Communism

[Ozymandyus]

You prove to me your belief in human nature and we'll talk. The nature of humans is determined by the ruling class. The set of standards and morals the society is mostly used to determines the true nature of the society. For instance westernized civilization is mostly used to capitalism, therefor capitalism is most prevalent. In Switzerland and Sweden, the nationalistic free-markets of the west is projected as insanity, they are most used to regulated markets and their state withering away, as the US government is becoming bigger by the day. Humans are usually always acceptant of other cultures, this is obvious, as there is simply no reason to harm anyone who has a different lifestyle than anyone else. It is only when the ruling class or the elite infringe upon daily life and culture that humans abondon all reasoning and favor war.

'The nature of humans is determined by the ruling class' - this is such a ridiculous claim. The true nature of humans is innate in every human. That is the very meaning of the word 'nature'. The ruling class might be able to make humans believe something that isn't truly in their nature - but it doesn't actually change human nature.

We take as given that our perceptions are revealing a common reality to all of us. We are sharing a single reality and our senses are revealing that reality to us. This is a necessary presupposition to do any science. We can scientifically measure brain states corresponding to 'love', 'deep thought', we all receive sense data, formulate and process thoughts, and we experience pleasure and pain from similar sources and using similar instruments. We have much in common. These commonalities are the foundation/source of what we call human nature. Across every human society we see certain themes come up again and again, and all societies are trying in their own ways to meet the needs of this nature. Some do better jobs than others, and obviously you think communism would do a better job than capitalism, or else you wouldn't bother fighting for it.

It may be true that humans are not 'lazy' by nature... but even in Marx's work the hardest jobs are given to technology, and only after we have technology to ease human labor is such a society even POSSIBLE. It would seem that even Marx recognizes that humans have a tendency to want to avoid work. The whole proposition assumes something about human nature that I believe is only partially true - that we are seeking to be free of struggle.

As for your last paragraph, we have been taught to accept our roles in society as wage slaves, and mostly not to ask questions about it. But if that's the society you respond mast happily to, one that accepts wage slavery as their method of production, I won't try to stop you. have fun.

That's EXACTLY my point. You are rejecting it based on it not making you happy, and you seem to think you would be happier under a different system. You EXPECT me to reject slavery, because you see it as unnatural to be enslaved (and I most certainly agree that it is in human nature to seek freedom). Your claims cannot possibly be true without some appeal to human nature.

Edit: I should add, I completely love Marx and Hegel, I just don't agree with their assessments completely. I do think that the majority of the tenants of the Communist Manifesto will be part of the fabric of the next stage of society, but I do think they fail to take into account some fundamental aspect of human nature. Which is why we need to define what you think is or isn't human nature, otherwise I would just agree with you about most of the Communist Manifesto.

 

[XC(A)libur]

That response had many unnecessary complications.

"The ruling class might be able to make humans believe something that isn't truly in their nature - but it doesn't actually change human nature."

Changing beliefs does not have much to do with anything here, I don't know if that would even play a great effect on the society. What I meant by that quote was that human nature does not exist, in the sense that we all have capability of love and other complex emotion. And when this is infringed upon, the society changes. Yes, there is scientific evidence that as a species we do have our nature when it comes to complex emotion compared to other species, but this does not mean capitalism correlates with this nature. The very fact that we are capable of complex emotion and thought propounds our nature to resemble something a bit more gratified than capitalism. We nkow the inherent nature of capitalism, and how this system always compliments the rich and declines the poor causing inequality and exploitation. All Marxism means is with this capability of complexity we can alleviate ourselves from the evil of this system.

The ruling class does essentially control the behavior of the working class. If this weren't true, capitalism could not function. Whatever their methods, it is inherently so, the elite class will always control the base of the economy. That is their purpose in a "free-market".

Our perceptions of reality do not determine our nature, just as my perception of time does not constitute any actual change in time, this is why your statements make no sense. If everyone suddenly believed something to be true, this doesn't mean it would be true. If your version of "human nature" is based soley on your perceptions of reality, I suggest you re-perceive.

