Communism doesn't work

What, no it doesn't. Educate yourself on world history and how the people lived and what were they thinking back then. People nowadays are exactly the same, it's the same software.

tl;dr nobody would work 16 hours a day 7 days a week to provide for some random comrades.

Yer mum's collectivized arse

Culture and nature aren't the same thing

Masters of what?

>human nature

>not even considering the palaeolithic.

see

>MUH HUMAN NATURE

I don't think the thing you think is human nature is really is human nature.

No such thing. This is a philosophy board, don't embarrass yourself.

>FTFY

>>/r/fullcommunism

Hey comrade, you have any oppressed masses turn you down for a date recently? I know how you cucks love validating fatties

Masters of the Universe

>"Hey guyth! Culture changes with time and technology! Therefore human neychurr cheyngethz!"

Get on your bike faggots and invent me a universal handheld factory instead of pushing your wacky cult

I'm not a communist, suggesting that human nature never changes is retarded though.

>Functioning communism would be awesome. How could we MAKE it work?
you can't it goes against human nature

You're the only one to bring up "culture."

Human nature doesn't exist, you're not even trying to prove your point.

You're actually defending tabula rasa m8.

Read some works from ancient Rome and tell me how much human nature changed in 2000 years.

Pro-tip: it didn't.

It'd also be great if humans weren't violent cunts, but we've been trying to make that work for thousands of years with no luck.

2000 years is nothing, have a look at the neolithic and palaeolithic.

Don't throw stones in glass houses in the exact same fucking post, you feminine penis
>"Haha! You rused yourself"
Kill your mother
Over a period of millions of years? Yes. Because people decided to adapt different norms? That's not nature. That's culture

Communes have sub-conscious hierarchies and thus are not actual communism as defined by Marx as stateless socialism. You can't be stateless if there's an inherent hierarchy. The reality is that people look for leaders and flock to them and thus a stateless entity cannot exist. Even the "anarcho"-syndicalist state of the CNT-FAI had leaders, a hierarchy and a state. True communism has never been tried solely because it's impossible.

>2000 years is nothing, have a look at the neolithic and palaeolithic.
Sure, give me some books by neolithic and paleolithic authors to read.

"Haha! You rused yourself"

You did though, how does any species change over long periods of time if not through a genetic influence, claiming that human nature is unchangeable is ignorant, do you deny that genetics has an influence on behaviour?

Are you saying that there has been no evolutionary pressures which arose due to the transition between a hunter gatherer to farmer lifestyle?

Lack of human nature is apparent. People within the same culture, neighbors even, don't act alike to one another.

If human nature existed, then there would never be a concept of communism or any other ideology really. To what degree does our nature define us? Because this fucking "nature" doesn't seem to be preventing anyone from living in communes, monasteries, or any other form of lifestyle.

stop treating Veeky Forums as lefty version of /pol/ you commie fag

Marx's stateless society is like paradise without the houris.

>Wants to discuss an ideology
>lefty /pol/

we have a book about it: en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Conquest_of_Bread

>Over a period of millions of years? Yes. Because people decided to adapt different norms? That's not nature. That's culture

I'm not waiting millions of years for communism.

I'll cut through the autism and get to the crunch:

Culture changes with technology and time. So if you want to make communism invent a universal portable factory.

Why? Because it eliminates the capitalist class bloodlessly. There is no capitalist class because the existence of capital propped up by labour is now inefficient. In fact under this scheme communism would be preferable, because without central direction one could continuously create factories that they could use to build an army from scratch

So under this hypothesis Communism is not only feasible, it is the only stable political equilibrium. The only unstable equilibrium would be pure libertarianism, which would only be useful on the frontier of human expansion

Good luck getting any of these morons to agree. But yes, being post-scarcity could allow us to be communist.

>Marx as stateless socialism
impossible then as outside sources would take it over and enforce hierarchy

All you've done is proven that human nature and culture exist side by side, where nature allows for a band of lifestyles with different consequences, with the only other limitation being the physical world. Instead of defending Marxism, that bloody-handed cult of death, how about advance technology?

No need to keep whinging that human nature doesn't exist. And you get your beloved communism

I'm not a communist, just a stem bio fag who got triggered by you saying that human nature is unchangeable.

I said that in the post. You should try reading the whole thing instead of memeing after the first sentence. Communism is literally impossible, but the pro-commie idiots are going to shill for it anyways.

>b-b-but going from hunting to farming changes the human nature, you guys
You're an idiot

You seem to misunderstand then. I didn't say human nature is a single point across infinite space. I said it's unchanging. That's a vast amount of space, but it doesn't cover communism in our present material culture

Mises wrote a several hundred page book specifically on why it wouldn't work, and there's the fact scarcity is prohibits long term communism.

I'm not sure what you include as 'human nature' and changing selection pressures.

