Muh human nature is corrupted by capitalism

Do you people seriously believe in communism as this garden of eden shit?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wADGwkv304E
youtube.com/watch?v=S5o-_qYjB9g
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

anarkiddies and LeftComs are spooked utopians

No I think capitalism would deteriorate into small voluntaryish communities oriented around production for use and raiding like some kind of technologically advanced pre-feudalist tribalism whenever full communism becomes a possibility because people have a tendency to make trouble for themselves whenever they have nothing else to worry about. Raiding would provide a nice outlet for that existential frustration and being raided would be something to complain about.

I see, you need the eternal boot to step on the eternal snake.

I'm not sure I understand the analogy. But I think as humans are animals if we're trying to come up with any notion of "human nature" the only drives that really seem absolute are to not die, have sex and to fight with other people and when people have nothing else to worry about why would they bother doing anything else?

The problem with socialists is

No communist says capitalism corrupts people, we say Capitalism alienates people .
And on my opinion Communism is aachievable, but only after a global revolution and only after the state has been used by the workers for a long time, stablishing socialism, using it to suppress the burgeoise, and eliminating classes first wich will make the state obsolete and wither as a form of class oppresion is no longer needed..
Then you willhave your classless, global,stateless society COMMUNISM.
The majority of ML's think this way and the parxis with anarchists only change in that they say the state should be abolished from the start (so they think you can pass the socialist step)
Read State and Revolution by Lenin if you want to really understand this (attached)
And there are two videos on why the USSR did not achieve FULLCOMMUNISM and what the withering away of the state means.

Why the USSR didn't reach full-communism
youtube.com/watch?v=wADGwkv304E

Withering Away of the State
youtube.com/watch?v=S5o-_qYjB9g


You did not need to explain that to us

It's the same thing really, just in it's own peculiar ideological phrasing..

That is communism. It's just communism with recreational banditry.

That's anarchists and Kropotkinites especially, he was very superstitious.

If it is held that man is “by nature” an uninventive tribesman and an inventive businessman, a submissive slave and a proud craftsman an independent hunter and a dependent wage-worker, then either man’s “nature” is an empty concept, or man’s “nature” depends on material and historical conditions, and is in fact a response to those conditions.

The problem with socialists is that they continue to ignore every advancement in our understanding of human nature in favour of 19th century bullshit like psychoanalysis

inb4 the inevitable

This. "B-but capitalism is just hooman NAYCHUR!" is absolute bullshit to anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge. We did not see anything resembling the current system of wage labor, ownership or production in mercantilism, feudalism, slave society or before. It is a development of the last two hundred or so years.

Which would mean there is no issue with oppression, as long as it is perfected to the point of acceptance.

yes, because most everyone was persistence farming

I'ev never heard anyone say this.

You've been saying it since Rousseau and before; the nature of man is good, it is through the corrupting of society that he is made unto evil. Hence the eternal "akshually it's capitalism" whenever some evil is brought up.

there are tribes right now who have no concept of private property and trade
AKA "murder is cool if I claim to soul bond to an object"

Yeah, nah.

jej.

Man has nothing that is inherently good or bad. What man has is a species-being, which in its case the ability to engage in creative activity, known as labor. This species-being only tells us something about a trait that is very special and that we have, at least until now, never found any species with the same species-being, or at least not as developed as ours. As Marx put it in his first big manuscript:
It tells us nothing about whether or not this may be qualified as good or bad at all.

When Marxists speak of "alienated" labour they speak not of some bad feefees you get in your tumtum under class society, but when labour is machinically made to be directed towards producing value. The objects of his labour are commodified; he may not access what he produces and do with what he's made as he likes. His labour becomes alienated from him. For 192,000 years of human society, this phenomenon was non-existent, because there was no structure of (private) property. Today, private property and consequently the production of commodities and thus alienated labour have been generalized. Communism at its most vulgar means an end to these things as well as the State that binds it all together.

No, man is perfectly capable of being good or evil on his own. He is, after all, a sensuous creature that has autonomy within the confines of external forces; his species-being is reflected in the fact he just as much creatively deals with these forces as he does in any other activity.

You're gonna find it hard to find a place in the world that isn't engaging in generalized commodity production, bub.

It astounds me how you can get Marxist ideology this wrong.

you know a thread's gonna be good when it starts off with a strawman