NationStates Jolt Archive

Robin Hood lives!

People taking part in a game designed to explore egalitarian impulses in human nature consistently robbed from players assigned the most money while giving money to those with the least, scientists said on Wednesday."In essence, what we found is that our taste for equality is one of the important reasons why we cooperate with each other, much more so than, say, other species of primates," Fowler said in a telephone interview.About 70 percent of participants at some point reduced or added to another person's money, most often by taking from the richest players or by donating to the poorest players, the study found.

These actions had the collective effect of equalizing income among the players -- with participants spending their own money to achieve the goal.

The researchers said even players whose own loot had been pilfered in previous rounds were willing to take steps to redistribute the money in an egalitarian manner.

Link! (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1123415520070411)

Do people innately value equality? Can we go ahead and put a +1 in the communism/anarchism column now, or will capitalist apologists still insist that theirs is the only system compatible with human nature?

This doesn't surprise me one bit. Free from any actual real life consequences of their actions, people are very generous. One would only need to eliminate the fear of poverty that exists in society by eliminating the worst consequences of such to have the same results as this game.

* Waits for reactionary gang to arrive and start griping about 'human nature'. *

People are naturally jealous of anyone who has more going for them - material wealth, popularity, charisma, etc.

I wouldn't call that a +1 for Communism, though. Rather than cutting down everyone else to make ourselves comparatively great, we should clear the path to let the able excel, and through govenment have them give a reasonable amount back to help others who need a helping-hand. :)

Link! (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1123415520070411)

It's interesting to note also, that this experiment (not exactly, but almost exactly the same) has been replicated many times, using games of competition. People who have lost almost all their money in a card game experiment have even forfeited the remainder of their winnings to deplete the winner's. Sounds like the definition of jealousy! :p

People are naturally jealous of anyone who has more going for them - material wealth, popularity, charisma, etc.

I wouldn't call that a +1 for Communism, though. Rather than cutting down everyone else to make ourselves comparatively great, we should clear the path to let the able excel, and through govenment have them give a reasonable amount back to help others who need a helping-hand. :)

* Reactionary gang arrives *
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/Heartfield_salute.jpg

If by "Robin Hood" you mean the impulse to throw off all societal retraints and live in a forest with a carefully selected group of young men in leather, then yeah I have that impulse all the time.

Yeah, all I ever hear about around NSG is how humans are by their nature totally sociopathic - and that somehow, that's a good thing. Forget horror movies, I get all my spine-tingling chills right here.

Do people innately value equality? Can we go ahead and put a +1 in the communism/anarchism column now, or will capitalist apologists still insist that theirs is the only system compatible with human nature?
I would have thought you knew better than that.

"Capitalist apologists" just insist that charity and efforts towards more equality should be voluntary rather than forced.

This study tells us that
a) people are ready to forcibly take from some to give to others (to which I would say: well, duh!)
b) the people tested like equality (though that doesn't necessarily imply anything about human nature...there's the whole nature vs nurture thing going on as well)

All in all, I don't think it adds much weight either way.

What I would find interesting would be to know whether or not they would actually get this money in real life when they're finished with the experiment, ie whether they're playing with game money or real money.

Link! (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1123415520070411)

communism/anarchism

Communism is not anarchism.

Undelia has it right. In a game where there is no fear of poverty, this works.

* Reactionary gang arrives *
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/Heartfield_salute.jpg
Jesus fucking Christ, man. Could you have at least waited for a more objectionable poster before posting a picture of Hitler?

One study is not proof enough. And other studies have shown that resources are more often better managed when particpants have a vested interest in their preservation. When something belongs to everyone it belongs to no one. Everyone will want to use it until it breaks and then it becomes someone elses responsibility to fix it or clean up the mess.

* Reactionary gang arrives *
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/Heartfield_salute.jpg
Oh my fuckin' Godwin!

Jesus fucking Christ, man. Could you have at least waited for a more objectionable poster before posting a picture of Hitler?
The funny thing is that the title of that magazine's feature article actually fits the topic quite well. Though whether AP knew that or not I don't know.

