Could Communism ever work?

[Tris]

I have pondered this question and I think it could work in some ways if it was more refined and changed around a bit.

Communism has not done very well in the past, but Communism does seem to have good ideas behind it. Communism seems like it wants the power returned to the people instead of just purely government or big corporation, but the problem is that people can be greedy or lazy by nature, and then you have to use fear to get them into work, which leads to retaliation.

I think it would work way better if the people were given the choice of what constitutes fair working hours. I also think that if somebody somehow loses a job, then the government can help them find one that works for them and if they become purposely lazy and don't even try for a job, then they get punished because they are not respecting what the people want. Everyone DOES need to help pitch in to society in their own way, and they can't really complain about working hours or how unfair it is if the people made the workforce work the way it does.

Those are a few of my thoughts, but I wonder what everyone else thinks about this kind of system and how it could potentially become better. I would invite you to also explain any systems that you made up or know about that you think could work and how it functions.

[Tris]

My idea for an "incentive" is this: the Government should be the ones printing money, not the banks for the government to borrow off of. People can be rewarded more by how much they bring into society, whether that is by choosing to work longer or contributing to society in other ways. We still need money and it DOES need to be opened up for all people, but only if you're actually working for it and doing things that help the community.

[SethfromMI]

Could communism work? I will let Ron Swanson answer that one

x3xwsmhSr7U

[Arkansasguy]

I have pondered this question and I think it could work in some ways if it was more refined and changed around a bit.

Communism has not done very well in the past, but Communism does seem to have good ideas behind it. Communism seems like it wants the power returned to the people instead of just purely government or big corporation, but the problem is that people can be greedy or lazy by nature, and then you have to use fear to get them into work, which leads to retaliation.

I think it would work way better if the people were given the choice of what constitutes fair working hours. I also think that if somebody somehow loses a job, then the government can help them find one that works for them and if they become purposely lazy and don't even try for a job, then they get punished because they are not respecting what the people want. Everyone DOES need to help pitch in to society in their own way, and they can't really complain about working hours or how unfair it is if the people made the workforce work the way it does.

Those are a few of my thoughts, but I wonder what everyone else thinks about this kind of system and how it could potentially become better. I would invite you to also explain any systems that you made up or know about that you think could work and how it functions.

https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0274/59/1380343737448.jpg

[sqishy]

image (https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0274/59/1380343737448.jpg)

Arguments could be used in opposition to this, that all the times communism was tried, it was done so with a totalitarian government / dictatorship.
I see no reason why the pure economic definition of communism has to be hand-in-hand with the politics that uses it as a tool.

[Tris]

Arguments could be used in opposition to this, that all the times communism was tried, it was done so with a totalitarian government / dictatorship.
I see no reason why the pure economic definition of communism has to be hand-in-hand with the politics that uses it as a tool.

My exact same thoughts on that

[Judean Zealot]

Lol. I used to be a quite ardent Trotskyist, but I came to the realization that without internationalism, a robust communist state is impossible. Considering my fervent dislike of internationalism, that realization drove me off the commie bandwagon pretty fast.

[phuckphace]

image (https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0274/59/1380343737448.jpg)

um those weren't innocents, they were ((((((bourgeois counterrevolutionaries)))))) so you see it's totally not like your fascist holocaust

[Arkansasguy]

I see no reason why the pure economic definition of communism has to be hand-in-hand with the politics that uses it as a tool.

Yet all of the actual Communist regimes in history have seen why. Which was the point of that image.

[Judean Zealot]

Yet all of the actual Communist regimes in history have seen why. Which was the point of that image.

Which is merely an appeal to ignorance. Unless you can demonstrate the mechanism of the relation between communism and authoritarianism you cannot assert that "No communist government can be formed without the killing of innocents".

[Arkansasguy]

Which is merely an appeal to ignorance. Unless you can demonstrate the mechanism of the relation between communism and authoritarianism you cannot assert that "No communist government can be formed without the killing of innocents".

Well, "kill the bourgeois" is pretty much part and parcel of Communism. And in any case, communism is an extremely unnatural way of organizing society, the only way you can force it is with extreme violence.

And I could just as well turn the argument around, unless you can demonstrate why the incredible coincidence of all Communist regimes being murderous was just a coincidence, you shouldn't claim a non-murderous Communist regime is possible.

[Judean Zealot]

Well, "kill the bourgeois" is pretty much part and parcel of Communism. And in any case, communism is an extremely unnatural way of organizing society, the only way you can force it is with extreme violence.

And I could just as well turn the argument around, unless you can demonstrate why the incredible coincidence of all Communist regimes being murderous was just a coincidence, you shouldn't claim a non-murderous Communist regime is possible.

I'm not saying that communism can be instated without blood, just as a new monarchy must come with the blood of those who resist it. But communism can be achieved through killing only those who are actively combating it, without the wholesale massacres of children and such.

[Arkansasguy]

I'm not saying that communism can be instated without blood, just as a new monarchy must come with the blood of those who resist it. But communism can be achieved through killing only those who are actively combating it, without the wholesale massacres of children and such.

So you agree that a revolution requires killing?

[Judean Zealot]

So you agree that a revolution requires killing?

Not necessarily, but in practice, yes.

[Arkansasguy]

Not necessarily, but in practice, yes.

So if one decides to have a perpetual revolution, who will be killed once the original "bad guys" are dead?

[Judean Zealot]

So if one decides to have a perpetual revolution, who will be killed once the original "bad guys" are dead?

