fish, aluminium and even energy and they protect Icelandic stability.
But guess what? We're not talking about that little Island in the north which apparently is Isolated from the world and protected by the 1st world (empires') courtain. We're talking about most countries in the world and about the biggest share of the population.

And once again could you stick to the damned topic?: What's your concept of wellbeing? As simple as that.

And once again, Quote only what you're going to use, don't overquote. Ok?

RedNation wrote:

remember, 1% of the worlds population controles 40% of the worlds money, is that fair, do you think that 1% really does 40%t of the worlds work, I think not.

your right when you have money it's esay to make more and it's well something well have to deal with.

mattabesta wrote:

RedNation wrote:

remember, 1% of the worlds population controles 40% of the worlds money, is that fair, do you think that 1% really does 40%t of the worlds work, I think not.

your right when you have money it's esay to make more and it's well something well have to deal with.

No it's somthing we have to change, I don't think its right, so ill try to change it.I'm not jsut going to sit back and watch somthing I balieve in go up in flames, the rich are geting richer and the poor are geting poorer, it's a cliche I know but for the moment, it's true

RedNation wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

RedNation wrote:

remember, 1% of the worlds population controles 40% of the worlds money, is that fair, do you think that 1% really does 40%t of the worlds work, I think not.

your right when you have money it's esay to make more and it's well something well have to deal with.

No it's somthing we have to change, I don't think its right, so ill try to change it.I'm not jsut going to sit back and watch somthing I balieve in go up in flames, the rich are geting richer and the poor are geting poorer, it's a cliche I know but for the moment, it's true

I just said that.
african gpd is starting to pick up and investors are showing intest but dude to the world stock crisis it's unlykly to be as fast as previusly thought.

Is it THAT hard to stick to the topic?

I'm asking here what your concept of welbeing is, we're not discussing about African GDP or poverty. We're discussing about wellbeing, what it stands for.

My understanding of wellbeing...it is where everybody, the majority, if possible, all, humans can have a happy life with family and friends.

No money crap, no GDP, no "rich ist US" BS anymore!

I want to see a world where things are shared equally. Families can spend quality time with their children, friends can hang out, co-workers have comradeship and unity within them.

Capitalism can NEVER bring any true wellbeing in the long run. If capitalism is to continue unchecked, then we will soon be killing each other for resources and living space.

Capitalism has never worked, not now, not ever.

Thank you very much Jeiro... finally some concept of wellbeing...

I want the world as it is now.

I just want to enjoy the moment while I can.

Late 90s were ok...

mattabesta wrote:

I want the world as it is now.

I just want to enjoy the moment while I can.

And your concept of wellbeing is....?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

I want the world as it is now.

I just want to enjoy the moment while I can.

And your concept of wellbeing is....?

I don't know.
but I want to live till I'll be 95 (same as my gr8 grandfather)
work till I'll be 65 and get rich.

mattabesta wrote:

I don't know.

Ok, some honest answer... Think about what you think is good for people, about what is the proper way to live, the way to achieve happiness, etc. You'll modify this concept as you grow but I'd like to know your concept as it is now.

mattabesta wrote:

but I want to live till I'll be 95 (same as my gr8 grandfather)
work till I'll be 65 and get rich.

A more or less good start...

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

I don't know.

Ok, some honest answer... Think about what you think is good for people, about what is the proper way to live, the way to achieve happiness, etc. You'll modify this concept as you grow but I'd like to know your concept as it is now.

mattabesta wrote:

but I want to live till I'll be 95 (same as my gr8 grandfather)
work till I'll be 65 and get rich.

A more or less good start...

lol thank you.
I'm 13 not really thinking about life.

mattabesta wrote:

lol thank you.
I'm 13 not really thinking about life.

That's as patent as the blueness of the sky.

However to argue about politics you should actually be thinking about life and what wellbeing stands for.

Well being in my little red cook book stands for:

-A Man can wake up in the morning, without fear ( from the Police for example)
-A man goes to work with a smile on his face, becous he is doing what he likes
-A man spends time with his family friends, and hangs out, has a good time
-A man has no need to fear another man
-A man knows that he is as valuable as any other citizen of the state
-A man never is hungry
-A man has a place to sleep
-A man don't have to fear for his health, becous he knows the state provides it.
-A man don't have to fear for losing his job
-A man wakes up every morning with a smile, knowing he will once again go to a job he loves doing, and at the same time builds a better future for the benefit of the state, and the benefit of his children.

Wellbeing is of course 100% subjective so to some people capitalism produces well-being while to others, like me, communism is better. So if there is no objective definition of wellbeing how can you objectively know which system is better? The simple answer is you can't.

What you CAN objectively know is what system WILL happen, which, as Marx proved, is communism. This is why Marxism is called scientific socialism.