 

[Ozymandyus]

How can changing beliefs not have much to do with anything here? You are talking about completely restructuring society... The number of people's beliefs you have to change to do this is immense.

You are so confused and trying to make my side into yours and your side into mine. I was arguing for the existence of human nature based on our shared experience... and you made the claim 'Human nature does not exist, easy to see as the light of day.' Now you are trying to say that I am claiming that what we call human nature is only based on my personal perceptions? NO, that is YOUR claim. I am saying that human nature is REAL and based on our shared experience of reality, not on one person's perceptions... based on our common grounding in the real world, and our common tools for perceiving and interpretting that world. You are claiming that such a nature does not exist, YOU:'The nature of humans is determined by the ruling class.' This is equivalent to saying that personal perception (the perception of the ruling class) is equivalent to human nature. And now you are saying 'Our perceptions of reality do not determine our nature, just as my perception of time does not constitute any actual change in time, this is why your statements make no sense.' These are contradictory statements! Talk about unnecessary complications!

Your position is so confused, you don't even seem to know where you stand.

 

[XC(A)libur]

The only reason those two posts do seem to contradict each other is because of our different uses of terminology. Let me clarify for you.

Human nature does not exist in the sense that greed, war, and murder are simply just presupposed by hierarchal structures and their infringements upon culture and daily life. Monotonous slave labor, religion, laws, etc.

Your perception of human nature in contrast with others does not seem to make any sense. You argue that perception is truly what makes human nature, I used an example of time, and that whatever perception of it, time still cannot be changed. The same is true for your version of human nature. I was simply making a point. Usually others point out historical precedent or scientific fact when stating a perception of human nature. You disregarded these precedents in your argument and based it soley on your perceptions.

At another time I was mentioning another version of human nature based on scientific observation. That we do have capability of compassion and complex emotion and thought, this truly makes us capable of what other species are incapable of. But this historical observation that in hierarchal structures humans instead behave like the species that are incapable propounds that hierarchal structures are an infringement upon human life. Freedom is naturally craved by human beings because of their capability of complex emotion and thought.

We can conclude that perception of human nature is important, but at the same time almost all perceptions are precluded only by the behavior of humans within hierarchal structures. This is a false perception of reality itself. Human nature is whatever free will chooses it to be.

 

[XC(A)libur]

I would like to add that I am not in defense of state-socialism or Marxist theory. While I see these two structures to be a much better alternative to capitalism, as we can see from statistics generated from Europe in contrast with America, I do not believe these two belief structures to be fully competent. I am an anarchist communist, which simply means the working class has ownership over the production of goods, and all authority be that state or government is abolished.

I am also an ecoshaman. I doubt you will be able to find any information on that on the internet, so you can ask me if you'd like. I'd have to explain the science to you before anything else.

 

[Ozymandyus]

If you look at what I said, I am using nothing but scientific fact to make claims about human nature. Try to use quotes or something so you can see that you are taking what I say and completely twisting it or misunderstanding it into something that you want to argue against.

Meanwhile, you are making competely contradictory statements with meanings that are all over the place.
Quotes by you on human nature: 'Your Quote' - My response

'Human nature is whatever free will chooses it to be.' - Not only does this concluding statement to your latest post sound a little silly, it is equivalent to saying that human nature is whatever we believe it is. Unless you are using some kind of metaphysical personification of 'free will' as if some God is choosing human nature? You are the one making these sorts of ridiculous claims, and you keep assigning it to me.
'The nature of humans is determined by the ruling class.' - Another statement about human nature implying that it is determined by someone's conception of human nature.
'Human nature does not exist, easy to see as the light of day.' - Again, a statement of your own beliefs, not mine, before I even entered the discussion.
'What I meant was human nature does not exist, in the sense that we all have capability of love and other complex emotion' - Your little statement meant to clarify the above statement, but that has NO meaning at ALL. It's basically saying, what I meant was the opposite of what I said. If we all have a common capability, isn't that part of our NATURE?