Most brands of Communism do not necessitate "perpetual revolution". Mind you, Jefferson also considered democracy to be a sort of perpetual revolution:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." (http://www.bartleby.com/73/1065.html) (I know this means nothing to a authoritarian, but I posted it for the benefit of other readers).

[Arkansasguy]

Most brands of Communism do not necessitate "perpetual revolution". Mind you, Jefferson also considered democracy to be a sort of perpetual revolution:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." (http://www.bartleby.com/73/1065.html) (I know this means nothing to a authoritarian, but I posted it for the benefit of other readers).

Does not every theory of Communism require revolution to continue until "communism" is achieved?

Thankfully no one took that idea of his seriously.

[Judean Zealot]

Does not every theory of Communism require revolution to continue until "communism" is achieved?

Yes, but (1) that's not 'perpetual', it's directed towards a goal, and (2) revolution can plausibly occur through non violent means, such as strikes and civil disobedience.

Thankfully no one took that idea of his seriously.

America might have been in slightly better shape had they striven to maintain civic virtue.

[sqishy]

Yet all of the actual Communist regimes in history have seen why. Which was the point of that image.

The picture shows dictators killing civilians off. It is not giving an explanation (as you say) of how communism itself makes that happen. The only thing that makes the poster tie to communism is that the word just keeps coming up.

[Arkansasguy]

Yes, but (1) that's not 'perpetual', it's directed towards a goal, and (2) revolution can plausibly occur through non violent means, such as strikes and civil disobedience.

Insofar as "communism" is not actually possible, it is perpetual de facto.

Explain how communism could be acheived non-violently.

America might have been in slightly better shape had they striven to maintain civic virtue.

Rebellion against authority is not a virtue.

The picture shows dictators killing civilians off. It is not giving an explanation (as you say) of how communism itself makes that happen. The only thing that makes the poster tie to communism is that the word just keeps coming up.

The point of the picture is that Communism always involves massacres. For an explanation of why, see my replies to JZ.

[sqishy]

The point of the picture is that Communism always involves massacres. For an explanation of why, see my replies to JZ.

I have already read your response to Judean Zealot.

Define what is an "extremely unnatural way of organizing society". What would be the most natural? Small-scale communal systems that we used by far in the stone age, iron age, and so on. I take natural here to mean that which keeps a respectful/trustworthy relationship with the environment, where all resources are obtained from it without destruction of that environment.

You talk of the coincidences where communism happens with totalitarianism/etc not being coincidences at all. So then, how does communism lead to totalitarianism?

You also talk of socio-political revolutions having a lot of killing in them. This does not imply that all revolutions of that kind will lead to death. It takes the view that people have to end up making a huge mess to flip the established order. Also, this does not apply only to revolutions that want to bring in communism. The American war of independence involved a lot of death. That (as far as I know) did not lead to communism.

I take the position that communism has happened with totalitarianism/etc because it was used as a tool by the said totalitarian/etc government. It was not the other way around.

[Judean Zealot]

Insofar as "communism" is not actually possible, it is perpetual de facto.

Begging the question.

Explain how communism could be acheived non-violently. (2) can bring about a socialist country which drifts into communism, and is emulated by the surrounding countries. Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no. Just as any other form government is unlikely to be achieved without bloodshed.

You need more than 't'ain't natural' to explain the mechanism which necessitates the killing of innocents.

[Arkansasguy]

I have already read your response to Judean Zealot.

Define what is an "extremely unnatural way of organizing society". What would be the most natural? Small-scale communal systems that we used by far in the stone age, iron age, and so on. I take natural here to mean that which keeps a respectful/trustworthy relationship with the environment, where all resources are obtained from it without destruction of that environment.

You talk of the coincidences where communism happens with totalitarianism/etc not being coincidences at all. So then, how does communism lead to totalitarianism?

You also talk of socio-political revolutions having a lot of killing in them. This does not imply that all revolutions of that kind will lead to death. It takes the view that people have to end up making a huge mess to flip the established order. Also, this does not apply only to revolutions that want to bring in communism. The American war of independence involved a lot of death. That (as far as I know) did not lead to communism.

I take the position that communism has happened with totalitarianism/etc because it was used as a tool by the said totalitarian/etc government. It was not the other way around.

By "natural" I mean the way human societies naturally tend to arrange themselves. Communism can only arise and be maintained through extreme violence because it is radically contrary to how human society is naturally organized.

Begging the question.

Achieving "communism" isn't possible because:

A. People won't work when they can just leech off the commune, and
B. A stateless society can't work because someone will seize power.

(2) can bring about a socialist country which drifts into communism, and is emulated by the surrounding countries. Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no. Just as any other form government is unlikely to be achieved without bloodshed.

The difference being that other forms of government don't require perpetual revolutionary levels of bloodshed, nor for that matter do their establishments tend to be anywhere near as violent as Communist revolutions.

You need more than 't'ain't natural' to explain the mechanism which necessitates the killing of innocents.

People living in a commune in which there is no individual ownership, nor any direct correlation between individual work and individual gain, is not a natural or workable system.

[sqishy]

By "natural" I mean the way human societies naturally tend to arrange themselves.
For the majority of our history, that mostly consisted of small groups of nomadic tribes which were communal and well-managed. Its endurance as a system can only be looked at how it lasted for thousands upon thousands of years. That is what I consider 'natural' in your sense. Otherwise, it is a question that has too many contingencies for a clear answer. We humans are incredibly complex and diverse in our ways.


