I am a Marxist, Anti-Theist/"Militant" Atheist. I believe in using Socialism as a temporary transitionary stage to eventually achieve Communism, a stateless, classless, moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production and production for need instead of profit. I believe that religion is the opiate of the masses and a tool used by the ruling classes to force people to behave a certain way and believe that their current suffering will eventually pay off, religion punishes natural desires and emotions such as pride, envy and lust, all natural emotions.
We, humanity, aren't ready for communism. We may never be.
Pride is the worse of what is wrong with a lot of people.
Oh, and welcome.
Welcome to our little band of heathens.
I´m not a marxist myself, though I consider myself to be a socialist.
Socialism for me. Communism can be corrupted and usually is, just like democracy and capitalism. But any ism needs to be handled intelligently.
Quote from: SGOS on January 03, 2022, 08:49:51 AM
Socialism for me. Communism can be corrupted and usually is, just like democracy and capitalism. But any ism needs to be handled intelligently.
How could Communism be corrupted? Communism involves a stateless, classless and moneyless society. The nations which you might call "Communist" were only Socialist, in the Soviet Union's case, State-Socialist and Marxist-Leninist, Marxism-Leninism commonly being incorrectly and often oxymoronically referred to as "communism" despite being Socialism, State-Socialism. So what you mean perhaps is that Socialism has often been corrupted, which most of the time is just nonsense from ignorant journalists and other such individuals who spread right-wing lies and biased information about Socialist nations often containing highly inaccurate information with no proof at all, they attempt to rewrite history and portray nations such as the Soviet Union negatively despite the facts that contradict.
I just want people to leave me the fuck alone. Where does that put me?
Welcome, ProletarianBanner!
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 03, 2022, 11:11:22 AM
How could Communism be corrupted? Communism involves a stateless, classless and moneyless society. The nations which you might call "Communist" were only Socialist, in the Soviet Union's case, State-Socialist and Marxist-Leninist, Marxism-Leninism commonly being incorrectly and often oxymoronically referred to as "communism" despite being Socialism, State-Socialism. So what you mean perhaps is that Socialism has often been corrupted, which most of the time is just nonsense from ignorant journalists and other such individuals who spread right-wing lies and biased information about Socialist nations often containing highly inaccurate information with no proof at all, they attempt to rewrite history and portray nations such as the Soviet Union negatively despite the facts that contradict.
I put communism in the same basket as I do other utopia type of govt. Capitalism, democracy, republics, and such, do not exist anywhere or anywhen in a 'pure' form. The best govt. are made up of a blend of many 'isms'.
Stateless, classless and moneyless societies are a pipe dream. What do you do with the people that won't contribute? Not those that can't. Those who can but will not. Do they get to suck the stateless tit for free, or do their classless neighbors take them out back and shoot them in head? If the former, what happens when enough people opt for the free ride that those willing to work can't produce enough to provide for everyone?
Who decides what gets produced? Who decides how it is distributed?
Who decides who does what? We can't all be doctors or engineers and nobody actually wants to clean the toilets.
Go forth and poe no mo.
Welcome.
I have a better question. What do we do when the majority of the youth really does not care about criminality to have what they want? Distribution of wealth wasn't something we often talked about at that age. World didn't seem this hopeless and fucked up without the social media. Can you imagine being 19-20 years old today?
Somebody said something like: "There can't be that many successful criminals because there are no way near that clever people in the world. I don't know if laugh or cry to this. :lol:
Capitalism has greed and greed-motivated innovation working for it. That's why communism ends up being a capitalism of extremes but for upper class "comrades" only. Thus, the Soviets and Chinese resorted to reverse engineering and spying to get their technology.
Quote from: Cassia on January 04, 2022, 02:25:07 PM
Capitalism has greed and greed-motivated innovation working for it. That's why communism ends up being a capitalism of extremes but for upper class "comrades" only. Thus, the Soviets and Chinese resorted to reverse engineering and spying to get their technology.
Communism hasn't ended up becoming anything for anyone because Communism has not been reached by a nation as it involves a stateless, classless, moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production. Those nations were only Socialist, more specifically Marxist-Leninist, State-Socialist.