Sounds like the definition of jealousy! :pBut jealousy doesn't explain why players consistently give up their own resources in donations to those less fortunate!

Jesus fucking Christ, man. Could you have at least waited for a more objectionable poster before posting a picture of Hitler?

Oh chill out.

Communism is not anarchism.Did I indicate that it was?

My grouping of them, while casual, merely implies that they are the two broad, internally diverse terms naming political theories that explicitly value equality, particularly in economic terms.

But jealousy doesn't explain why players consistently give up their own resources in donations to those less fortunate!

Which is not what Robin Hood did.

Robin Hood stole resources from other people and gave them to those less fortunate.

Oh chill out.

I think I'm pretty chill, and I think the person posting pictures of Hitler may be a little less so.

Undelia has it right. In a game where there is no fear of poverty, this works.Which is to say that it would work in any society with an effective "safety net," or one in which poverty has been eliminated?

Which is to say that it would work in any society with an effective "safety net," or one in which poverty has been eliminated?
Well, the ideal safety net (my ideal safety net, anyway) would eliminate poverty as we know it, so...

Did I indicate that it was?

You said "communism/anarchism," even though the two could not possibly be more different.

I think I'm pretty chill, and I think the person posting pictures of Hitler may be a little less so.

Naw, he's just stupid. You know, like you were, once upon a time.

Robin Hood stole resources from other people and gave them to those less fortunate.Yes... which is exactly what people did in this game.

Someone suggested that stealing from the rich is explained by "jealousy." I pointed out that jealousy does not explain the other half of the Robin Hood impulse: the giving.

Naw, he's just stupid. You know, like you were, once upon a time.

I'll be quiet now.:)

Which is to say that it would work in any society with an effective "safety net," or one in which poverty has been eliminated?
I think "fear of poverty" is the wrong word to use. As far as we know, the players weren't allowed to keep whatever money they made in the game, so the consequences of their actions were entirely internal. And in that case, yeah, most people are happy to help out those in need.

Out in a world with scarcity though there can be a trade-off between making other better off and making yourself better off, which was apparently ignored by the experiment.

That's why I'm saying it doesn't tell us a whole lot. Human nature (or nurture, whatever the case may be) is only really relevant in as much as it interacts with the environment to produce some outcome.

You said "communism/anarchism," even though the two could not possibly be more different.Do they not, in fact, both fall under the heading "political-economic theories that value substantive equality"?

I don't mean to imply any commonality besides that... and I should have thought that was evident based on the subject of the thread. Sorry you have trouble reading between the really, really big lines.

But jealousy doesn't explain why players consistently give up their own resources in donations to those less fortunate!

There's a consistent and scientifically reliable jealous streak - doesn't mean there's no sense of charity. People can be relied upon, it seems, to feel cheated when they're staring at the face of the guy who just took their potential winnings, as in the experiment. Equally strong, if not stronger, than jealousy is the need for identify with others, which I think plays into the impulse to give back - basically saying, "I've done well, but I identify with you, too." It's no conflict to dislike competitors, while at the same time identifying with the defeated. ;)

Yes... which is exactly what people did in this game.

Someone suggested that stealing from the rich is explained by "jealousy." I pointed out that jealousy does not explain the other half of the Robin Hood impulse: the giving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expropriation

Do people innately value equality? Can we go ahead and put a +1 in the communism/anarchism column now, or will capitalist apologists still insist that theirs is the only system compatible with human nature?
Humans have no innate values, everything you believe in is the product of socialization. Capitalism isn't an economic application of human nature, it is that of evolution as a whole, the nature of all species. Egalitarianism is a belief, an idea drilled into young mind by charitable, sympathetic, wealthy, white, liberal parents.

There's a reason they tell you on flights to secure your own mask before assisting others, if you don't manage to get theirs on before you pass out you'll both be in trouble but if you secure your own first you'll at least be ok 'till the plane crashes and everyone burns to death.