Communism can only arise and be maintained through extreme violence because it is radically contrary to how human society is naturally organized.

What is this specific 'natural organisation' you speak of? What kind? I want to know so I can go from there.

[Arkansasguy]

For the majority of our history, that mostly consisted of small groups of nomadic tribes

You're going to need to support this claim.

[COLOR="Yellow"]What is this specific 'natural organisation' you speak of? What kind? I want to know so I can go from there.

Families being the primary nexus through which support comes. Rather than whole communities living as a commune.

[sqishy]

You're going to need to support this claim.

Wikipedia: "Human societies from the Paleolithic to the early Neolithic farming tribes lived without states and organized governments. For most of the Lower Paleolithic, human societies were possibly more hierarchical than their Middle and Upper Paleolithic descendants, and probably were not grouped into bands,[47] though during the end of the Lower Paleolithic, the latest populations of the hominid Homo erectus may have begun living in small-scale (possibly egalitarian) bands similar to both Middle and Upper Paleolithic societies and modern hunter-gatherers.[47]
[47]: James Urquhart (2007-08-08). "Finds test human origins theory". BBC News. Retrieved 2008-03-20."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic

This period lasted many hundreds of thousands of years, >95% of our species' lifetime. This would be what I would call the most 'natural' system in your view.


Families being the primary nexus through which support comes. Rather than whole communities living as a commune.

Interesting, because in the Middle Paleolithic, families and communities were effectively one and the same:


[Also from wikipedia]
"Middle Paleolithic societies, unlike Lower Paleolithic and early Neolithic ones, consisted of bands that ranged from 20 to 30 or 25 to 100 members and were usually nomadic.[3][47] These bands were formed by several families. Bands sometimes joined together into larger "macrobands" for activities such as acquiring mates and celebrations or where resources were abundant.[3]"

[3]: McClellan (2006). Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction. Baltimore, Maryland: JHU Press. ISBN 0-8018-8360-1. Pages 6–12.

So with that, does it mean that all systems that are not of this nature, lead to death and destruction?

[Arkansasguy]

Wikipedia: "Human societies from the Paleolithic to the early Neolithic farming tribes lived without states and organized governments. For most of the Lower Paleolithic, human societies were possibly more hierarchical than their Middle and Upper Paleolithic descendants, and probably were not grouped into bands,[47] though during the end of the Lower Paleolithic, the latest populations of the hominid Homo erectus may have begun living in small-scale (possibly egalitarian) bands similar to both Middle and Upper Paleolithic societies and modern hunter-gatherers.[47]
[47]: James Urquhart (2007-08-08). "Finds test human origins theory". BBC News. Retrieved 2008-03-20."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic

This period lasted many hundreds of thousands of years, >95% of our species' lifetime. This would be what I would call the most 'natural' system in your view.



Interesting, because in the Middle Paleolithic, families and communities were effectively one and the same:


[Also from wikipedia]
"Middle Paleolithic societies, unlike Lower Paleolithic and early Neolithic ones, consisted of bands that ranged from 20 to 30 or 25 to 100 members and were usually nomadic.[3][47] These bands were formed by several families. Bands sometimes joined together into larger "macrobands" for activities such as acquiring mates and celebrations or where resources were abundant.[3]"

[3]: McClellan (2006). Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction. Baltimore, Maryland: JHU Press. ISBN 0-8018-8360-1. Pages 6–12.

So with that, does it mean that all systems that are not of this nature, lead to death and destruction?

I am aware of that theory. The problem is that it is completely lacking in evidence for it.

[sqishy]

I am aware of that theory. The problem is that it is completely lacking in evidence for it.

Postulate yours then.

[Arkansasguy]

Postulate yours then.

I don't see that that has relevance to this conversation. It is enough to say that, as far as human history we actually have records of goes, civilization has been dominant.

[sqishy]

I don't see that that has relevance to this conversation. It is enough to say that, as far as human history we actually have records of goes, civilization has been dominant.

Because civilisations in general have the sufficient complexity for writing systems. There are more areas to make guesses of high reliability, than just writing systems. I was talking about prehistory, not history. What makes the distinction is the written records.
I see this as relevant, because I wanted to see what you thought was a natural way for humans to exist socially, and what it is about communism that cannot achieve that and which leads to totalitarianism/etc.

[Arkansasguy]

Because civilisations in general have the sufficient complexity for writing systems. There are more areas to make guesses of high reliability, than just writing systems. I was talking about prehistory, not history. What makes the distinction is the written records.
I see this as relevant, because I wanted to see what you thought was a natural way for humans to exist socially, and what it is about communism that cannot achieve that and which leads to totalitarianism/etc.

Without surviving written records, we can know (as in know) very little about a society. So what societies that we don't have surviving records from were like is up to your imagination. It's fashionable among archaeologists to imagine that they were tribal nomads, I don't share that assumption.

[sqishy]

Without surviving written records, we can know (as in know) very little about a society. So what societies that we don't have surviving records from were like is up to your imagination. It's fashionable among archaeologists to imagine that they were tribal nomads, I don't share that assumption.

I think that there are many independent investigations into prehistory which arrive at mostly the same conclusions, and some imagination with reasoning can do a lot. There are only so many possibilities that can be thought up with highl likelihoods.

I don' think it is 'fashionable' that tribes existed, it is a general theory. Most are open to improving those theories, and yes, assumptions are made. However, the majority of these assumptions are minor, as in assumptions are made on what choices us humans back then would be doing, given certain tools and a certain environment.

