For communism to work, we need each and every person to not be a greedy bastard under it all. It only takes one greedy bastard to ruin it all, as history has repeatedly shown.
We are but monkeys in trousers. Our survival instincts still rule our behaviours, and until that changes, communism will not work, simple as that.
That’s not true, though. Communism, ie a system where production and distribution are fully collectivized and run according to a common plan, doesn’t care at all if someone is “greedy,” and socialist economies that have begun building towards such a society have proven the opposite of your claims; they’ve been remarkably effective at achieving positive economic growth while delivering better metrics for the working class than capitalist systems.
If it were true that communism was even resistant to the corruption of human greed, it wouldn’t end in dictatorship or oligarchy as it does.
Don’t misunderstand my position, I deeply wish we weren’t such a young species and that we’d developed enough psychologically that we could get past our basic instincts, to see past the immediate short term as a whole, to work collectively for everyone’s benefit, including those that will inherit this earth when we become raw materials once again.
However, this is not the case. Look at how easy we are as a species to manipulate, to make think and do what a small subset want us to, for their benefit.
That’s because we’re still very instinct driven, simple creatures for the most part. Yes, in some cases an individual stands above this definition, but they are categorically not the norm. Until they are, we’re led around by our collective basic drives, and that includes making sure us and ours have “enough” , which means taking it, by hook or by crook.
To discount basic human nature when mulling political systems is pure folly.
Socialist countries have not been oligarchial nor dictatorial. They haven’t been utopian wonderlands free from any problems either, but they’ve been dramatically more democratic for the working class than capitalist countries.
I understand your position very well, it’s just wrong and based on critical misunderstandings of socialism in theory and in practice. Simple as that. Collectivized production and distribution works very well when it comes to economic growth and satisfying the needs of more people.
I’m not discounting “human nature,” you’re attributing it as a problem for socialism when that isn’t the case. Again, socialism doesn’t care if everyone is perfectly moral and upstanding, that has nothing to do with how we run collectivized production. You should familiarize yourself with what leftists are actually talking about before waxing poetic about how there’s some fundamental flaw we haven’t properly understood, as though we don’t hear the same tired arguments day in and day out.
This is basically an intro course on ML, isn’t it! I’ve been meaning to read leftist theory from different angles so your links are handy. There’s a good (looking) anarchist reading list out there too that I’ve been meaning to dig into.
Of course. What I’m curious about is why (only?) this particular idea requires that particular format. One can explain some pretty complicated ideas over Lemmy! I can be wrong about frogs, someone tells me how their spots work, but I don’t have to read a book about frogs looking for an answer.
Do constituent parts of the idea not make sense individually?
Why bother transcribing the explanation when it already exists in digital format where you can easily access it? If you can read a comment explaining it then you can read a book explaining it. And no this is not the only subject that people on the internet are told to read a book about, it’s just the #1 topic people like to play dumb about because there’s no rational defense for capitalism
Personally I literally cannot finish an entire book until I’m already interested in the subject. I can look up one specific aspect at a time in the encyclopedia, which has worked really well for me in other fields - including other social sciences and philosophies. Then something sparks and the heavy reading doesn’t feel heavy.
I’m interested in human progress in general, but keep being presented with what looks like an imposing wall.
I don’t expect you to spend the time and energy explaining whatever part about communism to that dude right here and now. I just wish they were links to lines of a FAQ, or anything that requires less up-front investment. Capitalism defends itself by limiting our time to read volumes of books.
For what it’s worth, I’ve tried to curate and tweak an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list over the last year or so. Section 0a is designed to pitch the case for Marxism-Leninism in as short and concise a manner as I think possible, the rest of the list is for those who actually wish to study in-depth and get a rock-solid understanding of the fundamentals. It isn’t an exhaustive list, I’d add Capital and Anti-Dühring for sure as well as some others, but it’s thorough and doesn’t have any glaring holes.
For communism to work, we need each and every person to not be a greedy bastard under it all. It only takes one greedy bastard to ruin it all, as history has repeatedly shown.
We are but monkeys in trousers. Our survival instincts still rule our behaviours, and until that changes, communism will not work, simple as that.