>How could we MAKE it work?
by rejecting the moronic leninist notion of a vanguard party and of some kind of elite leading group that must guide and educate the proletariat

the state having control over the means of production does not equate to the proletariat being in control of the means of production. the only way to achieve true workers liberation is to apply democracy in its most direct form at its most base level, by organizing factories and workplaces into syndicates run via direct democracy (with a little representation here and there to streamline things, but democratic representation). similarly streets must be run by those who live on them.

in order for any of this to work the entire proletariat must, obviously, be armed. idiotic bourgeois ideas such as the police and military must be done away with and society transformed from one where individuals are taught to depend on authority for safety, to one where they depend on themselves and each other for safety. such a country will be impossible to conquer thanks to the massive amount of soldiers and partisans it has available.

national government would take the form of irregular conventions of representatives of the syndicates, convened only to decide in matters of the greatest national importance. one a delegate has sat at one convention they will be forbidden from sitting on the convention again, in order to prevent the corruption inherent in any representative democracy.

worth noting is that the free market, or at least some kinds of free marked and competition in the market place, would be accepted. However private property on a large scale will not be allowed. for example, if you want to open a piano store and sell pianos, and you put up the capital for it, it will be acceptable, so long as you pay your employees fairly and give them asay in their work conditions, however opening a chain of piano stores that you run from an office rather than actually working in the stores is no.

To be a master you should actually rule something, Nordics are such cucks they don't even control their own countries.

pseudo-post scarcity. I prefer the term post-productivity

Well have you read any books? Human Nature did not change between hunting and farming, merely economic circumstances. People still tried to horde personal goods and food, even though in the days of agriculture land was shared in common, and food and goods from hunts were also hoarded by individuals to the best of their ability. Now, who could guess that when food and goods were produced to feed every individual in an area, and than some, people hoarded goods?

>in order for any of this to work the entire proletariat must, obviously, be armed. idiotic bourgeois ideas such as the police and military must be done away with and society transformed from one where individuals are taught to depend on authority for safety, to one where they depend on themselves and each other for safety. such a country will be impossible to conquer thanks to the massive amount of soldiers and partisans it has available.
Let me tell you how this will work out - civil war.

>in order for any of this to work the entire proletariat must, obviously, be armed. idiotic bourgeois ideas such as the police and military must be done away with and society transformed from one where individuals are taught to depend on authority for safety, to one where they depend on themselves and each other for safety.
What could go wrong?

And the kicker
>such a country will be impossible to conquer thanks to the massive amount of soldiers and partisans it has available
Yeah, that CNT lasted real long.

source?

global revolution
machines to get everything done but intellectual work, so you dont have to work unless you dont want to
the other option is violence, bloodshed and eradication of the enemies of the working class, globally

Not him, but you should read any social history on the days of mass agriculture. Peasants hoarded the shit out of crops and often purposely misrepresented their harvests to keep more..

It's nonsense, source of gtfo :^)

This is the least shitty form of tech-ignorant communism but it's still half-formed

If you want direct democracy I am hoping that is applied to the national level. And if that is the case you should definitely allow for temporary task forces of experts to deal with national crises

That makes this rather less bad.

Still sounds unstable

Even Marxist analysis is horseshit, the real ruling class right now are the bankers and they don't own any means of production.

>such a country will be impossible to conquer thanks to the massive amount of soldiers and partisans it has available.
Except, you know, by an actual army with superior organization and tanks and planes and artilery.

Well take for example, any unearthed burial mounds from any time. Almost every society that we've unearthed tombs from, we observe that personal goods associated with the burial mound will contain things that the person owned, their own personal property.

Village Life in Late Tsarist Russia is a start. It was the last surviving agrarian state. Osceola is a good one about sharecroppers. Vilimani covers agrarian Tanganyikans in the 18th and 19th century. I don't have anything older for you.

what's your source for this?

>Let me tell you how this will work out - civil war.
well, that is generally what tends to happen when left wing forces take control of a country, the trick is to win

>What could go wrong?
you tell me

>Yeah, that CNT lasted real long.
teh CNT was chronically short of weapons and ammunition for its entire existence, also the CNT never proceeded past the embryonic revolutionary stage, once the whole of a state has been ruled by the true will of the people for a period of even as low as 5 years, it will become unconquerable

this isn't a source, just an anecdote.

I don't even get why syndicalist want to abolish free market capitalism in all honesty. Supposing that such a society existed, could they not form their own personal communes and other areas where goods are shared in common willingly, should they present the capital? I won't try to appeal to marxist since those guys refuse to accept anything other than their own brand of autism.

I'm sorry user, and I hate saying communists are ever right, but what bankers have is called financial capital and communists interpreted that realistically enough even back in Lenin's day

All the subsequent analysis was bullshit, though

> once the whole of a state has been ruled by the true will of the people for a period of even as low as 5 years, it will become unconquerable

Asspull of the week right here

>give everyone guns and tell them to sort their shit out
>no cops or military
>no judicial system
Shouldn't take rocket appliances to figure this one out.