Anyhow, polarised opinions I see now.

[Arkansasguy]

[COLOR="Yellow"]I think that there are many independent investigations into prehistory which arrive at mostly the same conclusions

Well that's your problem. One can't "investigate" something about which there is no evidence, one can only speculate.

[sqishy]

Well that's your problem. One can't "investigate" something about which there is no evidence, one can only speculate.

It is not my problem. It is not a problem for me. You are assuming I'm in a certain state of mind with this. Why do you think it is a problem? You're perceiving one where I do not, so it seems more real for you than me.

If you are all-or-nothing with evidence, then we could speculate the truth behind the writing systems too, to the point of them all being fictional works. We could go into skepticism with it all. That would be our problem then. Why take this absolute binary view in the first place? Evidence is not a thing that comes in zeroes or ones with certainty. All evidence supports assertions, by definition. They do not support truths - that is what happens after the assertions are made, that being that there is some truth behind this or that.

I don't have an issue with not having absolute certainties about things, I am fine with high probabilities. That is what I think everything relevant to this is. How much of history have you seen for yourself? The extreme vast majority of it is testimony. Could it all be made up? Yes, there is a chance. But we don't think about that, and rightly so, for pragmatic reasons.

[Arkansasguy]

It is not my problem. It is not a problem for me. You are assuming I'm in a certain state of mind with this. Why do you think it is a problem? You're perceiving one where I do not, so it seems more real for you than me.

If you are all-or-nothing with evidence, then we could speculate the truth behind the writing systems too, to the point of them all being fictional works. We could go into skepticism with it all. That would be our problem then. Why take this absolute binary view in the first place? Evidence is not a thing that comes in zeroes or ones with certainty. All evidence supports assertions, by definition. They do not support truths - that is what happens after the assertions are made, that being that there is some truth behind this or that.

I don't have an issue with not having absolute certainties about things, I am fine with high probabilities. That is what I think everything relevant to this is. How much of history have you seen for yourself? The extreme vast majority of it is testimony. Could it all be made up? Yes, there is a chance. But we don't think about that, and rightly so, for pragmatic reasons.

Yes, I suppose if one didn't care about evidence, one could reject all history as fiction.

No idea what that has to do with anything. History passed down from contemporary (with the events) authors is reliable. Theories made up from scratch about ancient times are not.

[sqishy]

Yes, I suppose if one didn't care about evidence, one could reject all history as fiction.

No idea what that has to do with anything. History passed down from contemporary (with the events) authors is reliable. Theories made up from scratch about ancient times are not.

Why do you think that all evidence not from writing, is not evidence at all?
Why the exclusion of all sources (human or otherwise) of data except for writing?
Why do you think that all prehistorical theories are just made up 'from scratch'?

[Arkansasguy]

Why do you think that all evidence not from writing, is not evidence at all?
Why the exclusion of all sources (human or otherwise) of data except for writing?

I never said that, it's just that there is no evidence period.

Why do you think that all prehistorical theories are just made up 'from scratch'?

Because they are.

[phuckphace]

to all those appealing to the Neolithic stateless societies as an example of communism put into practice, here's some food for thought.

you'll note that the vast majority of cultures, all but the absolute most primitive, abandoned the hunter-gatherer mode of life in favor of organized civilization a very long time ago, and for good reason. the reason being that a life of hunting and gathering is a pretty bleak and miserable existence, while a more advanced civilization offers a higher individual quality of life. I'm quite sure nobody on VT would want to spend 10 hours a day hunting boars with a javelin in order to obtain their next meal, and rely solely on natural selection to protect you from diseases. want to visit Sentinel Island and shack up with the spear-wielding barbarous savages therein? I don't either.

the stateless societies that existed in prehistory and today share several things in common, but most noticeably they're tiny (probably numbering ~12,000 people at the absolute most, as in Çatalhöyük, but often far fewer). and I'd just like to reiterate how badly it sucks to be stateless. want to marry your sister/brother/first cousin, have a brood of mentally retarded children and then die at age 34? I don't either!

when societies invented high civilization, they were clearly willing to accept the trade-off of less freedom in exchange for a better quality of life. no stateless society in history has ever been anything more than a small tribe of mud hut dwellers - if that sounds like your idea of an ideal mode of life, be my guest. my statist ass is staying comfy under this roof with a magic food box (fridge).

[sqishy]

I never said that, it's just that there is no evidence period.

Because they are.


'It is because it is; it isn't because it isn't.'
That is not an explanation. I am asking why you see this, you can't be basing your reasons off 'because it is, full stop'.



to all those appealing to the Neolithic stateless societies as an example of communism put into practice, here's some food for thought.

you'll note that the vast majority of cultures, all but the absolute most primitive, abandoned the hunter-gatherer mode of life in favor of organized civilization a very long time ago, and for good reason. the reason being that a life of hunting and gathering is a pretty bleak and miserable existence, while a more advanced civilization offers a higher individual quality of life. I'm quite sure nobody on VT would want to spend 10 hours a day hunting boars with a javelin in order to obtain their next meal, and rely solely on natural selection to protect you from diseases. want to visit Sentinel Island and shack up with the spear-wielding barbarous savages therein? I don't either.

the stateless societies that existed in prehistory and today share several things in common, but most noticeably they're tiny (probably numbering ~12,000 people at the absolute most, as in Çatalhöyük, but often far fewer). and I'd just like to reiterate how badly it sucks to be stateless. want to marry your sister/brother/first cousin, have a brood of mentally retarded children and then die at age 34? I don't either!

when societies invented high civilization, they were clearly willing to accept the trade-off of less freedom in exchange for a better quality of life. no stateless society in history has ever been anything more than a small tribe of mud hut dwellers - if that sounds like your idea of an ideal mode of life, be my guest. my statist ass is staying comfy under this roof with a magic food box (fridge).


