Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

[Whaleboy]

Ned I think you would do better to say authoritarian communist systems, since you're ignoring libertarian communist systems imo... the nomenclature is confusing since most people think of Communism in a strictly Marxist sense, and that the Soviets were representative of it.

I have communism as something a little less prescriptive, an economic state of a society that would occur in even the most capitalist society with more than a few people.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Greed is fundamental.

You have not shown that's the case. Many people readily share, even if they don't have much. Very primitive peoples such as African Bushmen aren't greedy at all.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Though this supports my argument, history on its own has shown that wherever humans get together, greed is the fundamental force, since any cooperative elements are still operating on an egoistic premise; altruism is still a dilusion, whether or not egoism is a conscious process, it is still the premise for all of our actions.

You are throwing out more terms without backing them up. For example, you claim that egoism is the fundamental motive without constructing a good argument or show some historical evidence.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
In times of plenty, the best course of action egoistically speaking is competition and acquisition, when times are hard it makes the most sense for an individual to work together with other people in a cooperative commune.

How so? It appears in times of plenty, the optimal course of action is to share, while it is good to horde when the times are bad.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, thanks for the acknowledgement that communism is inherently totalitarian.

You must have misread me. I've never saud or thought such a thing.

What I said is that the capitalists with whom we discuss are prejudiced against us, in that they believe we are iinherently totalitarians (which is false). As such, we tend to adapt our speech to these people, and we must state what would otherwise be obvious, if we discussed only between Communists.

[Whaleboy]

You have not shown that's the case. Many people readily share, even if they don't have much. Very primitive peoples such as African Bushmen aren't greedy at all.

I don't doubt that, but does that make them altruistic? One must ask the question "why do they share" and my answer is self-interest (egoism). If you accept that the human brain, as a computer, operates on certain logical principles, then is it possible for it *not* to act in its own interest, or for its own whim? As for us as subjectively conscious individuals, naturally we think of ourselves as altruistic, benevolent people, but that does not transfer categorically to a situation where humans as numbers matters, or a political equation were determinations of human nature are of the utmost importance. That is a different situation than hiding away from friends, family etc because they are operating in their own self-interest, which is a determination largely irrelevant in that latter context.

You are throwing out more terms without backing them up. For example, you claim that egoism is the fundamental motive without constructing a good argument or show some historical evidence.

Very well. We've all heard the axiomatic example of the man who runs into a burning car that's about to explode to save a stranger, so placing himself at great personal risk for no discernable gain. I doubt a better example of what is termed "altruism" could be found, so it's a good example to work with. Naturally, if it can be shown that he is operating out of self-interest or egoistically, then altruism in this case is false. What might motivate someone to do such a thing? Obvious suggestion would be instint (certain anecdotal cases I remember hearing about suggest instinct)... so the instinct to help a stranger, or shall we say an instinct to altruism. But is that not to the satisfaction and gratification of those instincts that one performs those actions? We might do something because of the endorphine rush that feels good, but that's shaky ground for the foundation of this argument, so I can ask the question above, is it possible for us "not" to act on a fundamentally egoistic level? Naturally certain things have an altruistic appearance, even to us, but appearences can be deceptive, I am asking the question of the premise of subjective motivation, including the motivation of the "best of intentions". I should say "no", because the brain is always dealing with inputs to that brain, it is operating upon its OWN premises (remember consciousness is absolute in that subjective sense). For this debate, we need to get away from the notion of egoism only applying whereupon it produces, or intends to produce a discernable economic benefit.

How so? It appears in times of plenty, the optimal course of action is to share, while it is good to horde when the times are bad.

A question better asked of economists, since my argument would stand if it were the other way around. One notices that our instinct for community is shared among other animals where the gain to the individual through working together is greater than the gain of working alone... i.e. the product of 5 people divided by 5 is greater than the product of 1. Competition for resources increases as they diminish of course but only where one as an individual has the means to get them.

As a species, we humans, indeed many of the apes, are unextraordinary. We are physically slight compared to the predators where we evolved, physically weak and lacking great bouts of speed compared to feline predators. To our advantage we have our brains, opposable thumbs, a good balance of senses (as opposed to a specialised acute sense) and the ability to run or walk for great distances, iow our capacity to migrate quickly is greater than other land-based animals. We developed tools and trade to help us, but these are at their most effective when we work together, otherwise a lone human competiting with other humans in a bad time is going to lead to disaster. Consider a lone human, even with the addition of basic tools, trying to bring down a large animal. His chances are greatly increased when he works with others.

For much of our evolutionary history, I should imagine it was a constant struggle to survive, communities and communism was the logical course of action. Trade was conducted to that end, there is anthropological evidence of beads being used in Africa tens of thousands of years ago as the currency in a trading network that prevented individual tribes from starving. Now we are richer and can elevate ourselves on the bones of others, competition becomes a better means of achieving what we want. Simple evolution is insufficient here, a more complex model is required, but that like I said falls into the grounds of economics, so someone more familiar with that field can provide a better answer than I can on that latter point, my point is about egoism.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
in that they believe we are iinherently totalitarians (which is false).

All examples of such ideals being put into practice show otherwise.

[Whaleboy]

All examples of such ideals being put into practice show otherwise.

Kibbutzim? Cooperatives? Large corporat.... ok ignore that last one

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You have not shown that's the case. Many people readily share, even if they don't have much. Very primitive peoples such as African Bushmen aren't greedy at all.

All African bushman, or just one or two tribes?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Kibbutzim? Cooperatives? Large corporat.... ok ignore that last one

Whaleboy, good. You seem to understand the "difference" between being a commune by consent and otherwise. I agree that consensual communes are quite pleasant. I used to live in one.

Now it is your turn to be intellectually honest.

[chequita guevara]

But forcing capitalism on people is okay, Ned?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


I don't doubt that, but does that make them altruistic? One must ask the question "why do they share" and my answer is self-interest (egoism).

Did Kuciwalker teach you that? Altruism and self-interest are mutually exclusive by definition.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
All examples of such ideals being put into practice show otherwise.

This statement proves his point. You compare Spiffor to Stalin when he is nothing like him. His beliefs aren't anything like Stalin's.

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy, good. You seem to understand the "difference" between being a commune by consent and otherwise. I agree that consensual communes are quite pleasant. I used to live in one.

Now it is your turn to be intellectually honest.

Why mention intellectual honesty unless you suspect intellectual dishonesty, but don't point it out? And yes, communes by choice would seem to imply an action taken for own interest as opposed to being forced, which obviously is unacceptable because it may not be to the individuals advantage... upon which we base wants, needs and rights. Needless to say, my argument precludes Stalinism by force, ditto democracy.

Did Kuciwalker teach you that? Altruism and self-interest are mutually exclusive by definition.

Horizontal and vertical causes. To a given end, altruism and egoism are mutually exclusive, but out of context, a pretense of altruism can be predicated by egoism, which is my argument.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
But forcing capitalism on people is okay, Ned?

Once does not force freedom on people. One liberates slaves from their masters.

[Whaleboy]

If freedom is given as an existential state, then by "liberation" all you are doing is presenting them with a different set of choices, but that is meaningless since they are existentially free in the first place (and certainly not worth dying over). The only imposition that occurs is of one idiotic political system over another.

[Ned]

Whaleboy, then, is you level of consent such that a person who does not agree with a directive (permission in the words of Kid) can choose differently and/or can leave the commune?

Further, if the people choose to recognize property, is that choice forbidden by some higher authority?