VS

'human nature does not exist in the sense that greed war and murder are simply just presupposed by hierarchal structures...' - This is something that may indeed be true, but making a universal statement and then redefining one sense in which that statement could be taken several times just shows the total lack of clear thinking.
'Humans are not inherently lazy.' - A claim about a universal human nature with no proof to back it up, of course.
'Freedom is naturally craved by human beings because of their capability of complex emotion and thought.' - I actually think that freedom IS naturally craved by humans, but it certainly isn't for the reason you give. How does capability of complex emotion and thought imply a craving for freedom? It just doesn't follow, at least not without some serious convolutions.
'Our perceptions of reality do not determine our nature' - Not only is this a complete reversal on the implications of your previous statements... it is a clear example of how you misunderstood me. All science, and indeed all human action, assumes that we perceive reality (reality being the absolutely true objective world that is outside our senses and that our senses interpret) in the same way. We see, hear, touch, taste, smell, experience pain and pleasure, and process all this data in a scientifically verifiable comparable way. This is the basis for your 'complex emotion and thought that humans share'. It's just a much BETTER way of saying that (and more true in that its much more defined). If you do not understand that this is the basis for the thing we call human nature, in fact the ONLY basis... think about it. You'll get there.

I mean, how in the heck do I even respond to someone that seems to be using so many different definitions of things? You are clearly confusing my use of the word perceptions, which is a word for the ways that we obtain and interpret sense data, with the word conceptions, which is our ideas and thoughts. You are also just as clearly thinking that I somehow believe that capitalism is the 'natural' system or something for humans, which is also absurd and something I've never even remotely claimed.

As a very confused man once said: 'I would say no intended offense, but I cannot say so.' (that was you by the way, don't want to leave any room for confusion).

Edit: Ecoshamanism? Sheesh the pantheists are taking over, Must have run into 3 or 4 of you in the last few days!

You better believe that I will never ever live in a society that abandons industry and technology for some new age one with nature complete with rituals and chanting crap. I'm all for technology that doesn't HARM nature, but I wouldn't hestitate for a second to work on a weather controlling machine. Is that blasphemy?

 

[XC(A)libur]

"Human nature is whatever free will chooses it to be." Free will is not based on our perceptions. Free will is based on our capability of complex emotion and thought. When that capability is being infringed upon we are no longer free, much like an animal is never free on their way to the slaughterhouses.

"The nature of humans is determined by the ruling class." Yes, YOUR definite perception of "human nature" is indeed formed by the ruling class. It is necessary for an elite class to infringe upon daily life and make that a standard of the state, all hierearchal structures survive because of just this.

"Human nature does not exist, easy to see as the light of day." YOUR version of "human nature" does not exist. Because these standards are determined by the elite class, so there is no definite structure of "human nature".

This is not true for other species who lack this capability. Most of us have that capability, and that is a factor when we are born. But this does not mean a definite nature. This means a life of endless almost endless possibility.

"human nature does not exist in the sense that greed war and murder are simply just presupposed by hierarchal structures" What you told me was human nature was just this. It was based off of observation of hierarchal structures. Usually people tell me that war and greed is in human nature. I tell them this "nature" doesn't exist. It is only natural for this to occur when their lives are being infringed upon, that is the nature of hierarchal structure, not human nature. You could argue it is natural for humans to seek a governmental structure of major inequality, but I find that highly unlikely.

"Humans are not inherently lazy." Some humans are lazier than others. Some humans are more motivated and some humans have more capability to work. It is only when the labor is not for progression that society will want to avoid work. The labor we use today is called slave labor, or wage slavery. We must work for the elite class or we will not have access to basic living needs like water and health care. There is no preogression here, no reason to work, just to appease the ruling class. Is it truly any wonder that we'd want to purposely avoid that? This is why I support laziness when it comes to wage slavery. To choose not to work is a form of rebellion.

"Our perceptions of reality do not determine our nature". I already explained most of this. But I can say that our perceptions is based on complex thought, we are not sheep, we have the capability of critical thinking. This gives us endless possibilities, not sheer nature.

