But what we know for fact is that the human species is incompatible with communism
Sorry what? How on earth would such a thing even be established as fact? This is a very bold claim.
Communism has failed every time.
I’m always really interested in what people mean when they say this. Is it that no organisation that has tried has managed to realise the utopia Marx predicted? Is it that they tend to lose wars with the USA? Is it that great suffering has occurred?
What is a system that has not failed? Like it’s pretty apparent whatever we’re doing now isn’t working. We’re in a mass extinction, the climate is destabilising, homelessness and sickness exist alongside people that personally own jet aircraft.
Genuinely I would love to know what specifically you mean because I see this a lot and it confuses the hell out of me.
Sorry what? How on earth would such a thing even be established as fact? This is a very bold claim.
I don’t want to sound patronising, but you have access to the entirety of our species’ history. It’s more about going through it to try find a time where it has worked. Beyond the exception of small communities, in every case I know of it has failed before maturing to a complete enough state—this actually includes some of those small communities too. Unless you’re confusing socialism with communism because of all it’s socialist traits.
I don’t want to sound patronising, but you have access to the entirety of our species’ history
I mean, do you? You think early man was a rugged individualist who pulled himself up by his boot straps?
Homosapiens survived hundreds of thousands of years as a result of collectivism and sharing resources, which are the central tenets of communism. From a historical perspective, the ideas that underpin capitalism - private ownership, the elite controlling the means of production, individuals acting in their own self-interest - came about only very, very recently.
That’s naive. I think because you’re taking a rather shallow capitalism vs communism stance, not understanding all the capitalist traits your homo sapiens with communist traits had.
None-the-less, you’ve deviated far from the main point and referring to known prehistoric eras before the concept of the topic was conceived is not where I thought this could even go.
You’re also referring to negative byproducts of capitalism as “ideas” of it. There are few social or economical isms that have byproducts holding true to the ideas and intent. That’s my point. Human nature often ruins great ideas and why communism has yet to show any success. We have many great ideas on paper, but they don’t factor human nature.
Well, if we look at humans as a species then obviously the greater part of that is prehistorical. Clearly our “nature” is not incompatible with collectivism when looking at small communities and groups.
However, I think you have a point when it comes to more complex societies with increasingly larger populations, which, as a rule, have tended to form hierarchical class systems that are antithetical to collectivist ideals.
So we could say that humans have historically been fine with communism up to a certain point. It’s when they start to form nation states and larger communities that societies have generally gravitated towards hierarchy and plutocracy, for whatever reason.
Exactly that. And as I said, it’s not just for communism, this goes for most ideologies that influence society.
I think greed and power are the biggest kickers. These two seem to come as a way to ensure survivability in a large population. But it’s of no benefit in a small community where everyone’s acknowledged.
So there’s a very big difference between X hasn’t happened yet and X is factually impossible. Imagine standing there in 1750s and saying “we know for a fact that the human species is fundamentally incompatible with flight”. Very shortly you would look like the complete arse that making that statement made you.
I don’t dispute nobody has achieved the utopia Marx hypothesised, that is trivial to demonstrate, I’m asking how on earth you would establish fundamental incompatibility.
Actually the current prevailing theory is that primitive communism was the state humans lived in before the founding of the first proto states, so if anything your stance should be that evidence suggests humans are fundamentally compatible with communism, unless you mean to argue we have undergone some shift in our fundamental nature in which case I would again ask where your evidence is.
Tribalism is compatible with communism. Kind of where the idea comes from. Unfortunately that’s not how society is these days. Whether communism, capitalism, or any other ism, control needs to be in place to ensure everyone is in line with it, since it’s impossible for 100% of a population to be, especially as that population goes into the millions.
With an authority or controlling wealth, everything results in an elite of some form to try keep a system in place, and that’s the start of failure.
If a village of 100 has just 1 asshole, things can be ruined. Scale up to global populations and you’ve got your answer. No ism can keep the psychopathic, narcissistic, or competitive nature of these people from ruining whatever ism it is you’d like to have.
Sorry, could you be a little more explicit in terms of how you’re answering my questions? I don’t really want to get drawn in to some aimless rambling bullshit.