Do they not, in fact, both fall under the heading "political-economic theories that value substantive equality"?

No.

Sorry you have trouble reading between the really, really big lines.

Flamebait.

I think "fear of poverty" is the wrong word to use. As far as we know, the players weren't allowed to keep whatever money they made in the game, so the consequences of their actions were entirely internal. And in that case, yeah, most people are happy to help out those in need.Scientists keep using these kinds of experiments to make generalizable claims because... well, it turns out that people actually do take them very seriously. Even if they know they won't get to keep any winnings, people consistently play as if they will.

If that were not true, we would have stopped getting funding for these experiments decades ago.

Link! (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1123415520070411)

Do people innately value equality? Can we go ahead and put a +1 in the communism/anarchism column now, or will capitalist apologists still insist that theirs is the only system compatible with human nature?
It's a survival instinct.

Like it's said before, humans are social creatures, "Every person for themselves" is not our natural order of things. Backstabbing is against human survival.

By giving money to the lower person, they become our ally and firend, increasing the numbers making a pack\tribe and giving more strength.

And if you get enough of the lower people together, they can all work together to beat up and take all the money from the rich one. :D

* Reactionary gang arrives *


You're silly, but I like you anyway. :fluffle:

It's no conflict to dislike competitors, while at the same time identifying with the defeated. ;)Yes.

And the result of the experiment is that, on balance, this yields a preference for equality.

No.



Flamebait.

FLAMEBAIT

/RAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWR

Which is to say that it would work in any society with an effective "safety net," or one in which poverty has been eliminated?

The second, quite plausibly. Remember, poverty does not mean starving in the streets, it means doing without the comforts you are used to. That's why, in a Star Trek style economy, where synthesization makes the material value of an item moot, communism is practicable, if unnecessary.

FLAMEBAIT

/RAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWRRAWR

How old are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExpropriationIt generally helps if you highlight what you find interesting about a page you link, or otherwise comment on its significance.

How old are you?
He's either a 13 year old boy or a 16 year old girl. All communists and self-proclaimed anarchists are these days.

If that were not true, we would have stopped getting funding for these experiments decades ago.
I have my doubts. If I knew I came into this experiment with all these strangers and knew that if I play it right I walk out of there with a hundred dollars tonight, then that's different to playing it with a fixed $20 for my time. In the first case I'd play it to maximise my own returns, in the second I might do something else (though personally I'm thinking I'd probably be one of the 30% who don't take from some to give to others). There's a world outside the game, so to speak, and in the former the two are connected while in the latter they aren't.

He's either a 13 year old boy or a 16 year old girl. All communists and self-proclaimed anarchists are these days.
Soheran's like twenty-five or something.

Yes.

And the result of the experiment is that, on balance, this yields a preference for equality.

I'm not sure if the experiment is definitive. After all, most of us who give to charity never actually see the people we're giving to. With these experiments, you're forced into a social situation, and integrated into a group - that probably carries a set of social expectations and stacks the cards toward group solidarity.

It generally helps if you highlight what you find interesting about a page you link, or otherwise comment on its significance.
He's just saying he thinks Emminant Domain is A-okay. withy him. The idea of government swooping in to steal what you worked your whole life building so the new "presidential" palace can go up overlooking that pond you live near is just fine with Andaras Prime.

He's either a 13 year old boy or a 16 year old girl. All communists and self-proclaimed anarchists are these days.

I've met quite a few who aren't. And most communists outside of NSG that I've met are actually pretty nice people.

Humans have no innate values, everything you believe in is the product of socialization.You say that so confidently...

What about the evidence of evolutionary ethology that group behavior patterns (or at least preferences for behaviors) are inherited biologically?

Capitalism isn't an economic application of human nature, it is that of evolution as a whole, the nature of all species.Umm... care to elaborate on that? Are you still stuck in the individual-centered "survival of the fittest" theory of evolution? Ever heard of the gene-centered theory, which allows much more room for understanding the genetic basis of behaviors like cooperation and charity?

