Communism won't work

[Malezani]

It is unnatural .

It is natural for hierarchy and the class system to exist as some people are qualitatively superior than others and they have the right to exploit them.
Long live capitalism!

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

What are you planning to do when all the eggs have already hatched?

[R_P_A_S]

It is unnatural .

It is natural for hierarchy and the class system to exist as some people are qualitatively superior than others and they have the right to exploit them.
Long live capitalism!

thanks for your fucking intelligent input.

[GPDP]

cool story bro

[Incendiarism]

cool story bro

I always laugh when I see people write this I don't know why

[Trystan]

It's not unnatural, but OK . . .

[Dr Mindbender]

some people are qualitatively superior than others and they have the right to exploit them.


Based on what? Paris Hilton is not superior to john the sewer cleaner.

The only reason john is here he is is thanks to the material conditions he was born into.

[Lord Testicles]

It is unnatural .

Define what is "natural" and then prove it, otherwise keep your simpleminded half-arsed musings to yourself.

[Pirate Utopian]

Well fuck me, I'm totally convinced now. :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

I rather any society beyond the hunter gatherer is rather artificial in the way it operates. Every society demands some sort of conformity in order for everyone to survive.

Communism does have some funny idea, but then again so does Capitalism.

[trivas7]

Communism was and remains the rule of people (in theory) and of its agent, the government. According to how it's been practiced historically, men (and women) are physicalistic creatures in whose lives the mind plays a secondary role at best. With men roughly indistinguishable from beasts, with the mind and its requirements shoved off of the political scene, there is no moral constraint to be placed on the initiation of government force over individuals. If animals can be forced to work productively by cattle prod, so can men. Communism in practice is thus the rule of government over men, and abjures the requirements of men to use their minds independently and act on their own behalf.

[Drace]

Don't feed the trolls :laugh:

[Killfacer]

why do people answer? Shut the hell up.

[Dóchas]

why do you bother we have already made up our minds, go back to counting your profits

[injustice2]

Communism is not unnatural.. u can just look at the tribes in africa that is how they work, in a communist fashion.. now u can look at european powers as more of a socialist country. Communism on a global scale can have devastating results (Soviet Russia..enough said). and what gives people the right to exploit, a sense of godliness, they believe they are the judges..so capitalism that crushes and exploits is an egotistical survival of the fittest, fuck everyone but me, until someone u love (yourself) gets hurt, so place yourself in others position then you can understand why people believe in communism or socialism.

[Chapter 24]

Communism on a global scale can have devastating results (Soviet Russia..enough said).

No... socialism's ultimate goal is to be spread internationally. "Workers of the world unite!" ring a bell? It is such an essential pillar in communist theory and practice that it has a name - internationalism. There is no true communist out there that doesn't want communism on a global scale - even Stalin, who Trotskyists say abandoned the global communist movement and global revolutions, actually was not against global communism (he believed that countries would each have their own individual revolutions and that the USSR should not interfere with them).
Also, your observation that communism itself was global due to its supposed action in Russia is absurd. Please take careful consideration in how you use terms such as 'socialism' and 'communism', as they are two entirely different historical stages with different material conditions.

[#FF0000]

It is unnatural .

It is natural for hierarchy and the class system to exist as some people are qualitatively superior than others and they have the right to exploit them.
Long live capitalism!

Oh. Want to explain pre-agricultural revolution society then? You know. Back before the concept of "ownership" existed.

I'd also like to know what authority you've got to comment on the nature of man with such certainty, since I have the sneaking suspicion that you don't know shit about anthropology, sociology, psychology, history...etc.

Just sayin'.

[Ken]

Oh. Want to explain pre-agricultural revolution society then? You know. Back before the concept of "ownership" existed.

I'd also like to know what authority you've got to comment on the nature of man with such certainty, since I have the sneaking suspicion that you don't know shit about anthropology, sociology, psychology, history...etc.

