Communism then what?

[RAM]

Seems odd to me that communims is though to be hte last stage of man's evolution. Surley wouden't there be a better system so god that we can't think of it now?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from RAM on 10:09 pm on July 18, 2002
Seems odd to me that communims is though to be hte last stage of man's evolution. Surley wouden't there be a better system so god that we can't think of it now?

Communism is not man's last stage, it is mans fantasy utopia without consideration for mans true nature and abilities. It is naive, and more importantly failed in every attempt to make it work.

[vox]

Since you use "man's true nature" as a reason why communism can't exist, I trust that you, unlike every philosopher and psychologist who has ever lived, can define and prove this nature, yes?

Given its importance, and because right now your claim looks like just so much right-wing blowhard fluff, please define, and empirically establish proof of, "man's true nature." Since you already claim to know it, you should have no difficulty in doing this and giving your statement about communism some much needed legitimacy. Be careful, though, for it only takes one exception to prove you wrong, of course. Also, it's a definition you will have to be able to live with, for everything you say will have to comply with this definition as long as you post on the board.

But, like I said, this shouldn't be a problem for you.

Thanks,

vox

[Capitalist Imperial]

Vox,

Of course I am not claming to know the absolute, all encompassing definition of man. But I think you are splitting hairs on this one.

I think what I can say is that I can submit what are some defining characteristics of the vast majority of humans.

We are mammals, shaped by millions of years of evolution, with the embedded instinct (one not usually overridden by the frontal cortex) to survive, and look after ourselves and loved ones 1st (looking after loved ones being an extentiosion of yourself, as in genetic lineage)

As an extension of this, we seek to secure resources so as to ensure survival by a comfortable margin as possible

so, we are highly competitive for said resources, and competition even grows as group identities are established

Mans competitive nature and yearning for personal resources is counter intuitive to communism and fits well with free-market capitalism

Now, I know my explanation is along social darwinism lines, which you refute and claim has already been disproven (though as far as I know it is still being debated), but you must agree that for the most part my explanation is acccurate and is supported by mankinds behavior historically.

[Xvall]

OMG! I don't know how many times I have to go through this. There is no 'human nature'. When man was created, spawned, evolved, or WHATEVER, it had but one goal. To survive and produce offspring. That is what every living organism, including bacteria, do.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 11:12 pm on July 18, 2002
OMG! I don't know how many times I have to go through this. There is no 'human nature'. When man was created, spawned, evolved, or WHATEVER, it had but one goal. To survive and produce offspring. That is what every living organism, including bacteria, do.

Thanks, Drake, you basically restated the premise of my argument

[marxistdisciple]

Humans adapt to the environment they are put into. People aren't born into a certain opinion or doctarine. People certainly aren't natural capitalists at birth. To suggest otherwise is clearly ridiculous. Since you haven't met the vast majoiry of humans, you cannot speak for them. Humans of course share some very similar traits - we all seek to survive, to love, to procreate. I think these are fairly inate features from birth. Competition is somewhat natural, and in certain ways can be beneficial, and even fun. I think this occurs in males and females, albeit to slightly higher levels in men. Competition does not however mean exploitation...it is simply a natural instinct in order to achieve want. Oppression is not a natural instinct - this is something that is learnt or forced.

I'm sure people back in the dark ages believed barbarism was the pinnacle of human society too. They were also wrong. It is always of course the ones on the good side of society who proclaim that there are no flaws and believe irrespective of fact, in some untold higher power. This untold higher power must give you insight into the future, and people's nature. I think you will find that most people believe in humanity over money, though perhaps not in your circles.

If money is the true worth of human life then I sincerely hope that every one of us is worth more than our salary.

And that is something you fail to understand, and that Marx truly did. If you measure a man's worth, purely by how much he helps make another man rich then you are exploiting his labour. You are using his skills and talent wastefully, for your own gains. Maybe that is something you don't get, but capitalism is NOT a good valuation of human life. We are simply tools to create wealth, in the form of money. The money itself is nothingness, it is purely a bad representation of people's labour and life work.

Some of the most successful and influencial people of this world have been some of the poorest. How does a great system such as capitalism explain that?

[Michael De Panama]

As Marxist theory goes, anarchy comes after communism as the final stage.

[vox]

CI,

I'm not splittinghairs at all, for I believe your whole premise is faulty.

You wrote, "Mans (sic) competitive nature and yearning for personal resources is counter intuitive to communism and fits well with free-market capitalism."

However, you didn't prove a competitive nature, you assumed it. Indeed, you even go so far as to make the rather spectacular assumption that love is based on biological primacy ("looking after loved ones being an extentiosion of yourself, as in genetic lineage").

However, we know that human beings flourish, as a species, when they work cooperatively within a group. Using your logic, that we are biologically programmed to acquire as many "personal resources" as we can, far from insuring the success of our offspring, which you say is what this is all about, we threaten that success.

But then, one has to wonder about your ideas right from the beginning, for in the first response you gave in this thread you wrote that communism is a "fantasy utopia without consideration for mans true nature...." However, it seems rather odd to me, and to anyone who bothers to reflect on what you wrote for a moment, that a Utopian fantasy would be one which runs counter to our "true nature." Doesn't it make much more sense that a Utopian fantasy would reflect our "true nature" rather than deny it? Even in your denial of communism you force mankind into the untenable position of having fantasies of a Utopia that runs counter to his "true nature," making mankind into a self-hating beast.

Of course, we know that your premise is flawed because, if capitalism was the "natural" system, how exactly do we explain the fact that it took so many centuries to develop? If it was "natural," one would think that our society would reflect that, but instead, you want us to believe that human history has been one long exception to our "true nature."

Nope. I don't think so. Very sloppy thinking on your part, CI.

vox

(Edited by vox at 10:23 pm on July 18, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

''the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all'' Communist Manifesto.
It does not get any better organisationally than this.
What gets better is the quality of life.

[Red Anarchy]

Let's just go back to RAM's question, OK?

Nothing lasts forever, so there has to be something after communism.

The main difference between systems is the relationhip of the classes.
The greatest contrast was between slaves and their owners.Than, the contrast wasn't so big in feudalism, and it was even less in capitalism. In communism it almost won't exist.
The point: people are becoming more and more equal as time goes on. So, at the end they will be totally equal, which means there will be no rullers ( in one word: ANARCHY )

I guess we won't live long enough to see this :(



(Edited by Red Anarchy at 8:38 pm on July 21, 2002)

[Nateddi]

that is still communism, RA

[Severwright]

communism has leaders so can not be anarchy.

[Nateddi]

not the higher phase of it. communism is a stateless and classless society.

[man in the red suit]

it never went that far though, has it?

do you think that if communism was able to "abolish distinction between town and country with a more equable distribution of the population over the country,"
and actually reach that final stage, that it would be the FINAL stage?

[Nateddi]

this can take hundreds of years. as long as capitalism exists it will always work to crush any redistributive system (communism); this is only something which will occure after capitalism has collapsed and true communism has the freedom to develop.

[Red Anarchy]

Nateddi, I did't say there's a big difference between real communism and anarchy. It's a matter of details, mostly.