Is workable Communism really impossible?

Post Reply New Topic

Well I cannot yet prove conclusively that 100% of humans are selfish! But clearly I've shown that enough humans are selfish that their existence and behavior forces those who aren't inherently selfish to become so to protect themselves. Your utopia has been tired before...........MORE than once. And it continues to fail repeatedly. A society without a central authority becomes locked in a state of perpetual civil war. Example: Somalia. You will never create a scheme so foolproof that it cannot be effectively sabotaged by defectors. But hey.......


You may say that I'm a dreamer,but I'm not the one

My Utopia, which one was that exactly?
have you been reading my secret journal.

I am sorry were did you show that the number of sociopaths is high enough for the best strategy to be to ape their morality? Would a better plan be to ferret them out and remove them from power?

Hare estimates that only 1% of folks are sociopaths [10% of ceos though ]
Is that enough?
Every polity is a scheme for reducing free riding all of them have failed?

Remember for most of the history of our genus we have not had governments.

Before governments there were tribal chiefs, before that there were alpha males.
Furthermore, just exacly HOW do you define sociopaths? If you define it as a person who is selfish, opportunistic, and manipulative from time to time(at least), how can you honestly make any kind of estimate about the percentage of such people in human population? Especially given that there are now 7 billion of us living today. I'd imagine there may be some kind of psychological quiz for it but you'd have to get ~7 billion people to take it and then score all of these quizes to collect sufficient data for a ballpark estimate. The most effective polity schemes for reducing free riding have a central authority.

What does it matter that some people are selfish? I don't see how it is a bigger problem under a common ownership of means of production than under any variety of capitalism.

I don't see either how the fact that hierarchies tend to develop in human society would make it fail either. There can be an informal hierarchy without its ruining the system. Actually, under our system, the hierarchy is already much more informal that it once was. Basically since the start of recorded history, what clothes one could or could not wear was defined by law or custom: one could not wear anything one wanted. This way, everyone knew who was where. Now, if you can buy the thing, you can put it on.

Obviously every theoretical system is utopic, in a way. That is why, in practice, all that exist is a variety of mixed systems, empiric compromises which work, kind of. But that does not mean that theoretical systems will necessarly fail utterly. Proof: separation of powers, democracy, all the theoretical ideas of the Enlightenment had never actually been tried before the American Revolution, yet the United States survived. If we stop thinking theleologically, it was not expected to last, it wasn't supposed to, because "it would never work".

We can be certain that there would be problems under common ownership of the means of production, just as democracy has its problems. That is no reason to say it cannot work at all.

Yes, but, tribal chiefs were often just chosen during times of crisis. And they didn't always wield much power.

In fact, in looking at early urban development, it is easy to see that the societies weren't yet that hierarchical or stratified. There was not that much difference in the early Mesopotamian towns between the living quarters of a chief and the average person. It took time to develop the institutions and economy necessary for extreme stratification. There was not much of a surplus to provide for a large class of sedentary authorities, even if they did have these things.

As far as state communism goes, it does appear that some who lived through it look back on it wistfully, and others clearly don't. I think we'd see much the same if capitalism were replaced.

As far as Marx's ideas, it wasn't a system of wealth redistribution, quite the opposite ... since the basis of it was that workers were entitled to the full value and all the proceeds of their own labour, instead of having some of it stripped and given to an owner of capital as profit.

But in thinking about Marx, I think the main reason it's unworkable is simply that Marx never envisioned that the epicentre of capitalism would go postindustrial. He pictured the future in terms of what he understood about two previous transformations: the shift to feudalism after Rome, and the shift to capitalism after feudalism. Communism was to be the shift after capitalism had reached its zenith and full expression and had run to its essential conclusion, just as the other shifts had occurred. In the previous shifts, power moved into the hands of new classes who had become more relevant, economically. Rome, for instance, had become an economic black hole, dependant on continual expansion to fuel itself, as it was no longer productive - the provinces were, though. Production became decentralized, economic power followed, and political power followed that - the end result being feudalism, once the central authority finally lost all relevance.

