Communism and Socialism megathread

[Unitaristic Regions]

We Humans also have the ability to Adapt, reason why I usually laugh at "Human Nature" in terms of it's ability to get involved in said topic.

Also, the "human nature" argument makes absolutely no sense. The homo sapiens has been around a good 100,000 years. Over 90% of that time was spent without the existance of private property or class society. Human nature in all that time did not in any way, shape or form yearn for private property or the maximalisation of profit.

It's ironical how the people who think everyone is rotten then go on to despise those people (showing that they all think themselves to be the exception)

[Holy Prospero]

We Humans also have the ability to Adapt, reason why I usually laugh at "Human Nature" in terms of it's ability to get involved in said topic.

Also, the "human nature" argument makes absolutely no sense. The homo sapiens has been around a good 100,000 years. Over 90% of that time was spent without the existance of private property or class society. Human nature in all that time did not in any way, shape or form yearn for private property or the maximalisation of profit.

And yet during those 100,000 years, people were immeasurably worse off than they are today. They died young, of starvation, of exposure, of easily-treatable diseases, in childbirth, and so on.

[Sanctissima]

Also, the "human nature" argument makes absolutely no sense. The homo sapiens has been around a good 100,000 years. Over 90% of that time was spent without the existance of private property or class society. Human nature in all that time did not in any way, shape or form yearn for private property or the maximalisation of profit.

And yet during those 100,000 years, people were immeasurably worse off than they are today. They died young, of starvation, of exposure, of easily-treatable diseases, in childbirth, and so on.

Eh, that's up for debate.

Specifically modern times as of this moment, yes.

But from the first signs of nomadism to pastoralism and agriculture, no. Communal Nomads lived better off than their immediate civilized descendants. Basically, early agricultural and organized societal life sucked for most people. It took a long time before general living conditions returned to their original levels.

So, basically, for a long time, people were better off as nomads than they were as sedentary people living in organized societies.

[Duvniask]

Also, the "human nature" argument makes absolutely no sense. The homo sapiens has been around a good 100,000 years. Over 90% of that time was spent without the existance of private property or class society. Human nature in all that time did not in any way, shape or form yearn for private property or the maximalisation of profit.

And yet during those 100,000 years, people were immeasurably worse off than they are today. They died young, of starvation, of exposure, of easily-treatable diseases, in childbirth, and so on.

So? The point here is that humans are adaptable and that "human nature" is a shaky concept.

[Holy Prospero]

And yet during those 100,000 years, people were immeasurably worse off than they are today. They died young, of starvation, of exposure, of easily-treatable diseases, in childbirth, and so on.

So? The point here is that humans are adaptable and that "human nature" is a shaky concept.

I'm making the point that things like private property and the 'maximalisation' (maximisation he probably means) of profit have done us a lot more good than living in primitive pre-agricultural communal societies with no concept of ownership.

Sure, being a native american or an amazon tribesmen was relatively easy compared to working the land like civilised peoples, but the cost of this is that native americans and amazon tribesmen had rudimentary cultures of no lasting value, and no real achievements as civilisations.

[Bratislavskaya]

Sure, being a native american or an amazon tribesmen was relatively easy compared to working the land like civilised peoples, but the cost of this is that native americans and amazon tribesmen had rudimentary cultures of no lasting value, and no real achievements as civilisations.

No, that's probably because the colonists invaded their land, and committed a 200 Year Genocide on them, whilst destroying their culture and making them a minority in their own country, and then started to complain about immigrants.

[Arkotania]

I'm certainly a socialist, having questioned my position on it countless times.
I'm also partial to nationalism, though whether it's actually nationalism and what sort is up for self-debate.

Some have considered my views along the lines of fascism. In any case I think I should just go write up my own ideology or something since I can't find one that fits!

[Holy Prospero]

Sure, being a native american or an amazon tribesmen was relatively easy compared to working the land like civilised peoples, but the cost of this is that native americans and amazon tribesmen had rudimentary cultures of no lasting value, and no real achievements as civilisations.

No, that's probably because the colonists invaded their land, and committed a 200 Year Genocide on them, whilst destroying their culture and making them a minority in their own country, and then started to complain about immigrants.

We made better use of their land than they ever could. The conquest of the americas was a victory for progress and human civilisation.

[Bratislavskaya]

No, that's probably because the colonists invaded their land, and committed a 200 Year Genocide on them, whilst destroying their culture and making them a minority in their own country, and then started to complain about immigrants.

We made better use of their land than they ever could. The conquest of the americas was a victory for progress and human civilisation.