Just sayin'.

he is talking about now, not 10,000 years ago...

and he's right, civilization requires hierachy to exist to function properly.

[bcbm]

Civilization requires a greater degree of organization and specialization, that doesn't necessarily mean hierarchy.

[#FF0000]

he is talking about now, not 10,000 years ago...

No. He said egalitarianism is not natural. That isn't true.


and he's right, civilization requires hierachy to exist to function properly.

see:


Civilization requires a greater degree of organization and specialization, that doesn't necessarily mean hierarchy.

[Ken]

No. He said egalitarianism is not natural. That isn't true.



see:

civilization is the opposite of egalitarianism..

[Ken]

.

The Neolithic Revolution was the first agricultural revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_revolution)—the transition from hunting and gathering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer) communities and bands, to agriculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture) and settlement. Archaeological data indicate that various forms of domestication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication) of plants and animals arose independently in at least 7-8 separate locales worldwide, with the earliest known developments taking place in the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Near_East) around 10,000 BCE or earlier.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution#cite_note-0)


However, the Neolithic Revolution involved far more than the adoption of a limited set of food-producing techniques. During the next millennia it would transform the small, mobile and fairly egalitarian groups of hunter-gatherers that had hitherto dominated human history, into sedentary societies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society) based in built-up villages and towns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town), which radically modified their natural environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_environment) by means of specialized cultivation and storage technologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology) (e.g. irrigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrigation)) that allowed extensive surplus production. These developments provided the basis for high population densities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density), complex labor diversification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour), trading economies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade), centralized administrations and political structures, hiearchical ideologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology) and depersonalized systems of knowledge (e.g. property regimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property) and writing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing)). The first full-blown manifestation of the entire Neolithic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic) complex is seen in the Middle Eastern Sumerian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer) cities (ca. 5,300 BC), whose emergence also inaugurates the end of the prehistoric Neolithic and the beginning of historical time.
The relationship of the above-mentioned Neolithic characteristics to the onset of agriculture, their sequence of emergence and empirical relation to each other at various Neolithic sites remains the subject of academic debate, and seems to vary from place to place, rather than being the outcome of universal laws of social evolution.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution#cite_note-2)
Contents

[hide (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:toggleToc%28%29)]

[#FF0000]

civilization is the opposite of egalitarianism..

I'm not so sure about that. Civilization implies complex social and political institutions, but I don't believe it necessarily implies hierarchical structure.

[Ken]

I'm not so sure about that. Civilization implies complex social and political institutions, but I don't believe it necessarily implies hierarchical structure.

thats how it started, and how its been for more than 10,000 years.

[#FF0000]

thats how it started, and how its been for more than 10,000 years.

The same can be said for patriarchy. Just because it's been around for a very long time does not mean it will be here forever.

No one here's going to argue with you that human society has generally been hierarchical throughout history. All of us here accept that as a given. Of course it's been like that for 10,000+ years! The conditions to change that have never existed until now.

EDIT: and let me also say that you can't just say that hierarchy has existed for the last 10,000 years, because it has existed in different ways throughout that time.

[mikelepore]

It is natural for hierarchy and the class system to exist as some people are qualitatively superior than others and they have the right to exploit them.

I realize this person is only a troll, but I think trolls serve a useful function in that they reflect a thick sludge of some of the real thoughts of the miseducated working class. Like a person getting drunk and finally saying the embarrasing things that they usually inhibit, the troll takes in what's really in the air and serves up a condensate of it. If we get practice answering the troll, an irrational critic, it's that much easier for us to answer a rational critic.

So what pops out of the first paragraph and grabs my attention? First, one of the most ambiguous words in the language: "natural." That which is "natural" doesn't have to be continuously forced into existence. I think immediately of how capitalism can only exist for another day, another minute, by being propped up with tens of thousands of pages of law books and the police and prisons to enforce them. Ironic scenes come to mind; for example, how can there be a pane of glass about four millimeter thick as the barrier separating, on one side, a display of banquet food or jewelry or other high priced merchandise, and on the other side, a homeless and starving family who lives on the street? The answer is: this is made possible only with violent force. If not for the weapons of the state, class divided society couldn't be forced into existence for another minute. There's your "natural" hierarchy.

