Highest evolution of humanity?

[TriPac Dude]

Is communism the highest evolution of human society? I seem to think it is, where everyone works for the bettering of society, not just for their own little corner of it. Human government has evolved from monarchs to capitalism and now I am hoping, will continue until it reaches true communism. My dad and his stupid republican friends all have their heads up their butts, in my opinion. Capitalism just doesn't work. Communism works. What do you think? Is it the highest and greatest evolution of human society?

[Creative Destruction]

It's impossible to say since we haven't gotten there yet. I'd also steer clear of saying things like "communism works, capitalism doesn't." Capitalism has revolutionized the means of production and brought parts of the world an unparalleled rise in living standards. It is not a system that takes into account all human needs and wants, and it works through exploitation, though, which is why we need to focus on transcending it. But saying "communism works" is just a nebulous platitude.

[OzymandiasX]

The highest evolution would be when we want nothing. We can achieve that highest evolution now, from choice. But I can't think of a physical, material social organization that provides to everyone everything they want. And I don't think that would be a very pleasurable situation in which to live. Since a life without conflict is a life without purpose. But in such a situation, I think we would artificially create conflict, if for no other reason, for the sake of conflict alone.

[jullia]

The facts that we can communicate by internet show that capitalist isn't a total fail. But can be improve.

[CollectivRed]

I sure hope human society eventually develops into socialism, and then of course full communism, which would be the most advanced stage in the evolution of human society (if it happens, that is). It's either that or destruction of civilization entirely, and I don't see it happening any other way besides those two possibilities. Taking into account the seriousness of climate change/the ecological crisis, things sure better get moving in the right direction quickly. I try to remain hopeful, but really, we don't know exactly how things are going to play out for all of us, we can only make predictions based on what we already know and work to change things for the better, as best we can.

[BIXX]

then of course full communism, which is the most advanced stage in the evolution of human society

This is statement that, in one form or another, I hear all the damn time and it irritates the shit outta me. There is no way you could know that's true. It most likely ain't true.

[Slavic]

I have a hard time seeing communism, or for that matter any mode of production, in an evolutionary sense. It implies that human society is on some sort of linear progressive evolutionary course which I find to be idealist.

Communism is a response to capitalism, it isn't the ideal society that's been waiting for centuries be envisioned. If capitalism didn't exist, then the need for communism wouldn't exist. We only need a communist society because it is in our best interests as proletarians. Likewise, capitalism is the best society for the bourgeoisie since its mode of production is in their best interests.

I can imagine there could exist a radical change of technology that could render both capitalism and communism obsolete.

[Art Vandelay]

It's impossible to say since we haven't gotten there yet.

The motor force of history is class struggle; the means by which a mode of production is surpassed and replaced is through a socioeconomic class struggling to enact its interests. So seeing as how communism is a classless, stateless society of free producers, it is indeed the highest evolution of human society. The surpassing of the capitalist mode of production is what Marx characterized as the end of 'pre-history.'


have a hard time seeing communism, or for that matter any mode of production, in an evolutionary sense. It implies that human society is on some sort of linear progressive evolutionary course which I find to be idealist.

Marxists have never claimed that society develops in a linear fashion, but rather dialectically. Communism is not a stage in societal development that we are guaranteed to reach, reagrdless of the fact that the social superstructure of the capitalist mode of production has long since become a fetter on its economic base. What Marxists call the subjective factor of history is still of extreme importance. As Luxembourg said: society stands at a crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism.

---

To answer the op, yes, communism is the highest development of human society. To claim otherwise would represent a complete rejection - or inability to understand - one of the most elementary Marxist principles, namely that the motor force of history is class struggle.

[Comrade #138672]

Strictly speaking, it is not evolution, but development.

But yes, it is the highest form of human development, unless you think that a new kind of class society can come after communism, which seems very improbable.

[rylasasin]

Is communism the highest evolution of human society?

Evolution is not a destination and it is not linear. You do not become "higher evolved" or "lesser evolved". That's Soc Dar nonsense.

Though I suspect what you mean is human development, as pointed out already.


I seem to think it is, where everyone works for the bettering of society, not just for their own little corner of it. Human government has evolved from monarchs to capitalism and now I am hoping, will continue until it reaches true communism.

Don't we all?


My dad and his stupid republican friends all have their heads up their butts, in my opinion.

I know the feel, bro.


Capitalism just doesn't work. Communism works.

Oh, capitalism works alright. It works extremely well in fact... for the Bourgeoisie. Much less so for everyone else (but still better than Feudalism did.)


