Does Human Nature Make Communism Impossible?

It sounds like your local Communists have abandoned the Communist system like the PRC. But what I have said is true. Look to North Korea or Cuba, where Communism is still practiced.

 

Two countries left still practicing "communism" out of how many in the past? Wouldn't you say "communism" is all but dead and buried?

 

No, it isn't. The OP still believes in Communism and so do millions of others, and I think our President is one of them.

 

Interesting thought. Laos for example where the village rice paddy is owned by the entire village. Everyone of working age supplies his/her labour and the harvest is divided amongst the villagers.

This has been the way for centuries.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm talking government level. Obama is far from communist.

 

Starting with the definition of communism, yours isn't terrible, if perhaps a bit utopian. I would define communism as "a stateless, classless theoretical society that has abandoned private property", leaving the bits about peace and war out of it. Certainly a society that has abolished national and class divisions would be relatively peaceful, and major conflict (war) would be more or less obsolete, but it would be more of a happy consequence of communism, rather than a defining charateristic. Unfortunately, no political or economic system is going to create a society free from all violence and conflict. That sort of utopian peace is unattainable. What communism would do, however, is provide social and material conditions that would minimize the alienation, desperation, and jealousy serving as the root cause for most violence.

However, your inclusion of "no weapons" is interesting to me. Surely, any successful revolution would require the means to defend itself against reaction. As far as I'm concerned, not only would an armed populace be desireable, but critical. Having said that, many of the modern weapons of war would have no purpose for a communist society, serving only as the tools of national division (nukes).

What many on the right don't seem to understand, and what needs to be adressed, is that communism is the "end" (means to an end). When opponents point to the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, etc., there only giving examples of specific means (supposedley, anyway). They aren't criticizing communism, per se, but rather a specific methodolgy at acheiving communism (again, supposedley), of which there are several. It's also important to address that none of these states were successful at acheiving communism. The closest anyone has come to communism in the modern era was Spain in the 1930s.

Before we can argue whether or not communism is opposed to human nature, we first have to consider the origins of property, class, and the state. Early hunter gatherer societies shared alot in common with communism (in fact, Marx referred to them as examples of "primitive communism"). There was no class structure, limited to no social hiearchy, and certainly no mass accumulation of wealth. It wasn't until the advent of agriculture, when we began conquering our nature, that ownership and accumulation of productive property became viable (land, cattle, etc.) and class divisions arose. Those who owned property, and thus had power, sought to maintain their power by centralizing authority, and the opressor-opressed dichotomy of the state, which still exists today, was born. From this historical perspective, communists actually seek to return to a more natural way of life by freeing themselves from the oppression of property, class, and state.

Given the proper material conditions of society, which is crucial to the sucess of communism, and which all previous modes of production (capitalism included) played a pivotal role in developing, I see no contradiction between rational self interest, and communism. In fact, i see the opposite. To explain, I'll offer an excerpt from Now and After: The ABC of Anarchist-Communism, written by Alexander Berkman:

We live in a global system based on competition and profit making. In this regard, while our desires might be the same, our interests are the opposite. In this environment it's worker against worker; worker against employer; employer against employer; nation against nation, in a never ending cycle of fighting eachother. If our desires are the same, it seems far more rational, and natural, to do away with this system based on competition and profit making, in favor of a system based on mutual benefit and shared interests.

 

The alpha male tendency would have to be bred out or culturally trained away. It is detrimental to the species.

 

Both the Paris Commune and the Ukrainian Free Territory were very close to what I described in the OP, and they worked beautifully (until they were ransacked by monarchists and fascists). The Paris Commune had some hierarchy and the UFT still had an army, which was problematic, but they were still anarcho-communist societies in action.

 

Well, I suppose the communists could begin a eugenics program to create docile sheep.

Of course you'd have reduced male testosterone levels significantly and re-wired women's brains wrt mating attractions, and remove all cultural references to virility and sexual images, competitive drive, combativeness etc.

That might make communism work. so, the premise of the OP that human nature prevents communism from being globally viable is in fact correct. It necessitates a complete restructuring of human brain patterns, hormones, sex drive, etc. and both the banning of historical cultural references and a comprehensive cultral revision.

 

If I didn't need to work for a living I would stay home all day playing computer games and (*)(*)(*)(*). As long as I'm fed, sheltered, and warm, I can be satisfied. Now and then I wish for things and would be willing to work harder to get them, but that only works in a capitalistic system. Since in a Communistic system working harder wouldn't get me more I would play harder instead.

 

I would do the minimum required and spend my time sleeping on the Hammock or frolicking with the girls. No need to work harder if it doesn't make you richer.

 

ya know I heard he was not a muslim but a jew and he was a card carrying member of the bolshevik party who was trained by the old KGB to go to america, get an education or actually just an affirmative action diploma, get into politics and become the president so that he could destroy america. You know that new tv show "The Americans"? It actually based on a true story and they had to change obama's name and colour to get it produced.

Definitely should get Senator Cruz on to this appalling failure of the entire american intelligence network. There must be commies everywhere in the halls of the US government......... wan't that leading light of the tea party Ms Bachman actuallythe first person to break this story? What happened to her? Probably got supressed by the commies in the halls.

 

Going to disagree. Humans are naturally cooperative, we had to be, we were unable to compete individually with predators and we couldn't hunt anything larger than a rat by ourselves. Humans have always cooperated for survival. Even in a capitalist economy humans cooperate in corporations. Yes the corporations compete but the humans that make them up must cooperate.