I was referring to the paleolithic as the most 'natural' way for human to live socially, because it was the time we were least 'divided' from the surrounding environment, before we started making artitifial objects, and so on. I was not giving a reason for how communism and the paleolithic are similar, I was giving the best example (for me at least) of what is a natural society. I was not saying that 'nautral' equals to 'best quality of life', because nature does not have (for me at least, again) an ethical code of conduct for fairness that was constructed by us.

Communism is certainly not paleolithic or anything similar. Communism, by the usage of 'natural' I went to interpret from Arkansasguy, is not natural. I was making a side point, in order to see where to go in respect to his views.

[Judean Zealot]

I was referring to the paleolithic as the most 'natural' way for human to live socially, because it was the time we were least 'divided' from the surrounding environment, before we started making artitifial objects, and so on. I was not giving a reason for how communism and the paleolithic are similar, I was giving the best example (for me at least) of what is a natural society. I was not saying that 'nautral' equals to 'best quality of life', because nature does not have (for me at least, again) an ethical code of conduct for fairness that was constructed by us.

Communism is certainly not paleolithic or anything similar. Communism, by the usage of 'natural' I went to interpret from Arkansasguy, is not natural. I was making a side point, in order to see where to go in respect to his views.

Would you say that an infant is the most "natural" State of a human? I wouldn't- the infant is merely underdeveloped. So too with our ancestors- their capacities were simply underdeveloped. I'm sympathetic to your overall position, I'm just quibbling this point.

[sqishy]

Would you say that an infant is the most "natural" State of a human? I wouldn't- the infant is merely underdeveloped. So too with our ancestors- their capacities were simply underdeveloped. I'm sympathetic to your overall position, I'm just quibbling this point.

Point taken - humans are continuously changing, and what are labelled as humans in the paleolithic are not the same as us, least psychologically. To us, they are less complex.
Nevertheless, I would still argue that it is the most 'natural' way we could live, with respects to the self-other division of us V nature. We are artifical in that sense (Arkansasguy sees natural order to be family-based, which means we are still unnatural as (at least 'Western' society works on more than family)). We can still theoretically (physiologically and psychologically) live in paleolithic times, though it would be quite the jump back (and would be quite the mess to get to such a state).
I will move on from what I took as natural with respect to Arkansasguy's viewpoint, because his definition is different to mine. Navigating his argument bit by bit.

[Arkansasguy]

'It is because it is; it isn't because it isn't.'
That is not an explanation. I am asking why you see this, you can't be basing your reasons off 'because it is, full stop'.






I was referring to the paleolithic as the most 'natural' way for human to live socially, because it was the time we were least 'divided' from the surrounding environment, before we started making artitifial objects, and so on. I was not giving a reason for how communism and the paleolithic are similar, I was giving the best example (for me at least) of what is a natural society. I was not saying that 'nautral' equals to 'best quality of life', because nature does not have (for me at least, again) an ethical code of conduct for fairness that was constructed by us.

Communism is certainly not paleolithic or anything similar. Communism, by the usage of 'natural' I went to interpret from Arkansasguy, is not natural. I was making a side point, in order to see where to go in respect to his views.

It's made up because there isn't any evidence for it. If there is evidence, show it.

[sqishy]

It's made up because there isn't any evidence for it. If there is evidence, show it.

I already did, but you dismissed it as 'there is not evidence'. You are circular here as well: 'There is no evidence because the evidence you show is not evidence.' That goes nowhere, and it's not backing on anything.
Why is it not evidence, apart from you saying that 'if it is not written, it is not evidence' (which still begs the question)?

[Tris]

I honestly think that Communism, or even other ideas of how to run a nation and maybe a whole world, must be grown and added to by experience and the true desire of a world where everyone can live in peace and knowledge is celebrated.

We must first stop trying to live with one way of doing things and always seeking things outside of ourselves to be happy. We must be the ones to act upon trying to build a better world, not just saying you will build a better world. We must put our feelings into action, and this does not mean killing innocents or forcing people to obey. These violent actions result from not being trained enough to deal with and suppress the desires of the mind and how it lusts after everything, things that hinder discovering the essence of life.

We are all humans inhabiting this Earth, we are here to learn who we are and how we can use our intellect and knowledge of things in the best way possible, and unfortunately, mistakes must be made to eventually stumble upon something that will drastically change the world for the better.

Humanity will have dark times, and there will be times of great enlightenment and new modes of thinking. Eventually we will be able to achieve peace, but in the mean time while we wait, we may as well act now with logic and love to build a world worth living in.

[Arkansasguy]

I already did, but you dismissed it as 'there is not evidence'. You are circular here as well: 'There is no evidence because the evidence you show is not evidence.' That goes nowhere, and it's not backing on anything.
Why is it not evidence, apart from you saying that 'if it is not written, it is not evidence' (which still begs the question)?

I dismissed it as "not evidence", because it wasn't "facts or information indicating whether a belief is true or valid". All you have is opinion.

[sqishy]

I dismissed it as "not evidence", because it wasn't "facts or information indicating whether a belief is true or valid". All you have is opinion.