Then he uses the concept of "superior" people. Again, if some people were really superior, their position at the vertex of the social pyramid wouldn't have to be forced into existence by artificial means. But one of the most cardinal laws of capitalism is that wealth is inherited by offspring, the order of the court is that this transfer shall be carried out, and the sheriff's gun is always drawn to enforce the order. What a curious kind of "superiority" -- when no one ever tests your personal capabilities, you have to be born into a certain family to have it handed to you, and then, after you claim it, you also need an army to back it up.

These topics are some of the conceptual stumbling blocks that obstruct the working class. To further confuse the working class, some people will attempt to modify the meanings of common words, such words as, in this case, "natural" and "superior". The troll doesn't know that he has done us the service of highlighting them and giving us a useful reminder.

[Drace]

thats how it started, and how its been for more than 10,000 years.Religion perhaps?
What men would give another authority over himself?
Hierarchy has always been defended by religion.

As Napoleon put it:

Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich. Arguing that hierarchy is an improvement that comes with civilization is BS. Civilization would suggest an improvement, so the argument is whether hierarchy serves a positive function or not.

As of it being natural, well surely not. It hasn't always existed.

I don't not even understand how it can be natural. To consider something of nature, it must have its roots to material. How is a concept such as hierarchy a part of nature? A hierarchical society certainly doesn't pop out of no where, which is what the definition of 'natural' would apply. You could examine the conditions of which lead to such a society though. I would think your argument would be that "Humans are born wanting to give their powers to someone else"?

Edit:
I thought you said:
"than how it started, and how its been for more than 10,000 years."

Fix your grammar mistakes please... :laugh:

[Ken]

i didnt say 'than'.

[spice756]

It is unnatural .

It is natural for hierarchy and the class system to exist as some people are qualitatively superior than others and they have the right to exploit them.
Long live capitalism!

So if the person is poor or have a learning problem they should be exploited ?What makes a person smart?

Why do smart people or rich people go to jail?

[Dr Mindbender]

thats how it started, and how its been for more than 10,000 years.

it doesnt prove it has to be that way.

I dont view heirarchy as a necessary component but as a concept that will eventually become antiquated and replaceable like feudalism and slavery.

[Malezani]

I realize this person is only a troll, but I think trolls serve a useful function in that they reflect a thick sludge of some of the real thoughts of the miseducated working class. Like a person getting drunk and finally saying the embarrasing things that they usually inhibit, the troll takes in what's really in the air and serves up a condensate of it. If we get practice answering the troll, an irrational critic, it's that much easier for us to answer a rational critic.

So what pops out of the first paragraph and grabs my attention? First, one of the most ambiguous words in the language: "natural." That which is "natural" doesn't have to be continuously forced into existence. I think immediately of how capitalism can only exist for another day, another minute, by being propped up with tens of thousands of pages of law books and the police and prisons to enforce them. Ironic scenes come to mind; for example, how can there be a pane of glass about four millimeter thick as the barrier separating, on one side, a display of banquet food or jewelry or other high priced merchandise, and on the other side, a homeless and starving family who lives on the street? The answer is: this is made possible only with violent force. If not for the weapons of the state, class divided society couldn't be forced into existence for another minute. There's your "natural" hierarchy.

Then he uses the concept of "superior" people. Again, if some people were really superior, their position at the vertex of the social pyramid wouldn't have to be forced into existence by artificial means. But one of the most cardinal laws of capitalism is that wealth is inherited by offspring, the order of the court is that this transfer shall be carried out, and the sheriff's gun is always drawn to enforce the order. What a curious kind of "superiority" -- when no one ever tests your personal capabilities, you have to be born into a certain family to have it handed to you, and then, after you claim it, you also need an army to back it up.