>this isn't a source
Those are fucking books. Two of them are primary sources. Don't fucking "not a source" me, you pedantic little Marxist shit.

The denial of all anecdote is also terrible argumentation

How is that related to the transistion from hunter gatherer to farmers at all?

>The significant lifestyle changes from a small, nomadic, hunter-gatherer society to a large, sedentary, agrarian society resulted in major health changes among the population. After analyzing trends in bone growth, enamel development, lesions, and mortality, archaeologists determined that there was a major decline in health following the adoption and intensification of agriculture.[10] Compared to the hunter-gatherers before them, skeletons of farmers at Dickson Mounds indicate a significant increase in enamel defects, iron-deficiency anemia, bone lesions, and degenerative spinal conditions.

>he decline in health of Dickson Mounds’ population over time can be attributed to the increased reliance on agriculture, which led to a less varied and less nutritious diet, more strenuous physical labor in the fields, and more crowded permanent settlements that facilitated the spread of infectious diseases.[9] Some also say the decline in health is due to the expansion of long-distance trade with larger economic systems, such as Cahokia, which resulted in exploitative relations in which residents of Dickson Mounds were giving away needed food for items of symbolic value.

The society you're pushing forward on a governmental level is still subject to the problems of any government. Say this democratic society is set up, it only works if we assume there is a common good of the "Proletariat". However, we know this is not the case even during the 1800's when most jobs were either agriculture, or straight up manufacturing. Different groups have different wants, and there are a lot of groups. In this democracy scenario, one or many groups would get shafted during the most margin of majorities and cause division in the society.

You're claims about the transition from hunter gatherer lifestyles to early agriculture have no basis.

>If you want direct democracy I am hoping that is applied to the national level
thats literally the whole problem with direct democracy, you cannot expect direct democracy to come up with adequate solutions at teh national level, put simply because nations are too big and it is too hard for people to properly understand all the issues they would be voting on. direct democracy functions much better on a local level.

> temporary task forces of experts to deal with national crises
stop right there you Stalinist shitlord, but being serious, this is literally exactly the reason that socialist countries keep turning into dictatorships

>Except, you know, by an actual army with superior organization and tanks and planes and artilery.
Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Vietnam, partisans on the eastern front, arguably korea, most of the african bush wars, etc, etc

obviously partisans dont always win, but your an idiot to think they'll always lose. and while other countries are spending millions building smart bombs, syndicates can spend that money on homes and schools

How do you get "Goods were shared 100% in common and people did not trade" from these two paragraphs? Because if you come to the conclusion that trading and personal property existed before the farming societies were established, than you don't even disagree with us.

Homeboy asked about agrarianism and communal land. I don't have a dog in the hunter-gatherer fight, just that the idea of agrarian societies not being selfish is wrong. You could probably look into hunter-gatherer Native Americans. They did have the concept of personal property contrary to popular belief. Fact of the matter is, humans today aren't really that much different than 1000 or 2000 or 5000 years ago. I don't know what you're trying to argue with the hunter-gatherer bullshit, but the past wasn't the communist utopia leftists try to make it. It was either brutish survival (ask the Australian aborigines who have individuals that were hunter-gatherers as little as a decade ago) or hoarding your shit from other peasants.

I'm not a communist, and never suggested that I was, property rights and such are irrelevant to this.

It was related to human nature, read the chain of posts.

They're the entire discussion, since we are talking about the change between hunter gatherer societies and farming societies on a social level, particularly (From what I can see) the sharing of goods on personal and group level.

But I just showed that human nature hasn't actually changed on a basic level.

My hypothesis is the exact reason why they do is because a small number of ideologues become angry that everyone else doesn't act the way they want so they impose order from above

This eventually ends up with the leaders turning on each other, unable to fathom each other's subconscious rejection of communist dogma in their personal actions

okay 'unconqerable' is kinda inviting reality to prove me wrong, but you see how i am proposing an alternative to an established military

a judicial system might work within the context of direct democracy, is the cops and military that must be done away with. you think people cannot live without them because if people realized otherwise the ruling elite would pretty quickly have a severe problem on their hands, namely that the population would no longer depend on them for their idea of safety.

this can be solved by not trying to come up with solutions for everything on a national level. agricultural syndicates will deal with agricultural issues on a local basis, industrial syndicates will come up with solutions for industrial issues, conflicts between syndicates can be resolved with the mediation of other syndicates.

as i said, national conventions are rare and national decisions are only taken when absolutley necessary, so the kind of majority decisions that shaft certian sections of society are avoided as much as possible.

Just because you prefer it as a two sided argument doesn't meant that there aren't other positions.