Umm... care to elaborate on that? Are you still stuck in the individual-centered "survival of the fittest" theory of evolution? Ever heard of the gene-centered theory, which allows much more room for understanding the genetic basis of behaviors like cooperation and charity?

I beleive that what he is saying is that Capitalism was not magically imposed by some outside force, and that it is the creation of the same human psyche that this test is dealing with, and that thererfore it must, in some way, be related to human programming.

No.Well, then we're either talking about a different definition of "communism" than the one with which I am familiar, or a different definition of "anarchism" than the one with which I am familiar, or both.

If you care to continue this discussion, feel free to let me know which definitions you understand. In short, I understand communism to entail (most generally) common ownership of the means of production--and it would not be "common" if it were not "equal." And I understand anarchists to oppose all of the authoritarian institutions and mechanisms which perpetuate (among other things) economic inequality. Hence, both value substantive equality.

But for the record, the point of the thread is about equality as a value, not the differences between communism and anarchism. So I'm really not interested in pursuing this too far, especially since I think it's simply a useless disagreement about definitions.

Flamebait.Sometimes it's hard to resist, when another poster is being particularly obtuse. Posting two-word replies doesn't help.

Capitalism was imposed, by the global upper class.

You say that so confidently...
Because it's true.

What about the evidence of evolutionary ethology that group behavior patterns (or at least preferences for behaviors) are inherited biologically?
Are you suggesting that we are born with genetic memories? My god man, you're right! Now that I think about it I can remember being the fucking king of fucking France.

Umm... care to elaborate on that? Are you still stuck in the individual-centered "survival of the fittest" theory of evolution? Ever heard of the gene-centered theory, which allows much more room for understanding the genetic basis of behaviors like cooperation and charity?
That only applies to family units, the parents caring for their kids until they get fat and grown at which point the young are dumped from the nest. They may stay with a group like a pack but only the Alpha will mate. Cooperation would not exist without individual need and evolution would not occur without individual desire. Charity is an emotional response.

You may think I'm cold and heartless and you'd be right. I'm also tired. G'night.

I'm not sure if the experiment is definitive.Neither am I. It's only one experiment.

Look, I'm not trumpeting the ultimate victory of egalitarian thinking here.

I just think it's rather neat. ;)

With these experiments, you're forced into a social situation, and integrated into a group - that probably carries a set of social expectations and stacks the cards toward group solidarity.From what I understand, you're actually seated at a computer screen and you don't get to talk to anyone in your group.

And I understand anarchists to oppose all of the authoritarian institutions and mechanisms which perpetuate (among other things) economic inequality. Hence, both value substantive equality.

Well, I'm an anarcho-capitalist, so that should give you an idea. ;)

Sometimes it's hard to resist, when another poster is being particularly obtuse. Posting two-word replies doesn't help.

It's all right. I kind of deserved it. :p

I beleive that what he is saying is that Capitalism was not magically imposed by some outside force, and that it is the creation of the same human psyche that this test is dealing with, and that thererfore it must, in some way, be related to human programming.I'd like to think he was being that balanced, but didn't he also say that "equality" was something shoved down our throats by white liberals?

Why couldn't it rather be the case that capitalism had been shoved down the throats of a resisting majority (as, in fact, it was)?

He's either a 13 year old boy or a 16 year old girl. All communists and self-proclaimed anarchists are these days.For the record, I'm 26. :p

For the record, I'm 26. :p

Grow up.:p

Soheran's like twenty-five or something.Is he? I have reason to doubt that... but I'm still 26. :)

Is he? I have reason to doubt that... but I'm still 26. :)

Maybe I'm thinking of someone else.

Are you suggesting that we are born with genetic memories?My, what a cute little straw man...

No. What I'm saying is that we are genetically predisposed to certain kinds of social behaviors.

That only applies to family units, the parents caring for their kids until they get fat and grown at which point the young are dumped from the nest.Not true... but you have my sympathy for your upbringing.