Ecoshamanism has nothing to do with rituals and spells. The abolishment of the state does not necessarily mean the abandonment of technology. Usually, the need for technology is presupposed by the problems caused by the hierarchal state. Ecoshamanism is complicated but I can explain the science to you, I'm sure you could understand. Not all technology harms nature, but a majority of the elite's inventions and industry have. The coal mine is there for the poor to work and for the rich to profit, a standard of the hierarchal state. As technology advances the industry may possibly be mechanized, but no matter what the poor and middle class must work, a new industry arises out of the advancement of technology and way of life. While there is still no such thing as clean coal uses as president Obama lied about, the environment will always suffer because of this "advancement" and "progression" that actually does more harm to us than benefit.

Ecoshamanism and anarchism both reject this false reality that technological advancement is futile for the future. It is actually quite depressing, so many people have chosen enslavement over protesting the simple elements of their freedoms. I suggest you read the book 1984 by Orwell to understand where we will be headed in a time very soon.

 

[Ozymandyus]

The most infuriating thing is this definition of human nature you are trying to ascribe to me. You made the 'Human nature does not exist, easy to see as the light of day' quote before I even made a post! And now you are saying that this use of human nature was MY definition of human nature you were railing against? This claim is the only reason I even entered this argument - because I totally disagree with this statement. All I can ask is that you actually reread the basis of this argument and see how you have completely confounded yourself. We started this with my saying 'Show me why you think human nature does not exist' in response to that statement by you. Then you said the 'nature of humans is determined by the ruling class.' This was before I made a single statement about human nature - now you are telling me that THAT definition that YOU presented for human nature is MY definition and you were secretly arguing against it as a poor definition of human nature? Its the most insane thing I've ever had to argue against. I mean worse than creationist arguments. You chose a side and then ASSIGNED that side to me and tried to make me defend it!

Stop redefining all of your own statements, you are MANGLING the English language and twisting it to mean nothing at all. Make statements that have real meaning that you believe in, for example if you want to say "Human nature does not exist, based on this definition of human nature" then say THAT, don't just say 'Human nature does not exist', or 'Human nature is whatever free will chooses it to be.'

'YOUR definite perception of human nature is indeed formed by the ruling class' - First of all, you seem to have no clue about my perception of human nature.. I don't even agree that human nature can be perceived directly, so I should say that you have no idea about my Conception of human nature. That much is clear in EVERY statement you make. If you want to see my definition, read back and see that my definition is based on a scientific understanding of the common characteristics of humans.

I've read 1984... I very much doubt that is where we are heading, but think what you will. I think people fear this, and have feared it for well more than the 60 years since Orwell wrote 1984. At times we have had more to fear from Big Brother (most recently years since 9/11 and war on terror in particular) and at times less. It is a great book though.

It is only when the labor is not for progression that society will want to avoid work.

This is a completely unsupported claim. In communist Russia, they told everyone that they were working for the common good of the whole society, and we saw evidence again and again of lower output. You are making this claim against all evidence. Even when we do things for friends, and think we are just doing it for their good, we find the expectation of reciprocity, and friendships that are one sided fall apart. We find it again and again. All evidence and common sense imply that a certain kind of laziness is biologically ingrained in us, in fact it is one of the reasons we have been so successful as a species, to seek the Easiest path to accomplishing our needs. It has driven our abilities in terms of working together, and our ability to master nature with technology. Technology is nothing more than the embodiment of this desire.

 

[irmerk]

Too lazy to read through you two's bickering and bantering, I would like to say I agree with the claim that the current system is slave labor. People have built a system so complex that children have to go through ten to twenty years of education just to survive in it; they are trapped by the system to comply and become a slave. The idea reminds me of a part of Sicko where the narrator is describing how corporations want you to be in debt - be it from education (college) or health care - so you do a better job and fear the termination of your job.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Oh, I agree with that too, at least to a large extent. I just disagree on his definition of human nature and his flopping about on it. I'm sure we agree on many things (though probably not this ecoshamanism or anarchy stuff), we just haven't gotten past this yet. :lol: Mostly a definitions problems, as is usually the case. Plus, I tend to get riled up a bit at times, doesn't seem to help my explanatory power.