No no, it was a genocide. I could make better use of my next door neighbors garden, I'm not going to burn down their house, claim the land as my own, force them into a tiny plot in the corner, give them beding infected with diseases, and shoot them for trying to pick a carrot so they don't starve to death.

[Holy Prospero]

We made better use of their land than they ever could. The conquest of the americas was a victory for progress and human civilisation.

No no, it was a genocide. I could make better use of my next door neighbors garden, I'm not going to burn down their house, claim the land as my own, force them into a tiny plot in the corner, give them beding infected with diseases, and shoot them for trying to pick a carrot so they don't starve to death.

It was not morally correct, but then we're also better off for it today. There are many such examples. Enslaved blacks in America suffered terribly, yet their descendants in the 21st century have benefited by being born into a prosperous, stable 1st world country as opposed to their original homelands. Russians and Slavs suffered terribly under the Mongol Empire, yet the Mongols also brought stability across vast swathes of Asia allowing for the diffusion of Chinese scientific knowledge into the west, to which we undoubtedly owe much of our technological prowess today.

Besides, all empires and civilisations of the past have conquered and murdered and subjugated. That doesn't make it right, but we also cant judge the peoples of such times - we're fortunate enough to live in an era where we have notions of common humanity and inherent rights, but most of history has been a brutal struggle for survival, in which only the strongest peoples have prevailed.

[Bratislavskaya]

It was not morally correct, but then we're also better off for it today.

They aren't.

[Holy Prospero]

It was not morally correct, but then we're also better off for it today.

They aren't.

They get to enjoy modern medicine and welfare and not dying at the age of thirty with a hatchet buried in their heads.
Their ancestors suffered but so have the Slavs', the Armenians', the Greeks', just about everyone's.
The world is a terrible place, but the worst the amerindians suffer for their history today is wounded pride.

[Kubra]

So? The point here is that humans are adaptable and that "human nature" is a shaky concept.

I'm making the point that things like private property and the 'maximalisation' (maximisation he probably means) of profit have done us a lot more good than living in primitive pre-agricultural communal societies with no concept of ownership.

Sure, being a native american or an amazon tribesmen was relatively easy compared to working the land like civilised peoples, but the cost of this is that native americans and amazon tribesmen had rudimentary cultures of no lasting value, and no real achievements as civilisations.

tribal hunter gathers did less work and had more sex than us and generally partied harder and that's kinda more appealing than having the "achievements of civilization" sry bruh civ killed fun and you hate fun

[Holy Prospero]

I'm making the point that things like private property and the 'maximalisation' (maximisation he probably means) of profit have done us a lot more good than living in primitive pre-agricultural communal societies with no concept of ownership.

Sure, being a native american or an amazon tribesmen was relatively easy compared to working the land like civilised peoples, but the cost of this is that native americans and amazon tribesmen had rudimentary cultures of no lasting value, and no real achievements as civilisations.

tribal hunter gathers did less work and had more sex than us and generally partied harder and that's kinda more appealing than having the "achievements of civilization" sry bruh civ killed fun and you hate fun

Indeed

[Conscentia]

[...]
Post-Scarcity is the fundamental economic principle of a communist society.[...]

Nope.avi

[Unitaristic Regions]

I'm certainly a socialist, having questioned my position on it countless times.
I'm also partial to nationalism, though whether it's actually nationalism and what sort is up for self-debate.

Some have considered my views along the lines of fascism. In any case I think I should just go write up my own ideology or something since I can't find one that fits!

-Nationalist
-Socialist

That could make for an unhappy combination of words in your 'new ideology'

[New Neros]

I'm making the point that things like private property and the 'maximalisation' (maximisation he probably means) of profit have done us a lot more good than living in primitive pre-agricultural communal societies with no concept of ownership.

Sure, being a native american or an amazon tribesmen was relatively easy compared to working the land like civilised peoples, but the cost of this is that native americans and amazon tribesmen had rudimentary cultures of no lasting value, and no real achievements as civilisations.

tribal hunter gathers did less work and had more sex than us and generally partied harder and that's kinda more appealing than having the "achievements of civilization" sry bruh civ killed fun and you hate fun

You know what else civilization killed?

Smallpox.

[Unitaristic Regions]

No no, it was a genocide. I could make better use of my next door neighbors garden, I'm not going to burn down their house, claim the land as my own, force them into a tiny plot in the corner, give them beding infected with diseases, and shoot them for trying to pick a carrot so they don't starve to death.

