WrongPlanet.net
WP Members: > 80,000



Aspie Affection

New Today: 5
New Yesterday: 27

Is workable Communism really impossible? Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 9, 10, 11  Next  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion     
JakobVirgil
Tyrant / Part-Time Mexican
Phoenix


Joined: Feb 16, 2011
Posts: 3744
Location: yes

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AspieRogue wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is not only possible but the norm for most of human history.

It is funny how firm people are in their social science convictions
when no social science is predictive.


The Queen among colonial insects most certainly is the highest status member of the hive in that all other members of the hive tend to her and sacrifice themselves to ensure her survival and well being. This is analogous to a monarch. Herd animals have a leader, even though it may not be obvious to human observers from the outside at first.


cite some papers you are getting into my field.
your assertions are not doing it for me.

The Queen could be seen as the reproductive Organ of a compound creature the hives vagina not its head.
I even have scripture to back it up

Quote:
Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:
Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler,
Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.


Very Happy the bible is wrong on almost everything but gets ants dead right. even the gender.
It is only in the bad analogy of royalty that she is the leader.

Quite a few herd animals have reproductive pecking orders but nearly none have "leaders" and "followers". Most of the seemingly coordinated movement it a product of emergence. Elephants come to mind as a counter example. Your statement herd animals have leaders is much to broad to be true. (there as lots o different kinds of herd animals.)
_________________
“We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots?”

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JakobVirgil
Tyrant / Part-Time Mexican
Phoenix


Joined: Feb 16, 2011
Posts: 3744
Location: yes

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AspieRogue wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:



Modern humans live in MUCH larger groups than other primates. Primate groups have no division of labor, no means of producing their own food, and no domestication of other species. Ants, however, have all 3 of those despite a lack of ego. A hive is a structure that colonial insects build, and some of them can be of enormous size compared to the creatures that build them. It's almost like a city in a single mound.


Humans are still innately selfish and egotistical. Which distinguishes them from the hive animals.

The specialization of labor is a "killer app" that humans took for their use about 10,000 - 15,000 years ago. It is learned invented behavior, not at all instinctive. It is such a great and productive and pro survival trick that it has never been abandoned by the human race. (homo sapien).

ruveyn




Yet despite innate selfishness, people can be manipulated into selflessness and unquestioning self-sacrifice. And that is what makes civilization possible. People will go along with absolutely anything if it's presented to them in a persuasive fashion. In fact, I daresay that humans are pack animals and at least 90% of people in this world have a collectivist drive. True individuals are rare, and it's usually because either the don't fit in with the rest of the pack or they are suave enough to manipulate the rest of the pack.


This innate selfishness axiom is eroding.
Link to review of Bowles and Gintis paper

What if it turns out we are eusocial?




(Selfish &)Opportunistic, predatory people do exist this world whether you like or not and there is simply no way to get rid of them! Denying this or citing statistical studies doesn't make this any less true. I could could spend all days giving examples to which you'd attempt some other explanation that fits your world view. Most of all, it is easier to take than it is to give back. Human behavior tends to follow the least action principle most of the time and when people do take the "high road" when there's no apparent benefit or reward in doing so, it's because they're trying to prove something to themselves or to others. Or both. Not being selfish to some degree puts you at a very high risk of being exploited by such people. So many examples of manipulative people who figure out a way to take advantage of peoples desire to help others for their own personal gain without getting caught.

You see, if I were a poor but streetsmart sociopath, I'd probably be drawn to decentralized communes as a place where I can take advantage of other people and stir the pot in such a way that I end up on top.


Have you moved the goalpost from Humans are selfish to some humans are selfish?
Of course some humans are bastards I have met my share on from right to left.
But most humans are not and to build models based on the axiom of human selfishness are never predictive in the long run.

The fact you have to learn to be selfish make me think it is not the natural or genetic state of humans. Also the Ironic need of "individualists" to join clubs.

So in our Utopia we need schemes to mitigate the damage caused by defectors.
Bowles and Gintis like tit for tat. i.e. cooperating with everyone but defectors.
there are other schemes including punishing or exiling bad faith actors.
_________________
“We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots?”

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DC
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Aug 16, 2011
Posts: 1477

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When ever this issue is raised there are so many cliches rolled out it is unbelievable.

Have any of you ever experienced a good portion of your adult life in a functional part of the Soviet Union and then spent a good part of your life in the same country under capitalism?

Anybody?