That’s not true, though. Communism, ie a system where production and distribution are fully collectivized and run according to a common plan, doesn’t care at all if someone is “greedy,” and socialist economies that have begun building towards such a society have proven the opposite of your claims; they’ve been remarkably effective at achieving positive economic growth while delivering better metrics for the working class than capitalist systems.
If you want, I made an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list, feel free to give it a look. Albert Einstein’s Why Socialism? | Audiobook is a good intro!
If it were true that communism was even resistant to the corruption of human greed, it wouldn’t end in dictatorship or oligarchy as it does.
Don’t misunderstand my position, I deeply wish we weren’t such a young species and that we’d developed enough psychologically that we could get past our basic instincts, to see past the immediate short term as a whole, to work collectively for everyone’s benefit, including those that will inherit this earth when we become raw materials once again.
However, this is not the case. Look at how easy we are as a species to manipulate, to make think and do what a small subset want us to, for their benefit.
That’s because we’re still very instinct driven, simple creatures for the most part. Yes, in some cases an individual stands above this definition, but they are categorically not the norm. Until they are, we’re led around by our collective basic drives, and that includes making sure us and ours have “enough” , which means taking it, by hook or by crook.
To discount basic human nature when mulling political systems is pure folly.
Socialist countries have not been oligarchial nor dictatorial. They haven’t been utopian wonderlands free from any problems either, but they’ve been dramatically more democratic for the working class than capitalist countries.
I understand your position very well, it’s just wrong and based on critical misunderstandings of socialism in theory and in practice. Simple as that. Collectivized production and distribution works very well when it comes to economic growth and satisfying the needs of more people.
I’m not discounting “human nature,” you’re attributing it as a problem for socialism when that isn’t the case. Again, socialism doesn’t care if everyone is perfectly moral and upstanding, that has nothing to do with how we run collectivized production. You should familiarize yourself with what leftists are actually talking about before waxing poetic about how there’s some fundamental flaw we haven’t properly understood, as though we don’t hear the same tired arguments day in and day out.
This is basically an intro course on ML, isn’t it! I’ve been meaning to read leftist theory from different angles so your links are handy. There’s a good (looking) anarchist reading list out there too that I’ve been meaning to dig into.
Yep, that’s the intent behind it! It’s designed to be approachable by anyone, feel free to leave feedback if you decide to follow it!
I appreciate it, I will.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, try listening and/or reading instead
Uh huh.
I read so many discussions that end this way. Is this idea only knowable by completing a long and old book list?
Not particularly old or long but yes if you want to avoid being completely wrong about things you will eventually have to read about those things
Of course. What I’m curious about is why (only?) this particular idea requires that particular format. One can explain some pretty complicated ideas over Lemmy! I can be wrong about frogs, someone tells me how their spots work, but I don’t have to read a book about frogs looking for an answer.
Do constituent parts of the idea not make sense individually?
Why bother transcribing the explanation when it already exists in digital format where you can easily access it? If you can read a comment explaining it then you can read a book explaining it. And no this is not the only subject that people on the internet are told to read a book about, it’s just the #1 topic people like to play dumb about because there’s no rational defense for capitalism
Personally I literally cannot finish an entire book until I’m already interested in the subject. I can look up one specific aspect at a time in the encyclopedia, which has worked really well for me in other fields - including other social sciences and philosophies. Then something sparks and the heavy reading doesn’t feel heavy.
I’m interested in human progress in general, but keep being presented with what looks like an imposing wall.
I don’t expect you to spend the time and energy explaining whatever part about communism to that dude right here and now. I just wish they were links to lines of a FAQ, or anything that requires less up-front investment. Capitalism defends itself by limiting our time to read volumes of books.
For what it’s worth, I’ve tried to curate and tweak an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list over the last year or so. Section 0a is designed to pitch the case for Marxism-Leninism in as short and concise a manner as I think possible, the rest of the list is for those who actually wish to study in-depth and get a rock-solid understanding of the fundamentals. It isn’t an exhaustive list, I’d add Capital and Anti-Dühring for sure as well as some others, but it’s thorough and doesn’t have any glaring holes.