By taking the individual gene as the focus of survival rather than the individual creature, we can easily understand how a genetic predisposition toward charity and even self-sacrifice can develop through natural selection: if I die to save the village, that's better for the genes we share than if I live and the village fails.

Et cetera.

Why couldn't it rather be the case that capitalism had been shoved down the throats of a resisting majority (as, in fact, it was)?

Not really. That tends to be the claim that Communists make, but it certainly is unsubstantiated. If anything, we see a tension between the two instints: the instinct to provide for the self, and the instinct to provide for the other come into clash. In fact, one could argue that the "Battle" between the "resisting majority" (which was, to be fair, a sizable minority with high political efficacy) and proponents of Lasseize Faire capitalism was, in fact, a battle between two factions engaging in the providing for self behavior, and had little to do with providing for others.

Well, I'm an anarcho-capitalist, so that should give you an idea. ;)I suspected as much, but it's so much easier when you come out and say it.

Along with most people who identify as anarchist, I'm going to go ahead and insist that "anarcho-capitalism" is a poorly named movement of its own.

But that's a different story, and besides the point of this thread. :p

Maybe I'm thinking of someone else.I'm pretty sure that Jello Biafra is twenty-four or twenty-five. Maybe you're thinking of him.

Neither am I. It's only one experiment.

Look, I'm not trumpeting the ultimate victory of egalitarian thinking here.

I just think it's rather neat. ;)

I think it's neat too just to be clear - it's an interesting study. :)

From what I understand, you're actually seated at a computer screen and you don't get to talk to anyone in your group.

I know, I just meant these kind of experiments generally, hence "these" experiments rather than "this." There's been a few in recent years. The element I was meaning to emphasize was that the volunteers are interacting directly with people, who may have "wronged" them during the course of the game, rather than deciding beforehand whether to be charitable. ;)

Not really. That tends to be the claim that Communists make, but it certainly is unsubstantiated.Really? Was the history of violent confrontations and factory burning all a fantasy I had?

The Luddites were only one manifestation of a very strong resistance movement.

Soheran's like twenty-five or something.

Soheran is also pretty intelligent and doesn't just blindly side with anything left of the center.

Really? Was the history of violent confrontations and factory burning all a fantasy I had?

The Luddites were only one manifestation of a very strong resistance movement.

You are making a number of counterfactual statements about organized labor in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The first is claim that organized labor in this period represented a majority. It did not. It represented a sizable and vocal faction, but a faction need not be a majority to have political efficacy. The second is the false equation between labor and communism. The labor movement was a superfaction made up of smaller factions, some of which were socialist or anarchist in nature; others of which were clearly not. The third is the false equation between European labor and international labor. I openly acknowledge that my knowledge of labor in Europe is minimal. However, American labor was dominated by communism only in it's earliest, and least effective times. It was only when large, sympathetic, and moderate unions which were a big tent for socialists, progressives, populists, and other political groups that they became effective, let alone a sizable minority. The fourth is the false equation between violence against symbols of capitalism and a majority movement. It only takes one man to burn a factory. The fifth is the false equation between violence against the immediate symbol of economic suffering (the factory) and violence against the whole system. You attribute a large-scale thinking pattern to a mob, which is a mistake.

In the long run, Lasseize faire did topple, and it was replaced by Progressive Capitalism in the US, and by, in the long run, Social Democracy in Europe. Communism did not follow.

If by "Robin Hood" you mean the impulse to throw off all societal retraints and live in a forest with a carefully selected group of young men in leather, then yeah I have that impulse all the time.


Arboreal kinky sex commune FTW! haha :)

Suddenly a lot of puns begin to formulate... Woodyville... "got wood?"... wood to the left of me, wood to the right of me...

+1 for Communism

Errr... Yay for state?

*Runs from anarchists and communists/marxists*

One study is not proof enough. And other studies have shown that resources are more often better managed when particpants have a vested interest in their preservation. When something belongs to everyone it belongs to no one. Everyone will want to use it until it breaks and then it becomes someone elses responsibility to fix it or clean up the mess.What belongs to everyone belongs to everyone.
Are you suggesting that groups of people can't own things and properly manage them?