It was not morally correct, but then we're also better off for it today. There are many such examples. Enslaved blacks in America suffered terribly, yet their descendants in the 21st century have benefited by being born into a prosperous, stable 1st world country as opposed to their original homelands. Russians and Slavs suffered terribly under the Mongol Empire, yet the Mongols also brought stability across vast swathes of Asia allowing for the diffusion of Chinese scientific knowledge into the west, to which we undoubtedly owe much of our technological prowess today.

Besides, all empires and civilisations of the past have conquered and murdered and subjugated. That doesn't make it right, but we also cant judge the peoples of such times - we're fortunate enough to live in an era where we have notions of common humanity and inherent rights, but most of history has been a brutal struggle for survival, in which only the strongest peoples have prevailed.

1. "So, we fucked up your ancestor's life, but we also fucked up their native country. You should be thankful, black man, that colonialism fucked up Africa more than it did our own country when you lot came in and made it richer with cheap labour! Thank us!"

2. "So, we kinda imported the Black Death by invading Genoese holdings near the Crimea, but yeah, be thankful! One day, this will pay off as we're going to import tech and shit! Only, you'll be dead and your wife raped."

2. could also be invoked to justify killing off a third of the planet to avoid environmental breakdown, because that'll be beneficial for the future (after all, the descendants of those that survived won't be as traumatized.)

[Arumdaum]

You guys really have very useful comments here

"Socialism sounds nice in theory, but Human Nature..."



I hate that comment

it's so silly since humans lived in egalitarian societies for most of history

[Holy Prospero]

"Socialism sounds nice in theory, but Human Nature..."



I hate that comment

it's so silly since humans lived in egalitarian societies for most of history

That works for tiny groups of hunter-gatherers in the depths of the Amazon rainforests and on the isolated Andaman Islands, but not for larger communities.

https://archive.org/stream/inandamansni ... 7/mode/2up



This is a fascinating study of such peoples, if you're interested.

[Unitaristic Regions]

it's so silly since humans lived in egalitarian societies for most of history

That works for tiny groups of hunter-gatherers in the depths of the Amazon rainforests and on the isolated Andaman Islands, but not for larger communities.

https://archive.org/stream/inandamansni ... 7/mode/2up



This is a fascinating study of such peoples, if you're interested.

Dude.

"most of history"

Taking that to be human history: (simple Wiki search)

Early humans[edit]


"Genetic measurements indicate that the ape lineage which would lead to Homo sapiens diverged from the lineage that would lead to chimpanzees (the closest living relative of modern humans) around five million years ago.[33] It is thought that the Australopithecine genus, which were likely the first apes to walk upright, eventually gave rise to genus Homo. Anatomically modern humans arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago, and reached behavioral modernity about 50,000 years ago.[34]"

"Hunting and gathering was presumably the subsistence strategy employed by human societies beginning some 1.8 million years ago, by Homo erectus, and from its appearance some 0.2 million years ago by Homo sapiens. It remained the only mode of subsistence until the end of the Mesolithic period some 10,000 years ago, and after this was replaced only gradually with the spread of the Neolithic Revolution."

So, hunting and gathering started even before we had anatomically modern humans.


And then:

"Habitat and population[edit]
Hunter-gatherer settlements may be either permanent, temporary, or some combination of the two, depending upon the mobility of the community. Mobile communities typically construct shelters using impermanent building materials, or they may use natural rock shelters, where they are available.

Social and economic structure[edit]
Hunter-gatherers tend to have an egalitarian social ethos, although settled hunter-gatherers (for example, those inhabiting the Northwest Coast of North America) are an exception to this rule. Nearly all African hunter-gatherers are egalitarian, with women roughly as influential and powerful as men.[10]

The egalitarianism typical of human hunters and gatherers is never perfect, but is striking when viewed in an evolutionary context. One of humanity's two closest primate relatives, chimpanzees, are anything but egalitarian, forming themselves into hierarchies that are often dominated by an alpha male. So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is widely argued by palaeoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness, language, kinship and social organization.[11][12][13]"

In others words, don't fight a losing battle. You may not like Wikipedia, but this is a well-sourced page with little conflict in it, which has a tendency to produce good results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gat ... l_evidence

[Holy Prospero]

That works for tiny groups of hunter-gatherers in the depths of the Amazon rainforests and on the isolated Andaman Islands, but not for larger communities.

https://archive.org/stream/inandamansni ... 7/mode/2up



This is a fascinating study of such peoples, if you're interested.

Dude.