What do you think? Is it the highest and greatest evolution of human society?

The one we can't even imagine. (imagine trying to explain capitalism to a prehistorical human. Wouldn't really work)

[Rafiq]

The general idea is that a society which abolishes property relations will not be the end of history or some kind of final stage, rather, it would be the beginning of history made by men and women as they please.

[RedMaterialist]

Is communism the highest evolution of human society? I seem to think it is, where everyone works for the bettering of society, not just for their own little corner of it. Human government has evolved from monarchs to capitalism and now I am hoping, will continue until it reaches true communism. My dad and his stupid republican friends all have their heads up their butts, in my opinion. Capitalism just doesn't work. Communism works. What do you think? Is it the highest and greatest evolution of human society?

I agree it will once the revolution is successful andthe entire world is under its control.It won't be the ultimate evolution , but it will begin to move toward a brave new world. Humans will have the capacity to control their own evolutions , contol there own food production, eliminating hunger. We can reverse the climate change damage done to the planet.

[Blake's Baby]

I have a hard time seeing communism, or for that matter any mode of production, in an evolutionary sense. It implies that human society is on some sort of linear progressive evolutionary course which I find to be idealist...

Why? Biological evolution isn't a 'linear progressive' goal-orientated sytem. Why should saying that cultures evolve imply that they are? Surely the analogy with biological evolution would imply that culture is precisely not linear and progressive. The 'linear and progressive' myth is more like the claims of bourgeois liberalism in the 19th century (and indeed Social Darwinism).

Lewis Binford (anthropologist of the 1960s) said that 'culture is man's extra-somatic means of adaption' and in some senses that's pretty applicable. We get together in groups and do stuff collectively and because of that we overcome some biological disadvantages we have (not much fur, not very fast, no strong claws etc). Individually, we're pretty weak, but collectively we're able to do things we can't individually.


... Communism is a response to capitalism, it isn't the ideal society that's been waiting for centuries be envisioned. If capitalism didn't exist, then the need for communism wouldn't exist. We only need a communist society because it is in our best interests as proletarians. Likewise, capitalism is the best society for the bourgeoisie since its mode of production is in their best interests.

I can imagine there could exist a radical change of technology that could render both capitalism and communism obsolete.

How? Communism is a relation of production. How could technology change the necessity for society as a whole to make decisions about production and distribution? Even if replicators and teleportation are invented, the question would still be 'collectively controlled or inividually controlled?' - ie, communism or class society.

For a society to follow communism, there would be another class that brought in a new mode of production. Where does that class come from, when there are no more classes? What makes communist society the final form of human organisation is that there are no more exploited classes, and there is no revolutionary class with a new mode of production lurking anywhere.

We couldd go backwards, into capitalism or even some local catastrophic slave economy or something, but communist society can't 'evolve' - not unless you jettison the notion of class struggle being the motive force of history of course. In which case, yeah, why not?

EDIT: should have read what 9mm said before I posted this. Pretty much in agreement with that.

[Q]

Moved from /theory to /learning.

[Slavic]

Why? Biological evolution isn't a 'linear progressive' goal-orientated sytem. Why should saying that cultures evolve imply that they are? Surely the analogy with biological evolution would imply that culture is precisely not linear and progressive. The 'linear and progressive' myth is more like the claims of bourgeois liberalism in the 19th century (and indeed Social Darwinism).

I must of misunderstood the OP. I know that the development of societies is not linear, that was just the gist I got when I read the first post.



How? Communism is a relation of production. How could technology change the necessity for society as a whole to make decisions about production and distribution? Even if replicators and teleportation are invented, the question would still be 'collectively controlled or inividually controlled?' - ie, communism or class society.

For a society to follow communism, there would be another class that brought in a new mode of production. Where does that class come from, when there are no more classes? What makes communist society the final form of human organisation is that there are no more exploited classes, and there is no revolutionary class with a new mode of production lurking anywhere.


I was speaking more so philosophically then theoretically, if that makes sense. The mode of production found within Capitalism is unique and its foundation has strong roots in the advent of paradigm shifting industrial technology. A decade before the invention the the steam engine and mechanical looms, no one could have fathomed that there could of existed another mode of production besides feudal.

I am just stating that there is always the possibility that a new technology/discovery could so radically change the means of production that it would be impossible to fathom it existence with our current mindset.

[Loony Le Fist]

It's impossible to say since we haven't gotten there yet. I'd also steer clear of saying things like "communism works, capitalism doesn't." Capitalism has revolutionized the means of production and brought parts of the world an unparalleled rise in living standards. It is not a system that takes into account all human needs and wants, and it works through exploitation, though, which is why we need to focus on transcending it. But saying "communism works" is just a nebulous platitude.