These topics are some of the conceptual stumbling blocks that obstruct the working class. To further confuse the working class, some people will attempt to modify the meanings of common words, such words as, in this case, "natural" and "superior". The troll doesn't know that he has done us the service of highlighting them and giving us a useful reminder.

Excellent post.

I was reading the FAQ just before and I wanted to give you a rep point but I can't find it now:confused:

[Labor Shall Rule]

he is talking about now, not 10,000 years ago...

and he's right, civilization requires hierachy to exist to function properly.

I'll ask you to tell me somethin': prove it.

The regulation of human behavior and mental processes is by it's environment. Humans had equal levels of aptitude, so if such 'hierarchy' developed, it was not because it was 'natural' to homo-sapiens, but because it was imposed on them through natural selection during long years of hunting and gathering.

The origins of 'hierarchy' was that, prior to the specialization of labor, the domestication of animals, and the opening up of vast fields of vegetation for agriculture, hunters provided most of the caloric intake for villages of people. The male gender, thus, out of their superior physical qualities, came to be on the top. It lead to the development of a warrior class that fought with other chieftans over land - hence, chiefs, and eventually witch doctors or 'priests'.

[Lord Testicles]

I wanted to give you a rep point but I can't find it now:confused:
It's the button that looks like scales in the right hand corner of the post.

[Malezani]

It's the button that looks like scales in the right hand corner of the post.

Hmm there is no such thing next to his posts. Probably because I am restricted...

[Bud Struggle]

Hmm there is no such thing next to his posts. Probably because I am restricted...

Indeed it is. Restricted poeple can't give rep points.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I like your avatar, Tom.

[Mindtoaster]

cool story bro

The above should be our universal response to any troll thread

[Dean]

It is unnatural .

It is natural for hierarchy and the class system to exist as some people are qualitatively superior than others and they have the right to exploit them.
Long live capitalism!

OMG you're right! I've built my whole life around a fallacy. OK, well what should I do instead???

[Drace]

Sex

[Ken]

OMG you're right! I've built my whole life around a fallacy. OK, well what should I do instead???

why do you bother writing that?

[Bilan]

civilization is the opposite of egalitarianism..

You're the opposite of intelligent.

[Ken]

egalitarianism is a myth. with so many people on earth, certain power hungry individuals rise to come out on top. they use technology to enslave us. if their power was threatened, they would shoot every leftist. do you think the rest would revolution after that?

[Bilan]

egalitarianism is a myth.

The only myth in this thread is the existence of a brain within your skull.



with so many people on earth, certain power hungry individuals rise to come out on top.And this caused by what, exactly? Surely you're not going to tell me human nature!
Surely!
Surely you'd realize that these "power hungry individuals" have some sort of structure, a system in place, which gives them this opportunity? Dare I say, property?



they use technology to enslave us.Does the foil hat scratch your ears?



if their power was threatened, they would shoot every leftist. do you think the rest would revolution after that?
:lol:

[Ken]

with so many people on earth, certain power hungry individuals rise to come out on top.



And this caused by what, exactly?

with so many people on earth,

with so many people on earth,

read it and then write back or can you not?

why does everything i write have to be twisted and different meanings? cant you read then write back without imagining some other shit?


The only myth in this thread is the existence of a brain within your skull.


without resorting to this shit? dumbass leftist

[Bud Struggle]

I think this is a pretty valid point. All kinds of people some ruthless and some benevolent have all sorts of boundless ambition to conquer the world in one form or another. I think it would be foolish to discount the arrival of these kinds of people in the Communist or Anarchist world (infact one reason I have little faith in the future of Anarchism is the existance of such people.)

And I know--you Commies are thinking that if the opportunity for anbition doesn't exist than these people will fade into the background and have their ambition refocused to other things (e.g. growing better crops) but from what I've observed--these people MAKE their own opportunity. That's how they are different than most people.