I haven’t mentioned tribalism, I don’t even know what you’re referring to or why you’re bringing it up.
I don’t know what you mean by how society is these days. Are you saying society has changed fundamental human nature? what is the relevance please?
With an authority or controlling wealth, everything results in an elite of some form to try keep a system in place, and that’s the start of failure.
you’re talking to an anarchist so I have no disagreement there. I do wonder if you’ve ever read Marx though. Could you please honestly answer with what publications of his you’ve actually read? if none, what publications about Marxism have you read? if that list is exhaustive the three most recent?
If a village of 100 has just 1 asshole, things can be ruined. Scale up to global populations and you’ve got your answer. No ism can keep the psychopathic, narcissistic, or competitive nature of these people from ruining whatever ism it is you’d like to have.
Sorry, could you be a little more explicit in terms of how you’re answering my questions? I don’t really want to get drawn in to some aimless rambling bullshit.
Yeah, sure. The feeling’s mutual.
The topic of conversation is the scale of success of communism. If an original comment gets dissected poorly and barrels down a tangents of off-topic rabble, I re-read it and ignore stuff off-topic or unrelated, since that’s for a different conversation at a different time.
The points provided are my perspective of this topic and why I have that perspective. It is things I’ve experienced and know, not belief to plug narrative.
I haven’t mentioned tribalism, I don’t even know what you’re referring to or why you’re bringing it up.
Some things you have raised are loosely associated with our tribalism or post-tribalism era. However, tribalism is still relevant in modern society with political parties, sports teams, socioeconimcal ideologies, etc. It reaches back to our nature of belonging in a camp or community.
I don’t know what you mean by how society is these days. Are you saying society has changed fundamental human nature? what is the relevance please?
Quite the opposite. Society is a new thing. The more we attempt to progress it forward, we see more incompatibilities between our ideals and our nature. We will eventually evolve our nature into those ideals, but it cannot be entirely the other way around. As an anarchist, you’d understand your stance is predominantly the result of ideologies conflicting with human nature.
Could you please honestly answer with what publications of his you’ve actually read?
The manifesto, obv. However also a series of works and citations while studying. I don’t see any purpose in listing anything. Though I’d like to point out I was reading a lot on other modern social/political/economical ideologies so as to prevent any bias. This resulted in my conclusion that none of them work and a fool tribes themself to one. For communism especially, this is an ironic position to take, but seems to be the most popular for thee average “communist” these days. It is quite literally impossible to have communism without acceptance of conflicting ideologies or nature.
Sorry what? How on earth would such a thing even be established as fact? This is a very bold claim.
I’m always really interested in what people mean when they say this. Is it that no organisation that has tried has managed to realise the utopia Marx predicted? Is it that they tend to lose wars with the USA? Is it that great suffering has occurred?
What is a system that has not failed? Like it’s pretty apparent whatever we’re doing now isn’t working. We’re in a mass extinction, the climate is destabilising, homelessness and sickness exist alongside people that personally own jet aircraft.
Genuinely I would love to know what specifically you mean because I see this a lot and it confuses the hell out of me.
Hopeful aside btw. Lord of the flies basically happened once except the kids all banded together and helped each other because humans are actually extremely pro social. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months
I don’t want to sound patronising, but you have access to the entirety of our species’ history. It’s more about going through it to try find a time where it has worked. Beyond the exception of small communities, in every case I know of it has failed before maturing to a complete enough state—this actually includes some of those small communities too. Unless you’re confusing socialism with communism because of all it’s socialist traits.
I mean, do you? You think early man was a rugged individualist who pulled himself up by his boot straps?
Homosapiens survived hundreds of thousands of years as a result of collectivism and sharing resources, which are the central tenets of communism. From a historical perspective, the ideas that underpin capitalism - private ownership, the elite controlling the means of production, individuals acting in their own self-interest - came about only very, very recently.
Voluntarily sharing resources.
That’s naive. I think because you’re taking a rather shallow capitalism vs communism stance, not understanding all the capitalist traits your homo sapiens with communist traits had.
None-the-less, you’ve deviated far from the main point and referring to known prehistoric eras before the concept of the topic was conceived is not where I thought this could even go.