Marx believed that at the epicentre of capitalism, the industrial mode of production would become the most relevant economic force to exist, and that the future belonged to the industrial working classes. But history turned out differently - at the epicentre of capitalism (which Marx saw as the UK and USA) industrialism has largely been abandoned and the postindustrial economy has developed, and the industrial worker is not the most relevant economic force at all, he is among the least relevant.

Pretty sure that before civilization, power and status were based on raw strength.




And JakobVirgil: The United States is not a true democracy. It is a (democratic)Republic based on representation. 'We the people' have little control over the federal government, which certainly IS a central authority even though there is no single person in the government who has complete control over it. There does remain the possibility, though hopefully quite small, that the President could declare a state of emergency and summon the military to dissolve the rest of the government and establish himself as a dictator.....But it's highly unlikely our military would go along with that.

There is no such thing as a "true" democracy. It is best to see democracy as a source of legitimacy, rather than as a system of government.

No, more on personality. The qualities of leadership have never really been any different than they are now. Elders were often chiefs, frail as they were.

People tend to forget a key distinction between modern civilization and ancient hunter-gatherer bands. In modern civilization, almost everyone is a stranger. But bands were just extended families. It was not necessary to bludgeon people into submission, the unit already existed cohesively, because it was a family unit.

I don't buy that. Strong, aggressive men who had other strong men following them could easily overpower others and take what they wanted by force.

How can you possibly know that, do you have a tardis?

I don't estimate sociopaths Robert Hare does it's his job not mine.

Have you ever heard of a representative sample?

You seem to have a habit of making assertions rather than arguments.

You seem to be reject science as a means of knowledge what are you replacing it with?

not really addressing anything I have said but . . .
thanks?

JakobVirgil: Might I remind you that ITT, it is you who are claiming that a decentralized, cooperative society can work in practice. There have been experiments to test this and they haven't worked very well. Therefore, if you claim that this really can work then the burden off proof is on YOU to demonstrate it! That's really the bottom line here. Argue all you want, but without real life proof it's just speculation.




I seriously question Robert Hare's stats on the frequency of sociopaths because many people do selfish, opportunistic things even though they are not considered sociopaths by the majority of people who know or have known them. Until there is a scientifically rigorous test for sociopathy I regard Robert Hares findings with cynicism. In fact, I have doubts about the whole concept of sociopathy because it is based on certain assumptions about normal human behavior. I've witnessed selfish and opportunistic behavior amongst the people around me my entire life. I'm astonished you haven't, then again you might be conveniently omitting this because it contradicts your ideals.[b]

Does that happen in your family?

If not, ask yourself why, then you have your answer.

What stuff was there to take anyway? I don't think people really grasp what it means when there is no surplus. If you take somebody's stuff, he dies. The strong man who takes everyone's stuff, kills them all, and then he finds himself in an increasingly smaller group with no further means to sustain himself. Meanwhile his neighbours thrive and grow numerous - and therefore covetous of land and hunting grounds. What stands in their way now? A starving hermit?

People who acted like this, were wiped out. It is not sustainable until you have a surplus, which is why stratification doesn't happen until agrarianism and pastoralism take root in a major way. Prior to this, no group could support entrenched authorities of any sort, secular or religious, or they would die out. Which is why priests and warlords don't make their appearance until there is a surplus available to support them.

Last edited by edgewaters on 03 Aug 2012, 12:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Oh? in that case The Ache, The San, The Goshute and the Andaman Islanders.
Do I get a prize?

ITT I have not made many or (any that I can remember). At all I have just doubted yours and showed that the literature did not fit your world view.

the last paragraph is full of weird assumptions. Where did I say that there are not selfish and opportunistic people? -I know quite a few- Your accusation of "conveniently omitting this because it contradicts your ideals" is more telling on your theory of mind an thus your practice than it is on mine.

The math works better if you assume the folks are rational maximizers to bad this is more and more being shown to false in experiment.

What about the strong man who teams up with others, conquers another tribal family group, kills the men and then rapes the women, establishing his own new extended family?

Also, what makes you so certain that there weren't multiple filial groups living in single area and coming into contact with each other?

Hunter gatherers tend to dwell in areas where game and edible plants are plentiful. And if one wondering group stumbles into such an area and finds another group, they just might decide to *move in*.

or not. It does not change the fact that ingroup both are probably hunter-gatherer groups are egalitarian or familial.