You said "communism/anarchism," even though the two could not possibly be more different.Communism is a form of anarchism.

There's a consistent and scientifically reliable jealous streak - doesn't mean there's no sense of charity. People can be relied upon, it seems, to feel cheated when they're staring at the face of the guy who just took their potential winnings, as in the experiment. Equally strong, if not stronger, than jealousy is the need for identify with others, which I think plays into the impulse to give back - basically saying, "I've done well, but I identify with you, too." It's no conflict to dislike competitors, while at the same time identifying with the defeated. ;)Does this mean that equality is selfish?

He's either a 13 year old boy or a 16 year old girl. All communists and self-proclaimed anarchists are these days.You're silly. :)

i am a lot more generous then i would like to be in real life. i wouldn't say that is because of human nature but rather the way i was brought up.

we are taught to share among other things when we are in our first years of school.

Communism is not anarchism.

There is Anarcho-Communism. There are more types of Communism than State Communism.

In the long run, Lasseize faire did topple, and it was replaced by Progressive Capitalism in the US, and by, in the long run, Social Democracy in Europe. Communism has not yet followed.

Corrected. Assuming that we are in the final product shows a lack of historical comprehension.

EDIT: However, Communism may not be the final product. I have no idea what will happen next.

Corrected. Assuming that we are in the final product shows a lack of historical comprehension.

EDIT: However, Communism may not be the final product. I have no idea what will happen next.

And? There is no appreciable sign that it will. If anything, it appears that we have entered a status quo of political realignment between two, fairly stable, left and right goalposts.

You are making a number of counterfactual statements about organized labor in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.Who said anything about the late 19th and early 20th centuries? I'm talking about the 18th and early 19th century. Get with the program.

EDIT: Just because you already have talking points prepared about 19th century labor and laissez-faire capitalism doesn't mean that's always what the conversation is about. We'll get to that when we get to that.

And? There is no appreciable sign that it will. If anything, it appears that we have entered a status quo of political realignment between two, fairly stable, left and right goalposts.Don't confuse is with ought.

What belongs to everyone belongs to everyone.
Are you suggesting that groups of people can't own things and properly manage them?
You're missing the point. When people want to use something it will belong to them but when it breaks down the responsibility for fixing it will be passed along to someone else. That is the flaw in common ownership of property. It is the nature of all things to attempt to gain the most by doing the least. To do otherwise is noble but foolish because you are fighting the system of everything everywhere.

Communism is a form of anarchism.
Except when it's imposed on everyone by a totalitarian dictatorship.

Does this mean that equality is selfish?
No, it means that the have nots are jealous of the haves and the haves give because they're lonely. Those who lose will want to win and feel treated unfairly. It's lonely at the top so winners can be guilted into giving back to be liked.

You're silly. :)
So I herd you leik gulags. Look at my pokemanz!

This study only proves socialization. Anyone who has taken more than one sociology class will be able to see that.

Capitalism was imposed, by the global upper class.

I think it is fair to say that capitalism slowly evolved. I don't remember reading in history class that a bunch of rich people from around the world got together in a smoke-filled backroom and decided to dream up a system in which they would remain at the top (of course I was educated, nay indoctrinated, by evil capitalists who don't want us to know that their Jewish ancestors sat in a room and dreamed up capitalism, so you can forego that response).

And I really doubt that the world's kings got together and decided to develop a sytem of private property, rather than dividing land up among their favored subjects to control on their behalf. Once again, something that happened over time, spurred by advances in philosophy.

Link! (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1123415520070411)

Do people innately value equality? Can we go ahead and put a +1 in the communism/anarchism column now, or will capitalist apologists still insist that theirs is the only system compatible with human nature?

Swapping fake money around at a computer tells nothing about egalitarianism, and little about human nature except that we want to be *perceived* as fair.

Repeat the experiment, but with the stipulation that the person with the most 'money' at the end of it will be given a big screen TV. You'll find people are far less generous with their money when it has an actual value attached.