Do you think that people that have done this might be the best placed to compare and critique the two systems? What a pity nobody has ever done this. like a respected, impartial survey company for example.

But oh wait, look they have!

http://www.pewglobal.org/2009/11/02/end-of-communism-cheered-but-now-with-more-reservations/

And what is this, of people that lived and worked under communism and also lived and worked under capitalism, the majority of people in the majority of countries say life was better under communism.

So perhaps the real question should be, is workable capitalism really possible?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JakobVirgil
Tyrant / Part-Time Mexican
Phoenix


Joined: Feb 16, 2011
Posts: 3744
Location: yes

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DC wrote:
When ever this issue is raised there are so many cliches rolled out it is unbelievable.

Have any of you ever experienced a good portion of your adult life in a functional part of the Soviet Union and then spent a good part of your life in the same country under capitalism?

Anybody?

Do you think that people that have done this might be the best placed to compare and critique the two systems? What a pity nobody has ever done this. like a respected, impartial survey company for example.

But oh wait, look they have!

http://www.pewglobal.org/2009/11/02/end-of-communism-cheered-but-now-with-more-reservations/

And what is this, of people that lived and worked under communism and also lived and worked under capitalism, the majority of people in the majority of countries say life was better under communism.

So perhaps the real question should be, is workable capitalism really possible?


QFT
_________________
“We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots?”

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JakobVirgil
Tyrant / Part-Time Mexican
Phoenix


Joined: Feb 16, 2011
Posts: 3744
Location: yes

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AspieRogue wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:

Have you moved the goalpost from Humans are selfish to some humans are selfish?
Of course some humans are bastards I have met my share on from right to left.
But most humans are not and to build models based on the axiom of human selfishness are never predictive in the long run.

The fact you have to learn to be selfish make me think it is not the natural or genetic state of humans. Also the Ironic need of "individualists" to join clubs.

So in our Utopia we need schemes to mitigate the damage caused by defectors.
Bowles and Gintis like tit for tat. i.e. cooperating with everyone but defectors.
there are other schemes including punishing or exiling bad faith actors.



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 Laughing


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 Shocked]
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.
_________________
“We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots?”

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AspieRogue wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:

Have you moved the goalpost from Humans are selfish to some humans are selfish?
Of course some humans are bastards I have met my share on from right to left.
But most humans are not and to build models based on the axiom of human selfishness are never predictive in the long run.

The fact you have to learn to be selfish make me think it is not the natural or genetic state of humans. Also the Ironic need of "individualists" to join clubs.

So in our Utopia we need schemes to mitigate the damage caused by defectors.
Bowles and Gintis like tit for tat. i.e. cooperating with everyone but defectors.
there are other schemes including punishing or exiling bad faith actors.



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 Laughing

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
edgewaters
hibernating
Phoenix


Joined: Aug 17, 2006
Age: 42
Posts: 2427
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AspieRogue wrote:
Before governments there were tribal chiefs, before that there were alpha males.


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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
edgewaters
hibernating
Phoenix


Joined: Aug 17, 2006
Age: 42
Posts: 2427
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JakobVirgil
Tyrant / Part-Time Mexican
Phoenix


Joined: Feb 16, 2011
Posts: 3744
Location: yes

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AspieRogue wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:

Have you moved the goalpost from Humans are selfish to some humans are selfish?
Of course some humans are bastards I have met my share on from right to left.
But most humans are not and to build models based on the axiom of human selfishness are never predictive in the long run.

The fact you have to learn to be selfish make me think it is not the natural or genetic state of humans. Also the Ironic need of "individualists" to join clubs.

So in our Utopia we need schemes to mitigate the damage caused by defectors.
Bowles and Gintis like tit for tat. i.e. cooperating with everyone but defectors.
there are other schemes including punishing or exiling bad faith actors.



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 Laughing


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 Shocked]
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.


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?
_________________
“We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots?”

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion   
Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 9, 10, 11  Next  

 
Read more Articles on Wrong Planet



Wrong Planet is a Registered Trademark.
Copyright 2004-2014, Wrong Planet, LLC and Alex Plank. Alex does public speaking for Autism.

Advertise on Wrong Planet

Alex Hotchalk / Glam 

Alex Plank  Aspie Affection 

Terms of Service - You must read this as a user of Wrong Planet | Privacy Policy

Subscribe: RSS Feed  Wrong Planet News  Wrong Planet Forums




fine art