Communism requires people to act like people will never act. This is true of all communism. Stalinism or northern Scandinavian socialist democracy is the best it will ever be.
These are worse than a propertarian or right leaning paternalist government.
I'm open to hear your arguments though.
I suggest looking into S trasserism
OMG thats pretty WOKE my man!!1! never thought about HUMAN NATURE….damn!
Capitalism is a class system, just like feudalism was.
Strasserism is cute. It's adherence to nation does help with the motivation problem of socialism and syndicalist (probably the most viable communard system) is more stable than others but it has clear problems.
Workers produce different amounts while both Asserism and syndicalism effectively treats them as spherical workers of a uniform density so to speak.
It also would with few exceptions devolve into a rule by the aged elite and families who engage in nepotism. One might accuse modern day neo liberalism and neo conservativism of doing as such but at least they have a stronger meritocratic edge.
The final problem is that those who rise the top would not be innovators so much as arch conservatives due to the fact that the proliteriat class are often willing to listen to luddites both social and technological providing there's no risk to their livelihoods that they see involved in stagnation.
its human nature to roam the steppe like the noble stallions, morans… sedentism will never take off, every time it's been attempted the crops died in winter, tell me why that wasnt REAL agrarian society!!
are you trying to say class based on relations to the means of production is human nature?
If I was a steppe nomad I would question the validity of agriculture if everyone who attempted it seemed to kill a lot of people and/or converting back to a nomadic lifestyle within 100 years. It would seem either mistaken or not worth the bother.
In general Marxism is both utopian (which if you look into the etymology you should know it's in part a pun based off one's inability to reach said state) and utilitarian. These apart can function fine, but a perfect, unreachable society you'd do anything to reach is permission to do literally anything. An ethical and moral carte Blanche.
If I was a steppe nomad I would question the validity of agriculture if everyone who attempted it seemed to kill a lot of people and/or converting back to a nomadic lifestyle within 100 years.
what do you think happened for thousands of years before the rise of civilization
Alienation is human nature. Read Marx. Hell, read anyone.
It's not though
"Capitalism" in the sense of Adam smith is rather new yes but it is viable, has seen many successes and is practiced worldwide. People run from societies influenced by socialism and ran from the previous conservative and feudal models to classically liberal societies with property rights based on free exchange.
An idea of governance can be judged by two merits: How close it aligns to things which are inherent in human nature. Which communard principles violate in presuming a flat skill bracket for all folk only altered by socioeconomics and education. And how well the ideas function, which despite some immediate success of socialism in small situations seems to lean heavily in the favour of free exchange and property rights.
human = alienated subject. There is literally nothing more to being human.
Nomadic activities mostly. In such a situation I would by no means attempt to stop someone from settling agriculturally, I just would not join them until they had demonstrated a working model.
Also the agricultural revolution did not require universal cooperation. It just required a few dudes figuring out the basics and applying them until it works.
Given the utility of the information age, the current abundance and commonly found free space on earth I do not see why it would be difficult for you to construct a utopia. Demonstrate it working and then invite me along once you do so.
Of course if you build walls to stop people leaving I'd be disinclined to visit.
we have been living in tribes since the dawn of the Cenozoic mammalian era. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.
Could you please explain what you mean by "alienation" in your own words.
Alienation is separation from the self. The history of humanity has been a progress of increasing alienation that culminates in the destruction of the self, or the realization that the self was illusory all along.
what's wrong with a system where everyone is simply treated as a human being and nothing else?
Scandinavian socialist countries are rated best countries to live in time and time again. I don't agree it's best it will ever be, but it's a start.
Communism only requires that people act like people, but after generations of being treated like slaves, like machines, like disposable human beings, living like a person is something that many people have forgotten how to do.
And so, a Communist's duty is to remind them!!
Using stone tools requires people to act like people will never act. This is true of all stone tools. Wooden spears or bone needles is the best it will ever be. These are worse than mammoth tasks or saber-toothed cat's fangs. I'm open to hear your arguments though.
Why did you have to make a new thread for this? Couldn't you have simply made a post in the Shit Normies Say thread? What a waste of board space.
Define "human nature", and explain why capitalism aligns itself better with it. What did you mean by this ? You know that the motto of the radical left is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" right ? Capitalism has its fair share of problems though : repeated crises, its tendencies to create monopolies which stiffle competition, inefficient allocation of resources, the belief that unlimited growth is possible in a finite world, the poverty it generates. I believe we can do better than this and Marx was into something when it comes to that.
Human nature means that people don't wear pretty bows and goose-step because you want them to.
Nowadays it seems like communists have taken to remind everyone what "class" they've been pigeonholed into.
Where does it stop and where does it begin?
Consenting adults should do whatever they want. You should be able to express dissent against the revolution especially when it's "against your own interests."
Consenting adults should do whatever they want. You should be able to express dissent against the revolution especially when it's "against your personal interests."
And that would be…?
Scandinavian-style social-democracy is not socialism. It's capitalism with a welfare state. It's arguably better than capitalism without one but that doesn't make it socialism.
Not sure what a "propertarian" or "paternalist" government is. But if you're arguing for more laissez-faire policies, then surely you're aware of the fact that the average American fares much worse socioeconomically than the average European living in a social-democracy?
That doesn't answer my question.
If capitalism is "meritocratic" then why are vapid celebrities who simply sit on a stash of gold all day long so much more wealthy than the toiling masses of African platinum miners or Southeastern-Asian textile workers?
There are tons of theories about the limits of acceptable behavior in a civilized society.