Why is it not "facts or information indicating whether a belief is true or valid"? You have the view of that, but you're not saying explicitly why.

In a way, all everyone has is opinion. I gave reasons for why I have mine, with what I see to be references to other things. For you, however, your opinion is being grounded by you negating the validity of mine, without clearly stating why, and without saying why you think only written sources are valid evidence.

[Judean Zealot]

Why is it not "facts or information indicating whether a belief is true or valid"? You have the view of that, but you're not saying explicitly why.

In a way, all everyone has is opinion. I gave reasons for why I have mine, with what I see to be references to other things. For you, however, your opinion is being grounded by you negating the validity of mine, without clearly stating why, and without saying why you think only written sources are valid evidence.

He wants to know on what basis anthropologists assume our ancestors were hunter-gatherers. There's lots of grounds for that assumption, so this shouldn't be too hard for you to answer.

[sqishy]

He wants to know on what basis anthropologists assume our ancestors were hunter-gatherers. There's lots of grounds for that assumption, so this shouldn't be too hard for you to answer.

I already did. I could give more references and reasons, but they all interlink from what I said. If the references are followed, then the grounds expand a lot.

[Judean Zealot]

I already did. I could give more references and reasons, but they all interlink from what I said. If the references are followed, then the grounds expand a lot.

You gave a wikipedia article. What data informs the article?

[sqishy]

You gave a wikipedia article. What data informs the article?

The references I pasted with the article, as well as providing the link itself which contains all the references at the bottom of the page.

[Judean Zealot]

The references I pasted with the article, as well as providing the link itself which contains all the references at the bottom of the page.

Just give him hard data. If you want I can do it.

[Arkansasguy]

Why is it not "facts or information indicating whether a belief is true or valid"? You have the view of that, but you're not saying explicitly why.

In a way, all everyone has is opinion. I gave reasons for why I have mine, with what I see to be references to other things. For you, however, your opinion is being grounded by you negating the validity of mine, without clearly stating why, and without saying why you think only written sources are valid evidence.

It's not "facts or information indicating whether a belief is true or valid" because well, it's not. I'm not sure how to simplify it, that someone holds an opinion is not evidence of the truth of the matter.

And also, that a few people have been found in caves does not evince that a majority or plurality of people at any given time lived in caves, nor for that matter does it even prove that the specific individuals lived in caves.

[sqishy]

Just give him hard data. If you want I can do it.


By all means do; I was not getting straight to the point myself, granted. Just wanted to slowly examine his reasoning.
All help is welcome.


It's not "facts or information indicating whether a belief is true or valid" because well, it's not. I'm not sure how to simplify it, that someone holds an opinion is not evidence of the truth of the matter.


As I mentioned before, you are basically saying "it's not because it's not". Explain why it is not, without making short circular arguments.

If holding an opinion is no evidence of the truth of a matter (which I hold as a reasonable view here), then your opinion is equally valid as mine. This means that you're saying the same thing about yourself.



And also, that a few people have been found in caves does not evince that a majority or plurality of people at any given time lived in caves, nor for that matter does it even prove that the specific individuals lived in caves.

So, by your reasoning, because some people were found in caves, it is not justified to infer that they lived in the cave.

I am not saying that generalisations can solidly be made from examples, I am saying that is it not unreasonable to postulate that such generalisations may exist because thousands of coherent examples have been found.

[Arkansasguy]

As I mentioned before, you are basically saying "it's not because it's not". Explain why it is not, without making short circular arguments.

I can't. If you don't understand that an opinion isn't evidence, then I can't help you.

If holding an opinion is no evidence of the truth of a matter (which I hold as a reasonable view here), then your opinion is equally valid as mine. This means that you're saying the same thing about yourself.

That's been the entire point. All one can really go on in this matter is one's assumptions about our ancestors. Call it piety, I don't assume my ancestors were nomads.


So, by your reasoning, because some people were found in caves, it is not justified to infer that they lived in the cave.

I am not saying that generalisations can solidly be made from examples, I am saying that is it not unreasonable to postulate that such generalisations may exist because thousands of coherent examples have been found.

There are prehistoric graves found outside caves as well.

[sqishy]

I can't. If you don't understand that an opinion isn't evidence, then I can't help you.

I thought I made it clear that I know opinion inherently is not evidence.


That's been the entire point. All one can really go on in this matter is one's assumptions about our ancestors. Call it piety, I don't assume my ancestors were nomads.

What do you assume then?


There are prehistoric graves found outside caves as well.

I was taking the example of caves, because you were using it. If you looked at the references I presented (without immediately discounting them as not evidence), it is not said that the stone age was composed of humans living in caves. Some lived in caves, but not all.

[Arkansasguy]

What do you assume then?

that they were mostly civilized.

I was taking the example of caves, because you were using it. If you looked at the references I presented (without immediately discounting them as not evidence), it is not said that the stone age was composed of humans living in caves. Some lived in caves, but not all.

I know that, it was an example.

[sqishy]

that they were mostly civilized.


And you assume this because?

[Arkansasguy]

And you assume this because?

Because that is how humans usually organize society.

[sqishy]

Because that is how humans usually organize society.

It has been since the stone age, yes.
There is almost no reason to think they were before it, when there is evidence for the contrary. The evidence does not show truth, it shows what is more likely to have been, by a far margin.

[lliam]

I think the Russian history proves already that communism will never work.


But that's not the problem of communism, but the fundamental problem of every form of idealism ... of every ism.