And there's different degrees. In business I made my own opportunities--but in the structured enviorns of a very stable Capitalist society. Not saying much, but I'm on the bottom of that aggressive pyramid. Other people like Alexander or Napoleon invented their world view and took over. They are on the top--an there's all sorts of people in the middle.

You can't discount the aggressive person--they are out there and will take over if you give them an inch. Just a rumor of discontentment will set them off.

[Algernon]

I think this is a pretty valid point. All kinds of people some ruthless and some benevolent have all sorts of boundless ambition to conquer the world in one form or another. I think it would be foolish to discount the arrival of these kinds of people in the Communist or Anarchist world (infact one reason I have little faith in the future of Anarchism is the existance of such people.)

And I know--you Commies are thinking that if the opportunity for ambition doesn't exist than these people will fade into the background and have their ambition refocused to other things (e.g. growing better crops) but from what I've observed--these people MAKE their own opportunity. That's how they are different than most people.

And there's different degrees. In business I made my own opportunities--but in the structured enviorns of a very stable Capitalist society. Not saying much, but I'm on the bottom of that aggressive pyramid. Other people like Alexander or Napoleon invented their world view and took over. They are on the top--an there's all sorts of people in the middle.

You can't discount the aggressive person--they are out there and will take over if you give them an inch. Just a rumor of discontentment will set them off.

Interesting post because it relates to something I was thinking about in the Legal System thread. People do irrational things. These ambitious types, as you say Tom, create their own opportunities, even if from an objective material standpoint it is not in their interest to do so. How does communism posit to solve this problem?

[bcbm]

Checks and balances to prevent any one person from taking too much power. You start to get out of hand? Poof, you're no longer in charge of anything.

[Plagueround]

I think this is a pretty valid point. All kinds of people some ruthless and some benevolent have all sorts of boundless ambition to conquer the world in one form or another. I think it would be foolish to discount the arrival of these kinds of people in the Communist or Anarchist world (infact one reason I have little faith in the future of Anarchism is the existance of such people.)

And I know--you Commies are thinking that if the opportunity for anbition doesn't exist than these people will fade into the background and have their ambition refocused to other things (e.g. growing better crops) but from what I've observed--these people MAKE their own opportunity. That's how they are different than most people.

And there's different degrees. In business I made my own opportunities--but in the structured enviorns of a very stable Capitalist society. Not saying much, but I'm on the bottom of that aggressive pyramid. Other people like Alexander or Napoleon invented their world view and took over. They are on the top--an there's all sorts of people in the middle.

You can't discount the aggressive person--they are out there and will take over if you give them an inch. Just a rumor of discontentment will set them off.

You don't believe that there will be any effort to stop these people? There seems to be this misconception that an anarchist or communist society would not go to any sort of lengths to protect themselves from threats to their existence, or that people would not work to create any sort of "official" organizations. Again, it is not the organization that would disappear, it will be the lopsided and widely unrecallable hierarchy that has been allowed to take over and run these organizations. Anarchy is not simply about doing whatever you want without any regard to others (although I think a lot of that blame falls on dumb punk rock kiddies who appropriated the term as an excuse to break things).

The other factor you must consider is that the popular tyrants -Hitler, Napoleon, Palpatine, Reagan, etc.- that you describe almost always rise in times of extreme discontent or fear. By removing many of the hierarchies and inequalities that give rise to these types of problems, you reduce the chance of that happening and you reduce the chance of anyone having a reason to side with them. Anyone who is completely denying this as a possibility and thinks all problems will just "disappear" is placing too much idealistic faith in their belief, but there are those of us that believe it has the potential to diminish the chances and means of someone rising to power against the people.

[Drace]

You can't discount the aggressive person--they are out there and will take over if you give them an inch. Just a rumor of discontentment will set them off.Those aggressive people are those of which have already gained power.

Theres no one of who fucking makes plans of how their going to take over the world...