 

[irmerk]

Ecoshamanism? Google failed, scanning your debate failed, so what next? Explain what this means. It sounds interesting.

 

[Ozymandyus]

I am also an ecoshaman. I doubt you will be able to find any information on that on the internet, so you can ask me if you'd like. I'd have to explain the science to you before anything else.

Presumably its at least partially contained in the book Ecoshamanism by James Enredy. To some extent its a combination of adjusting your understanding and perception of nature to bring it into our lives in the current century. Leading healthier lives by respecting and exploring our physical world. I agree with these broad strokes, but I think tacking the word 'shaman' on it makes me distrustful. That the book says it 'Relays over fifty authentic ecoshamanistic practices, including ceremonies, rituals, and chants.'... makes me downright skeptical. I'm all for things that can change your understanding of the world around you, and I'm sure its those sorts of 'ceremonies'... but using these types of charged words clearly is an appeal to the new age people who abuse the idea to the breaking point.

But you would have to ask him for the specifics, this is just my guess at what he means. I am not trying to ascribe any beliefs to him... just conjecturing on what he Might mean.

 

[richi1173]

If everybody has such a problem with the ruling class and corporations, why not become them?

If your tired of your boss criticizing you and scolding you like a child, then leave and become your own boss?

Is it really that hard? The system is not a closed oligarchy.

 

[Distructica]

ill just leave my signature here shall i?

seriously though
i know real communism is pretty much impossible to acheive, but i believe the fundemental ideals behind it are so much more morally good than those behind capitolism

I agree, however it would also be nice to have an all loving all powerful god who looked after you. Unfortunately some really great ideas just don't work here in reality. Sad truth, and I wish the world was a different place.

 

[Distructica]

If everybody has such a problem with the ruling class and corporations, why not become them?

If your tired of your boss criticizing you and scolding you like a child, then leave and become your own boss?

Is it really that hard? The system is not a closed oligarchy.

Without poor there can never possibly be any rich. Money is like pie, if you take a really big slice there is less for everyone else. The problem is not that "I" am not part of the ruling class, the problem is that there is a ruling class.

Like every system capitalism has it's faults, you take the good with the bad.

 

[felixthecoach]

I did not read through all the posts because some were WAY too long. I want to put in my two cents and say that Pure Communism goes against some aspects of human nature. For example, you can't simply mold people into this exact super person who does exactly what society wants. Communism assumes you can educate people into being happy with whatever, giving whatever you can and getting whatever you're given.

Human nature is more selfish than that. People are by nature altruistic to close friends and family, and they are nepotistic towards family. They are inherently corruptible. This means that putting one person in power at the top will more times than not, lead to abuses of that power.

My personal opinion:

A representative socialistic democracy.

It would be similar to communism, but allows for the control by one person to be taken away if the citizens became hurt. There are versions of this form of government sprouting up in Europe and becoming successful in many ways.

 

[COMMUNIST FLISK]

This is a completely unsupported claim. In communist Russia, they told everyone that they were working for the common good of the whole society, and we saw evidence again and again of lower output.

i just would like to make the point that real communism has never properly been achieved

russia, cuba and others are/were all just dictatorships and used communism's "by the people for the people" slogan to gain support, they cannot be used to showcase communism as they never were really communism

 

[felixthecoach]

russia, cuba and others are/were all just dictatorships and used communism's "by the people for the people" slogan

Flisk, this kinda proves my point. The power-holders become corrupted and the goal of communism, to help the people, gets lost.

 

[COMMUNIST FLISK]

Flisk, this kinda proves my point. The power-holders become corrupted and the goal of communism, to help the people, gets lost.

the problem then, would be to find a person or group of people, that had no greed in thier hearts and who genuinely cared about the people

 

[felixthecoach]

EDIT From last post: i have this discussion with my wife all the time. We are politically aligned in every way except that she thinks proper power balance would make communism the utopia that it's wanted to be. I'm more of a "tragic human nature" believer and lean towards thinking that there could never be a proper balance.