Every idealism always breaks at the requirements that meets reality.

[Vlerchan]

Explain how communism could be acheived non-violently.
The proletariat would organise in the workplace and through this medium attempt to construct and maintain a counter-hegemonic institutional arrangement - 'counter-institutions' - that vies for legitimation in the civil sphere (Lenin 1917) (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/09.htm). This was the formation that rendered the October revolution bloodless. It was the capitalist and monarchist-led - and international-capitalist aided - counter-revolution that inspired the killing and the centralisation that enabled the excesses.

I also don't hold an issue with killing insofar as it is required to ensure a desirable outcome.

Rebellion against authority is not a virtue.
Does authority justify itself?

Communism always involves massacres
Feel free to describe those that took place in Makhnovia.

People won't work when they can just leech off the commune[.]
People care about their reputations. On a commune I would imagine that there would be high stigma attached to being a leech and that would deter those activities. In particular it would be quite feasible in areas with deep local government and sufficient social capital where people are answerable to their communities. Because the fact the remunerations are non-monetarised doesn't mean these don't exist.

he economic basis for the complete withering away of the state is such a high state of development of communism at which the antithesis between mental and physical labor disappears, at which there consequently disappears one of the principal sources of modern social inequality--a source, moreover, which cannot on any account be removed immediately by the mere conversion of the means of production into public property, by the mere expropriation of the capitalists.

This expropriation will make it possible for the productive forces to develop to a tremendous extent. And when we see how incredibly capitalism is already retarding this development, when we see how much progress could be achieved on the basis of the level of technique already attained, we are entitled to say with the fullest confidence that the expropriation of the capitalists will inevitably result in an enormous development of the productive forces of human society. But how rapidly this development will proceed, how soon it will reach the point of breaking away from the division of labor, of doing away with the antithesis between mental and physical labor, of transforming labor into "life's prime want"--we do not and cannot know.

That is why we are entitled to speak only of the inevitable withering away of the state, emphasizing the protracted nature of this process and its dependence upon the rapidity of development of the higher phase of communism, and leaving the question of the time required for, or the concrete forms of, the withering away quite open, because there is no material for answering these questions.

The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", i.e., when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability. "The narrow horizon of bourgeois law", which compels one to calculate with the heartlessness of a Shylock whether one has not worked half an hour more than anybody else--this narrow horizon will then be left behind. There will then be no need for society, in distributing the products, to regulate the quantity to be received by each; each will take freely "according to his needs".

Lenin The State and Revolution: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State: 4. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm)

Lenin's belief was that communism would not be approached until development reached such a stage that the proletariat would become so productive in their labour that what remained to be achieved would engender pursuit as opposed to recoil.

From the bourgeois point of view, it is easy to declare that such a social order is "sheer utopia" and to sneer at the socialists for promising everyone the right to receive from society, without any control over the labor of the individual citizen, any quantity of truffles, cars, pianos, etc. Even to this day, most bourgeois “savants” confine themselves to sneering in this way, thereby betraying both their ignorance and their selfish defence of capitalism.

ibid.

This isn't difficult to imagine. Lots of people engaged in intellectual labour - economists: engineers: chemists: and so on - and care-orientated labour - doctors: nurses: and so on - relish work. There is of course a large proportion of the workforce that are the opposite - But then there's a question of the extent much of our emerging service economies are required and in the terms of manufacturing: capable of automisation in the medium-term.

It doesn't seem far-fetched in perspective.

A stateless society can't work because someone will seize power.
But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state.

Engels, F. Anti-Duhring: Part III: Socialism. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm)

The Orthodox Marxist position is that the coercive state apparatus is required insofar as it enabled one class to oppress another. Their position would be that a seizure isn't probable if possible.

Nonetheless I would imagine that if a group of idealists thought an insurrection would pose fruitful members of each commune would be quick to organise local militias in defence of themselves. The aim of Marxism has never been to transform us all into liberal-pacifists.

[Arkansasguy]

It has been since the stone age, yes.
There is almost no reason to think they were before it, when there is evidence for the contrary. The evidence does not show truth, it shows what is more likely to have been, by a far margin.

Yet there isn't evidence for your position. Just assumption.

[sqishy]

Yet there isn't evidence for your position. Just assumption.

WHY is there not? You are rejecting the evidence there is, because of your same circular argument..
We all take assumptions, the ones I am taking seem very reasonable.

[Arkansasguy]

[COLOR="Yellow"]WHY is there not?

I would argue that the reason there isn't any evidence for your position is because it isn't true.

You are rejecting the evidence there is, because of your same circular argument..

There isn't any evidence, if there were you would have presented it, yet you haven't.

We all take assumptions, the ones I am taking seem very reasonable.

Obviously they seem reasonable to you. I don't find them reasonable, however.

[sqishy]

I would argue that the reason there isn't any evidence for your position is because it isn't true.

Why is it not true?


There isn't any evidence, if there were you would have presented it, yet you haven't.


"It isn't because it isn't"
" X = X , therefore Y is not true "

Been through this a few loops already.


Obviously they seem reasonable to you. I don't find them reasonable, however.

Why not?


I'm leaving this line of argument as a whole, if it has any more circular loops on itself.

[Vlerchan]

The Hadza are one of the last remaining traditional hunter-gatherer societies on Earth.