Did capitalism really revolutionize the means of production? Or did it merely accelerate the ability of aristocrats to exploit us and throw a guise over feudalism that gives us the illusion of freedom, while controlling us just the same?

[RedWorker]

It's impossible to say since we haven't gotten there yet. I'd also steer clear of saying things like "communism works, capitalism doesn't." Capitalism has revolutionized the means of production and brought parts of the world an unparalleled rise in living standards. It is not a system that takes into account all human needs and wants, and it works through exploitation, though, which is why we need to focus on transcending it. But saying "communism works" is just a nebulous platitude.

Yeah? So what? Capitalism doesn't work. Millions of people dying every year because of a lack of basic needs isn't 'working'. Communism works.

[Creative Destruction]

Yeah? So what? Capitalism doesn't work. Millions of people dying every year because of a lack of basic needs isn't 'working'. Communism works.

hey, lend me your crystal ball. i need to check on my grades.

[Creative Destruction]

Did capitalism really revolutionize the means of production? Or did it merely accelerate the ability of aristocrats to exploit us and throw a guise over feudalism that gives us the illusion of freedom, while controlling us just the same?

these aren't mutually exclusive things, so i don't know why you're presenting the question like this.

[RedWorker]

hey, lend me your crystal ball. i need to check on my grades.

Communism doesn't work? Ok. Argument.

[Creative Destruction]

Communism doesn't work? Ok. Argument.

focusing on whether it "works" is missing the entire point. arguing that a huge social system "works" is a futile exercise because something "working" as we imagine it to is idealistic and utopian. it disregards that there might be things that might not work and need to be changed on a material basis.

communism makes sense to me. as far as i can see, it's logical as a progression after the destruction of capitalism. i can't see any reason it wouldn't work, provided there's been a revolution, but that doesn't mean i can make a normative claim right now and say "it works." that's an illogical and unscientific argument to make because we haven't seen it in progress. it's as dumb as people saying "communism can't work, because human nature." i think making definitive arguments like that, without the evidence to back it up, signals that you're (the royal "you") uncomfortable with uncertainty... which i'm not.

[Q]

Did capitalism really revolutionize the means of production? Or did it merely accelerate the ability of aristocrats to exploit us and throw a guise over feudalism that gives us the illusion of freedom, while controlling us just the same?
Capitalism differs in fundamental ways from a feudal society. First of all, economically speaking, capitalism operates around the principle of producing for a market where a surplus is realised which was created by exploiting workers over their labour power. A striking difference from feudalism is that this exploitation is hidden through wage labour and commodity fetishism. Under feudalism, a mode of production primarily focused on agricultural production, this exploitation is much more naked and gangs of the state power (knights, priesthood, etc) enforce their surplus via force (for example by having high taxes or by forcing peasants to work on the land of the noble man for a certain period).

Marx praised capitalism for breaking with this low level of production and by continually revolutionising the means of production. Capitalism needs to move forward or it stagnates. Feudalism in contrast can stay virtually at a technological and social stand still for hundreds of years without having big issues.

[Blake's Baby]

I must of misunderstood the OP. I know that the development of societies is not linear, that was just the gist I got when I read the first post...

The OP may consider the development of society to be unilinear, I don't know; not everyone who accepts the notion of social evolution need do so, though!



...

I was speaking more so philosophically then theoretically, if that makes sense. The mode of production found within Capitalism is unique and its foundation has strong roots in the advent of paradigm shifting industrial technology. A decade before the invention the the steam engine and mechanical looms, no one could have fathomed that there could of existed another mode of production besides feudal...

This just isn't true. The bourgeoisie were developing inside feudalism for 400 years before the industrial revolution. The political revolution of the bourgeoisie in Britian - particularly England - took place 150 years before the industrial revolution, a good 250 years after capitalist production began in earnest in Englandd and Flanders (in particular). Even the Roman Empire had commodity production through wage labour, and workshop owners making a profit from this.


... I am just stating that there is always the possibility that a new technology/discovery could so radically change the means of production that it would be impossible to fathom it existence with our current mindset.

But the question is still 'owned by a small group, or administered by society?'. So the question is still, 'class society or communism?'. There's no concievable technology that would change that basic question, until the point where we become disembodied consciousnesses floating in a quantum cloud. As long as humans have material reality we will need to physically sustain ourselves, and the question that we ask about any resultant human society is who controls the means of sustanance?