And 'property rights' however you define them are just a social construct, rather than an aspect of human nature,

>you think people cannot live without them because if people realized otherwise the ruling elite would pretty quickly have a severe problem on their hands, namely that the population would no longer depend on them for their idea of safety
Allow me to explain: If you are the only thing standing between you, your family, your shit and the hordes of people that want your shit, you aren't going to stop them. The gun is the great equalizer, but also the great dictator and you just gave one to everyone. You talk about abolishing personal property, and to each their own, but the second you get a collective of people who decide they want something from another collective of people/individual there's nothing to stop them. Your little fantasy state will either devolve into civil war or a lawless hellhole within minutes.

I doubt we're talking about that same thing.

>My hypothesis is the exact reason why they do is because a small number of ideologues become angry that everyone else doesn't act the way they want so they impose order from above
which is exactly what a system of direct democracy based on local syndicates avoids. There are now powerful individual offices for said ideologues to hold and use to implement their solutions from above.

they can become as angry as they want with how people act, but because the system is based on direct democracy they cannot counteract or fight against the popular will.

though i would temper that with the idea that syndicates are all local, so we're not talking about some grand national 'popular will' as if everyone thinks the same, but just people in given areas having direct control of their lives

Then would these Syndicates not compete with each other for the goods being used in this society? We can assume you wouldn't suppose that somehow there would be unlimited goods in an area, and since multiple industries make use of the same goods, they would compete with each other, most likely at each others detriment.

You guys said that human nature has changed. It hasn't on any fundamental level. The nature of humanity as a society has changed, but human nature has not. I gave examples as to this being the case. If that does not clear up my point, I don't know what you people are looking for. I was just giving historical background that human nature is human nature.

we kill everyone over the age of 5, we burn the buildings, books, everything man created

The time frame you're thinking of might have had minimal change in human nature, but to deny the potential, let alone the slow yet continuous change seems to indicate a misunderstanding of evolution.

I don't think he's serious in all honesty. He mentioned he's a stemfag, so he probably just read a few wiki articles and based his entire historical view on that.

>hordes of people that want your shit
clealry there is a large mob of bandits and thieves for every normal family, oh wait, there isnt, only small portion of the population commit crime regularly and the police aren't great at stopping them to begin with. furthermore in a society where we dont ahve to maintain scarcity of work and low wages because of a capitlaist system of exploitation, everyone can be provided with a job and fair pay, removing economic motivations for crime to begin with.

>You talk about abolishing personal property
abolishing private property, there is an important difference between the two

>but the second you get a collective of people who decide they want something from another collective of people/individual there's nothing to stop them
except the fact that everyone has guns, so any kind of theft or coercion is going to run into serious armed opposition. further to that, if one syndicate attacks another it stands to reason all other local syndicates will intervene on the side of the attacked syndicate, protecting it and preventing this banditry.

here is where we would see the free market at play, and before any of you asshats say im just reintroducing capitalism, look up the difference between a free market and capitalism. when a resource is scarce, and its scarcity cannot be alleviated by other syndicates helping those who produce it to relieve production, then the resource would have to be distributed on a free market basis to the syndicates who need it, but tempered with the advice of other syndicates to ensure one industry does not use all of the scarce resource, and subject to a national convention decision if serious problems with its distribution arise.

the whole point of this is to avoid central planning which is both horrendously inefficient and creates opportunities for individuals to horde power.

>There are now powerful individual offices for said ideologues to hold and use to implement their solutions from above.
meant to say:
There are no powerful individual offices for said ideologues to hold and use to implement their solutions from above.

While I agree with many of your points, I ask why couldn't a free market society just form and syndicalist set up shop within it using their own capital and voluntarily living in their communal society, instead of forcing the running interest of society at large to be syndicalist?

>The time frame you're thinking of might have had minimal change in human nature
We're talking a time frame of at LEAST 4000 years and human nature remained static at a fundamental level across the globe. That's somewhere in the ballpark of 80 generations. You see microevolution in other species well before that. Even then, the reality of the situation is that human nature isn't solely human nature but nature itself. When things are lean, humans are extremely selfish except to their offspring and other immediate family. When things are fat, humans skim their personal wants off the top and share only the spoils. The same goes for any animal. What you're asking of humanity is a change of not just human nature but of nature itself. Good luck.

>further to that, if one syndicate attacks another it stands to reason all other local syndicates will intervene on the side of the attacked syndicate, protecting it and preventing this banditry
Name one time when one state was attacked and every other state intervened on their behalf.

>4000 years
>microevolution

As a bio fag, you should know that it's the generational count that matters and not solely the number of years. Generally speaking, you get microevolution on species level at 50 generations or so. We're at roughly 80 generations since our first continuous civilizations. We haven't seen any macroevolution of humanity over the last 4000 years.