Communism in theory vs in practice
Communism in theory vs in practice
You're viewing a single thread.
Even without interference communism can never work, it's not how human nature works, it relys on everyone being on the same page which will never happen
it's not how human nature works
where is human nature defined?
this is a thought-terminating cliche, not an my argument to be taken seriously
It's in our genetics to engage in a perpetual exponential quarterly growth and make our decisions based on the benefit it brings to our investors. Any caveman could tell you that smh...
E: my god it's a hyperbolically absurd take in memes and even with the caveman comment I still need to /s apparently...
No, cavemen were very egalitarian. This is because back then, you couldn't hoard much of anything - food spoils quickly, sex requires your partner to like you, and personal possessions were things like tools or the odd bit of clothing. It was when wealth could be preserved, such as livestock, stored grain, jewelry, and eventually coinage, that wealth became an hereditary thing.
This is why a future economic system has to be designed to prevent the excessive hoarding of wealth. Not too little, nor too much. Humans weren't evolved to be free of consequence, especially from each other.
If you ran humanity in thousands of simulations how often would we end up in the same capitalistic situation?
Very frequently, but it is exactly just as likely it would have moved on to Socialism and eventually Communism, or retained feudalism, it all depends on when in development.
Is it always a linear path?
Fantastic question! The answer is no, not necessarily. The PRC is Socialist, and never had a true "Capitalist" phase. It currently has a Socialist Market Economy, but never really had a stage dominated entirely by Capitalism.
There are also reversions. Russia reverted to Capitalism, and Germany almost became Communist, but was stopped by the Nazi Party coming to power.
However, all of that being said, history does generally progress alongside technological development, and the Mode of Production follows suit.
Well, let's hope the great filter isn't something we encounter before we see some cool shit.
this rather shows the untestability of the hypothesis. this is no test at all.
It's an unanswerable question. Just something to think about. My intention was to ponder how much external forces dictate our society rather than the internal expressive ones.
Far less often than we end up with communalist hunter gatherers and early agrarian communes and evidently for a much shorter time. Does that mean feudalism can never work? Capitalism is never at any point of productive development possible?
Edit: deleted a section that assumed you were the same guy who said communism was against human nature. Apologies.
Your words make no sense to me. If you want to convey ideas use the common tongue. It feels like you have some neat ideas though.
Edit: Can anyone please decipher what this guy said?
people share goods and culture naturally. the prevailing historical models are cooperative. anticooperative, competitive societies are rare.
Thanks man. So this guy is an expert on economies but not on psychologies. Is that fair?
If you wanna talk psychology, the ultracompetitive demands of modern capitalism have to be drilled into each of us from birth, and most of us resist it all the same. Mark Fisher elaborates on this in Capitalist Realism, this learned behavior is in large part responsible for the mental health crisis in the world.
You're assuming way too much about my motives. I haven't even stated a conclusion. But from what I gather, you think our behavior is (almost?) fully formed from external forces. That's a valid take, but, I believe to be highly debatable, which I have no answer or conclusion for.
You're right, I got confused and assumed you were the guy arguing that it was against human nature. I apologize for the mistake and have edited my comment.
Behavior is learned, but as far as anyone can tell, if there's such a thing as "human nature" we seem to be wired very much in favor of empathy and cooperation with other humans, Matthew Lieberman has a book on the subject which I admittedly haven't read yet.
So many it would be hard to count, at least 4 or 5. But numbers don't really go much higher than that. Any caveman could tell you that.
No, but greed and envy is. That's why humans have written so much in the last thousand years about greed and envy.
How does it rely on "everyone being on the same page?" What gave you that impression?
Anthropology doesn't support the idea that humans are incapable of being communal.
capitalism, of course, where utility is only allowed to exist as the unexploited byproduct of a scam, cannot fail. it can only be failed.
I don't disagree with you, but the person you're responding to didn't mention capitalism?
you're right, they could be a monarchist instead. that's much more sensible.
What part of communism relys on everyone being on the same page?
It's right there on Karl Marcos' "All About Capital", basic economics commie
im sorry Carl Marcos is too advanced.
they keep saying 'In one word; ' and then writing a whole paragraph. and why do they keep making economics all political?
Kind of some level of any system isn't it? In short if a system has a means to power that can tweak the rules. Inevitably will result in one group ceasing the rules, turning them to raise how much they can tweak them, and ensuring they continue to be tweaked in their favor.
Communism relies on a possibly impossible starting point. Theoretically if the starting point were reached, it seems the most sustainable. Whether it's possible to reach that starting point is the great mystery.
What "possibly impossible starting point" does Communism rely on? This reads like someone that hasn't actually attempted to engage with what Communists believe, to be honest.
Yeah I think you hit the nail on the head here. It's interesting to think about how even though communism could theoretically be the best system, it could mean nothing if we don't know how to meet the conditions to achieve it in the first place.