If by "Robin Hood" you mean the impulse to throw off all societal retraints and live in a forest with a carefully selected group of young men in leather, then yeah I have that impulse all the time.

;)

Link! (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1123415520070411)

Do people innately value equality? Can we go ahead and put a +1 in the communism/anarchism column now, or will capitalist apologists still insist that theirs is the only system compatible with human nature?

+1 to anarcho-commies!

You're missing the point. When people want to use something it will belong to them but when it breaks down the responsibility for fixing it will be passed along to someone else. That is the flaw in common ownership of property. It is the nature of all things to attempt to gain the most by doing the least. To do otherwise is noble but foolish because you are fighting the system of everything everywhere.Then why is this not true of, say, a house that is jointly owned by two people? Do the people not make repairs when they can?

Except when it's imposed on everyone by a totalitarian dictatorship.Totalitarian dictatorships are the opposite of communism, so this is a non sequitur.

No, it means that the have nots are jealous of the haves and the haves give because they're lonely. Those who lose will want to win and feel treated unfairly. It's lonely at the top so winners can be guilted into giving back to be liked.Then at the very least, equality is selfish for the have nots. Is not jealousy a selfish emotion?

Heh. A study reveals that people are willing to steal from other people, and in such cases they give a piece of the booty to others in order to win friends (which they will need, having just made enemies of someone else). Hoods indeed.

Right, when placed in front of a computer screen and given random wealth and no opportunity for financial gain through their own actions, the student subjects favored taking money from those with money and giving it to those without.

Let's start the revolution!

Of course people tend to be altruistic, but how does this favor capitalism, communism, or anarchism?

If anything this shows that rational people recognize diminishing marginal utility. +1 for the Austrians.

EDIT: Or perhaps +1 for Rawls.

Either way it isn't +1 for communism.

Heh. A study reveals that people are willing to steal from other people, and in such cases they give a piece of the booty to others in order to win friends (which they will need, having just made enemies of someone else). Hoods indeed.

Oh, and we must note, that they cannot steal for their own benefit. Which, sorry to say, is the human nature most capitalists espouse.

Now, how does game theory / the prisoner's dilemma fit into all this? It really should be taken into account.

Let's see...
People are more likely to cooperate when risks/consequences of being used are lowered and benefits of cooperation are raised. There are no actual consequences in this experiment, while there is at least one benefit (feeling good about oneself), thus pretty much ensuring cooperation.
People are more likely to cooperate when they are able to talk to one another. (Didn't see anything about communication, but didn't really see anything about that sort of cooperation either).

Add in consequences, and possible (but not forced, or unusual) communication. Then we might learn something new about human interaction, whether due to genetics or socialization (probably how the two interact, actually).

Capitalism was imposed, by the global upper class.

Capitalism developed as the Burgher classes of Europe outproduced and marginalized the feudal system. The Burghers started out, politically and economically, behind the aristocracy, and overcame the ancient restrictions that kept them "in their place." It wasn't the "global upper class" that instituted capitalism, it was a second class whose rapid economic growth outpaced that of the old feudal system.

Furthermore, I'd be interested to see what would happen if they could redistribute towards themselves...

In other words, people are naturally crooks. Nice to know...

Of course, the end result in society is that the other 30% end up controlling 70% of the wealth...

Does anyone here know enough game theory to work this one out? I know I don't.

A game theory analysis of the situation could be done with profit maximising behaviour among the participants.

Then we need a person who can do the evolutionary psychology (EP) thingy and add the EP solution of behaviour in such a situation. Assuming of course that our ancestors were exposed to similar situations regularly...

Granted, this isn't the exact scenario mentioned in the OP, and the scenario was done only once, but for anyone interested in how a real-life scenario might play out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unan1mous

Granted, this isn't the exact scenario mentioned in the OP, and the scenario was done only once, but for anyone interested in how a real-life scenario might play out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unan1mous

That show has got some confusing rules.