Like almost all other hunter-gatherer groups, the Hadza have an egalitarian social structure. They do not typically recognize land rights in the traditional sense, although they recognize an affinity with other Hadza groups that occupy the region. There is no political structure, formal or informal, at the tribal level. Society is typically organized in camps, which have fluid composition of extended family and friends. Labor and food are shared between related and unrelated camp members. Hadza women have a great amount of autonomy and participate equally in decision making with men.

http://www.philosophy.dept.shef.ac.uk/culture&mind/people/crittendena/

The basis of this egalitarianism surrounds the idea of immediate-return economies as elaborated on in (Woodburn 1982) (https://libcom.org/files/EGALITARIAN%20SOCIETIES%20-%20James%20Woodburn.pdf) insofar that dependencies are eliminated. That means that it's not necessitated that all hunter-gather societies be egalitarian. However the lack of a domestication of animal-life and formation of stable agricultural production does promote this as being the state of affairs.

For reference no Marxist claims that this full-egalitarianism is what their struggle is aiming for.

[Bubbawhack]

Just here to insert my opinion...
The way that communism has been implemented in the past, the way that it was structured was alright in the sense of following the communist "structure" but when started up there has always been a group which has been at slightly less of an advantage, this is not true communism. The main issue with communism is the paradox of having a leader of the Provence implementing communism, if there is no leader to produce a communist state, then communism wouldn't happen, but having someone dictating the workings of communism also is counter point to the agenda of communism.
Therefore as has been seen in history, communism has not legitimately been introduced successfully if at all.

[Stephan]

I think it does work.

China as of right now under Xi's sovereignty declares China as a communist state.

but economics wise there are both government control industries - tobacco companies
and private industries - electronics like hua wei, xiao mi

and I believe China will be ahead of the USA within the next 5 to 10 years in economic dominance, and right now it is already asserting its naval / miltary dominance thoughout south east asia

[Bubbawhack]

I think it does work.

China as of right now under Xi's sovereignty declares China as a communist state.


Sure it is declared a communist state, but the Chinese economy at this point is basically based off of capitalism within their state (as well as with their foreign trade) so it is not Solely communism, and it looks like they are leaning more and more towards a capitalist structure.

[Dalton_Holt]

I think communism could only work if it were a stateless, voluntary society. Aka, anarcho-communism. True communism is supposed to be stateless, at least by Marx's version. A stateless society was supposed to be the end goal. Unfortunately, Marx was wrong in his plan for putting communism in action and communism in its true form has never really been tested.

[Dalton_Holt]

By the way, in regards to the above argument, China is not communist. They call themselves socialist. But they're not even that. They're social democrat. Far from communism

[phuckphace]

By the way, in regards to the above argument, China is not communist. They call themselves socialist. But they're not even that. They're social democrat. Far from communism

China is state-capitalist. communism never took off because it necessarily requires a certain cultural mindset that anthill countries do not possess.

the Chinese display a blatant cultural disregard for both individual life and care of the commons. they're not only happy to cheat and deceive outgroups, but also one another. remember the Sanlu milk adulteration scandal? that's to say nothing of the insane amounts of pollution they dump on their own country. life is cheap there.

[Dalton_Holt]

I do hope your Trump 2016 signature is sarcastic

[Vlerchan]

I think communism could only work if it were a stateless, voluntary society.
So do Marxists. The difference is that Marxists believe that there first needs to be a transition through a socialist mode of production first whilst anarchists believe it can be arrived at without this.

---

China are also state-capitalist heading towards a state-led capitalism.

[Dalton_Holt]

So do Marxists. The difference is that Marxists believe that there first needs to be a transition through a socialist mode of production first whilst anarchists believe it can be arrived at without this.

---

China are also state-capitalist heading towards a state-led capitalism.

Yeah I'm aware of that. Personally I disagree with Marxism. You can't just give a few people power, especially the amount supposedly required for state socialism, and expect them to gradually give the power back to the people. Power corrupts, and corrupt people seek power. Which is why if you want stateless communism, anarcho--communism is the best way to achieve that. Destroy the state that exists now and implement communism into a collective. While others outside create a capitalist collective, a mutualist collective, syndicalist, etc. This is the natural order of things. Division. People who disagree will divide. If one forces others into their ideals, you violate the concept of anarchism and voluntarianism. Which is exactly what is needed for communism to truly work. So if you don't agree with communism, move to a capitalist collective, or whatever else.

[Vlerchan]

Personally I disagree with Marxism. You can't just give a few people power, especially the amount supposedly required for state socialism, and expect them to gradually give the power back to the people.
Then don't give a few people power. It's quite possible to disperse it across a populous.

Power corrupts, and corrupt people seek power.
I imagined institutions that sought to avoid this issue - amongst others.

Vlerchan - Dictatorship of the Intelligentsia (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2021682)

Which is why if you want stateless communism, anarcho--communism is the best way to achieve that.
I don't disagree it's the best. I disagree that it's the 'surest' or the 'easiest' or 'most possible'.

So if you don't agree with communism, move to a capitalist collective, or whatever else.
There's a number of problems with panarchism. The largest is that in a case where capitalist infrastructure comes to dominate the allocation of certain vital resources and thus a relationship of exchange with the capitalist environment arises. Here the commune becomes another expression of private-property rights in a overarching capitalist environment and whilst it can perhaps maintain it's communistic ethos on an internal-level the realisation it's orientation becomes that of a profit-maximising firm.

Existing within a capitalist mode of production alters the values contained within the superstructure and thus the project is nullified.

Not to mention that historically capitalism has been quite an effective hegomonic force in constant search of the next market. It's not going to let you remain free for long.