"most of history"

Taking that to be human history: (simple Wiki search)

Early humans[edit]


"Genetic measurements indicate that the ape lineage which would lead to Homo sapiens diverged from the lineage that would lead to chimpanzees (the closest living relative of modern humans) around five million years ago.[33] It is thought that the Australopithecine genus, which were likely the first apes to walk upright, eventually gave rise to genus Homo. Anatomically modern humans arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago, and reached behavioral modernity about 50,000 years ago.[34]"

"Hunting and gathering was presumably the subsistence strategy employed by human societies beginning some 1.8 million years ago, by Homo erectus, and from its appearance some 0.2 million years ago by Homo sapiens. It remained the only mode of subsistence until the end of the Mesolithic period some 10,000 years ago, and after this was replaced only gradually with the spread of the Neolithic Revolution."

So, hunting and gathering started even before we had anatomically modern humans.


And then:

"Habitat and population[edit]
Hunter-gatherer settlements may be either permanent, temporary, or some combination of the two, depending upon the mobility of the community. Mobile communities typically construct shelters using impermanent building materials, or they may use natural rock shelters, where they are available.

Social and economic structure[edit]
Hunter-gatherers tend to have an egalitarian social ethos, although settled hunter-gatherers (for example, those inhabiting the Northwest Coast of North America) are an exception to this rule. Nearly all African hunter-gatherers are egalitarian, with women roughly as influential and powerful as men.[10]

The egalitarianism typical of human hunters and gatherers is never perfect, but is striking when viewed in an evolutionary context. One of humanity's two closest primate relatives, chimpanzees, are anything but egalitarian, forming themselves into hierarchies that are often dominated by an alpha male. So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is widely argued by palaeoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness, language, kinship and social organization.[11][12][13]"

In others words, don't fight a losing battle. You may not like Wikipedia, but this is a well-sourced page with little conflict in it, which has a tendency to produce good results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gat ... l_evidence

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

And I don't have any problems with wikipedia.

[Unitaristic Regions]

Dude.

"most of history"

Taking that to be human history: (simple Wiki search)

Early humans[edit]


"Genetic measurements indicate that the ape lineage which would lead to Homo sapiens diverged from the lineage that would lead to chimpanzees (the closest living relative of modern humans) around five million years ago.[33] It is thought that the Australopithecine genus, which were likely the first apes to walk upright, eventually gave rise to genus Homo. Anatomically modern humans arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago, and reached behavioral modernity about 50,000 years ago.[34]"

"Hunting and gathering was presumably the subsistence strategy employed by human societies beginning some 1.8 million years ago, by Homo erectus, and from its appearance some 0.2 million years ago by Homo sapiens. It remained the only mode of subsistence until the end of the Mesolithic period some 10,000 years ago, and after this was replaced only gradually with the spread of the Neolithic Revolution."

So, hunting and gathering started even before we had anatomically modern humans.


And then:

"Habitat and population[edit]
Hunter-gatherer settlements may be either permanent, temporary, or some combination of the two, depending upon the mobility of the community. Mobile communities typically construct shelters using impermanent building materials, or they may use natural rock shelters, where they are available.

Social and economic structure[edit]
Hunter-gatherers tend to have an egalitarian social ethos, although settled hunter-gatherers (for example, those inhabiting the Northwest Coast of North America) are an exception to this rule. Nearly all African hunter-gatherers are egalitarian, with women roughly as influential and powerful as men.[10]

The egalitarianism typical of human hunters and gatherers is never perfect, but is striking when viewed in an evolutionary context. One of humanity's two closest primate relatives, chimpanzees, are anything but egalitarian, forming themselves into hierarchies that are often dominated by an alpha male. So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is widely argued by palaeoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness, language, kinship and social organization.[11][12][13]"

In others words, don't fight a losing battle. You may not like Wikipedia, but this is a well-sourced page with little conflict in it, which has a tendency to produce good results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gat ... l_evidence

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

And I don't have any problems with wikipedia.

That, "That works for tiny groups" is irrelevant to the statement "for most of history" and thus cannot be used to disprove it. For a long time, humans have been egalitarian.

[Holy Prospero]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

And I don't have any problems with wikipedia.

That, "That works for tiny groups" is irrelevant to the statement "for most of history" and thus cannot be used to disprove it. For a long time, humans have been egalitarian.

Why is it irrelevant? I'm not disproving anything, I'm acknowledging that egalitarianism can and has worked, but only under specific historical circumstances that by and large don't exist today, except in a few backward, isolated and primitive regions.

The kind of communal relations that small tribes have, based on personal trust and mutual obligation cannot exist on the scale of thousands or millions of people.

[Jinwoy]

I have a question: How does leadership in Communism work? There needs to be a leadership body for ever collective, right?