You’re also referring to negative byproducts of capitalism as “ideas” of it. There are few social or economical isms that have byproducts holding true to the ideas and intent. That’s my point. Human nature often ruins great ideas and why communism has yet to show any success. We have many great ideas on paper, but they don’t factor human nature.
Well, if we look at humans as a species then obviously the greater part of that is prehistorical. Clearly our “nature” is not incompatible with collectivism when looking at small communities and groups.
However, I think you have a point when it comes to more complex societies with increasingly larger populations, which, as a rule, have tended to form hierarchical class systems that are antithetical to collectivist ideals.
So we could say that humans have historically been fine with communism up to a certain point. It’s when they start to form nation states and larger communities that societies have generally gravitated towards hierarchy and plutocracy, for whatever reason.
Exactly that. And as I said, it’s not just for communism, this goes for most ideologies that influence society.
I think greed and power are the biggest kickers. These two seem to come as a way to ensure survivability in a large population. But it’s of no benefit in a small community where everyone’s acknowledged.
So there’s a very big difference between X hasn’t happened yet and X is factually impossible. Imagine standing there in 1750s and saying “we know for a fact that the human species is fundamentally incompatible with flight”. Very shortly you would look like the complete arse that making that statement made you.
I don’t dispute nobody has achieved the utopia Marx hypothesised, that is trivial to demonstrate, I’m asking how on earth you would establish fundamental incompatibility.
Actually the current prevailing theory is that primitive communism was the state humans lived in before the founding of the first proto states, so if anything your stance should be that evidence suggests humans are fundamentally compatible with communism, unless you mean to argue we have undergone some shift in our fundamental nature in which case I would again ask where your evidence is.
Tribalism is compatible with communism. Kind of where the idea comes from. Unfortunately that’s not how society is these days. Whether communism, capitalism, or any other ism, control needs to be in place to ensure everyone is in line with it, since it’s impossible for 100% of a population to be, especially as that population goes into the millions.
With an authority or controlling wealth, everything results in an elite of some form to try keep a system in place, and that’s the start of failure.
If a village of 100 has just 1 asshole, things can be ruined. Scale up to global populations and you’ve got your answer. No ism can keep the psychopathic, narcissistic, or competitive nature of these people from ruining whatever ism it is you’d like to have.
Sorry, could you be a little more explicit in terms of how you’re answering my questions? I don’t really want to get drawn in to some aimless rambling bullshit.
I haven’t mentioned tribalism, I don’t even know what you’re referring to or why you’re bringing it up.
I don’t know what you mean by how society is these days. Are you saying society has changed fundamental human nature? what is the relevance please?
you’re talking to an anarchist so I have no disagreement there. I do wonder if you’ve ever read Marx though. Could you please honestly answer with what publications of his you’ve actually read? if none, what publications about Marxism have you read? if that list is exhaustive the three most recent?
???
Yeah, sure. The feeling’s mutual.
The topic of conversation is the scale of success of communism. If an original comment gets dissected poorly and barrels down a tangents of off-topic rabble, I re-read it and ignore stuff off-topic or unrelated, since that’s for a different conversation at a different time.
The points provided are my perspective of this topic and why I have that perspective. It is things I’ve experienced and know, not belief to plug narrative.
Some things you have raised are loosely associated with our tribalism or post-tribalism era. However, tribalism is still relevant in modern society with political parties, sports teams, socioeconimcal ideologies, etc. It reaches back to our nature of belonging in a camp or community.
Quite the opposite. Society is a new thing. The more we attempt to progress it forward, we see more incompatibilities between our ideals and our nature. We will eventually evolve our nature into those ideals, but it cannot be entirely the other way around. As an anarchist, you’d understand your stance is predominantly the result of ideologies conflicting with human nature.
The manifesto, obv. However also a series of works and citations while studying. I don’t see any purpose in listing anything. Though I’d like to point out I was reading a lot on other modern social/political/economical ideologies so as to prevent any bias. This resulted in my conclusion that none of them work and a fool tribes themself to one. For communism especially, this is an ironic position to take, but seems to be the most popular for thee average “communist” these days. It is quite literally impossible to have communism without acceptance of conflicting ideologies or nature.