Communism is humanity's natural societal state.

 

It's probably best to read both books with an understanding of what the author was getting at and the contemporary events in politics in Europe when he was writing them. Just quickly, "Animal Farm" was a satire of Soviet communism and the pro-Moscow line that was being put about by the Left in the UK in the post-Second World War period. "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was a dystopic novel where Orwell looked at what was happening in the USSR under Stalin and transferred it to the UK ("Airstrip One") to point out the reality of Stalinism. At that time, 1948, Orwell had been in major dispute with the British Left which held that Stalin was to be admired and that the Soviet Union could do no wrong. But Orwell was also, particularly in "Nineteen Eighty-Four", critiquing British society itself. The Second World War had effectively destroyed the previous ruling culture in the UK as well as almost bringing the country to its knees, economically speaking. The description of the proles with their Victory gin and Victory cigarettes and the stench of boiling cabbage is cutting and probably Orwell's portrayal of Britain at that time, i.e. knackered.

 

Lenin would have kicked you up the arse. He told a group of shipyard workers in a speech that in the Soviet Union if you don't work you don't eat. The point being that work is available for everyone in a socialist economy, there is no need, as there is in a capitalist economy, to have unemployment to make the system work. No work, no eats.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyway, what's "communist"? It's a broad church.

Let's give the issue some context.

Let’s assume you are the all-powerful administrator of a country that has a significant, but minority, indigenous population. You are from the non-indigenous majority.

You are given three recommendations by an expert committee which you have appointed to advise you on the broad policy development towards the indigenous minority.

The recommendations are:

1. That the indigenous community be protected and permitted to continue its way of life within the broader community. This could be called paternalistic segregation.

2. That the indigenous community be brought into the wider community and provided with education, health services, employment training and jobs. This could be called integration.

3. That the indigenous community should be provided with government assistance but without paternalism and the broader society should be recognised as a multi-ethnic society and indigenous people should be granted greater autonomy to run their own affairs. This could be called social development without cultural integration.

Which recommendation would you select and why?

 

I will try to debunk some of the myths about communist theory , it will be great if fellow users more literate than myself in the subject ( communist theory) correct me .

Communism is not against personal property , it is clearly stated in USSR's constitution plus one of the biggest if not the major point of the theory is the relation between a worker and his/her labour . Under communism a worker owns what s/he produces.

State communism (USSR, China) is not the only approach and as proven it is wrong because it maintains social stratification . Non state communism puts local communities in charge . Locals decide about everything without any "superior organ" ( central / federal government) having right to appeal over their decisions.

You can run your own business under communism but you can not hire labour (only introduce new partners) and without getting into much detail the purpose of all economic activity is to be beneficial for the community .

Communism is not "godless" , abolishion of religion under state communism was used as a tool to free the workers minds, land them into the material world and eliminate the control of some egalitarian organisations such as the church. You can have your own beliefs for as long as you keep them home and in your temple , now if religious communities decide to establish theocracy it is up to the local councils .

Those who do not work will not eat , plain and simple . Very skilled/talented people are gaining social recognition through their contribution not through their possessions (as in capitalism).

Non state communism can accept a central government if it's role is very limited ( supervising projects between communities , defence, foreign relations , running the supreme court to resolve cases among people from different collectives )

Personal view : the idea of the anacaps is that you can own as much property as you can defend , as a communist i do not want to have anything in common with those Neanderthals.

 

All the left wind ideologies depend on people giving up wealth and sharing.

Sorry, everyone wants the biggest slice of the cake and there's not a thing you can do about it.

 

everyone? not everyone is an anti-social useless leech .

 

I agree; some people are natural losers.

 

That's double plus good!

 

I dunno. I can't think of a little utopia that is permanent. I know there is a hippie commune in Tennessee called The Farm which is still in existence, but they still exist because they went corporate.

 

That's a lot of effort in order to make communism work. Basically, if it requires genetic engineering, than that goes to it being against human nature/

 

That's a very good question. Ultimately, I'd say that at the very beginning of human civilization, we were probably the closest to that, (good, communal people) we could ever hope to be. But whatever we were, we evolved into what we are now.

Communism is often correlated to it's failures, and so takes on a malignant air. However, Capitalism also has a lot of dismal failures, but these things are not shown. American capitalism is the best example, and it is not perfect. There is a large, un-addressed feeling of inequality between people within the system, but since the poop here doesn't stink as bad as the poop there, people accept it.

I think communism, socialism, capitalism, or whatever are ultimately characterized by the people who run them. It doesn't matter if it was a dictatorship, if you had Jesus as a dictator, maybe things would turn out for the better. (I'm not religious, I'm just using the example of a really moral figure). I think any of them can be good or bad, it depends on the people who run the system. Because people, without exception, can be corrupted, all of them can be disasters in the making.

 

Corruption is right. Capitalism is full of it but it keeps right on going. Now that means it's either very robust or that corruption fits seamlessly into capitalism. Corruption in socialism breaks the system. That latter point may have been what Orwell was getting at in "Animal Farm" (well, one of the points anyway).

 

You don't realize how backwards you actually have this. The alpha male is the apex of the evolutionary function. Without it, you would actually be creating the first step toward human extinction.

Not to mention the fact that you would have to contradict your own premise to even succeed at this. Alpha is the most dominant. And the only thing that can overpower the alpha is something more alpha. So even if you become a complete tyrant in order to castrate the other males, you have now just unwittingly become the top alpha dog, yourself. The cycle doesn't end. Nature is against you on this.