Quote from: Cassia on January 04, 2022, 02:25:07 PM
Capitalism has greed and greed-motivated innovation working for it. That's why communism ends up being a capitalism of extremes but for upper class "comrades" only. Thus, the Soviets and Chinese resorted to reverse engineering and spying to get their technology.
Socialism has done many good things for the poor. Socialism has improved standards of living, quality of life, literacy, education, healthcare, rights for minorities, etc. Socialism has provided universal healthcare, free housing and improved caloric intake as well as lifespan.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 04, 2022, 03:15:42 PM
Socialism has done many good things for the poor. Socialism has improved standards of living, quality of life, literacy, education, healthcare, rights for minorities, etc. Socialism has provided universal healthcare, free housing and improved caloric intake as well as lifespan.
I am in favor of a social democracy, Nordic style. Some semblances of a free market system without the state controlling production or deciding your career, based grade school aptitude tests. Big difference between hard-core communism and democratic socialism however much of the right-wing conservative cohort would disagree.
Communism involves a stateless, classless, moneyless society as I have previously explained.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 04, 2022, 03:15:42 PM
Socialism has done many good things for the poor. Socialism has improved standards of living, quality of life, literacy, education, healthcare, rights for minorities, etc. Socialism has provided universal healthcare, free housing and improved caloric intake as well as lifespan.
To a large extent, I agree with all of what you said. And many on this site do too. I don't think communism is possible--too ideal. Same with democracy and capitalism, as well. Pure anything is simply too ideal and will always fail.
Quote from: Cassia on January 04, 2022, 05:01:10 PM
I am in favor of a social democracy, Nordic style. Some semblances of a free market system without the state controlling production or deciding your career, based grade school aptitude tests. Big difference between hard-core communism and democratic socialism however much of the right-wing conservative cohort would disagree.
Social Democracy is a flawed and naïve concept, Capitalism and Socialism can NOT coexist. Social Democracies still have all the problems of Capitalism, they still have the exploitation that is inherent in a Capitalist system and the wage slavery, they just slightly alleviate and hide those problems, but they are still present. Workers are still not being fully entitled to the fruits of their labor and the Capitalist still extracts surplus value and the workers are not entitled to reap what they sow, this is within a Social Democracy.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 04, 2022, 05:06:16 PM
To a large extent, I agree with all of what you said. And many on this site do too. I don't think communism is possible--too ideal. Same with democracy and capitalism, as well. Pure anything is simply too ideal and will always fail.
Communism differs from the Utopian Socialism that had existed before Marx, in the sense that it is scientific. It is possible to eventually achieve if we can first achieve a Socialist world, we already have an abundance of material wealth and certain conditions required to bring forth Socialist revolutions to eventually make way for the achievement of a worldwide Communist Society.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 04, 2022, 05:04:35 PM
Communism involves a stateless, classless, moneyless society as I have previously explained.
Sounds great. Are you the party leader? What do we do with our bitcoin? Directly to you or do we need a big war first?
Quote from: Cassia on January 04, 2022, 05:43:54 PM
Sounds great. Are you the party leader? What do we do with our bitcoin? Directly to you or do we need a big war first?
I am not a party leader of any sorts, nor even a member. You don't have to be a member of a Communist Party or any political party for that matter to be a Communist, you just have to have the right ideals. Those countries which you erroneously refer to as having been "Communist" were only socialist and thus merely in the transitionary stage between capitalism and communism. The type of Socialism having been Marxism-Leninism and State-Socialism.
Quote from: Cassia on January 04, 2022, 05:43:54 PM
Sounds great. Are you the party leader? What do we do with our bitcoin? Directly to you or do we need a big war first?
Any form of big war involved in a Socialist revolution is necessary because the rich don't just sit back and permit you to vote away their wealth and strip them of their power.
The way you're describing it, Communism sounds like the ideal society as explained by a lazy 5 year old.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on January 05, 2022, 08:50:03 PM
The way you're describing it, Communism sounds like the ideal society as explained by a lazy 5 year old.
Well, I am describing Communism accurately, it involves the withering away of state as Marx and Engels word it and it is classified as stateless, classless, and moneyless.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on January 05, 2022, 08:50:03 PM
The way you're describing it, Communism sounds like the ideal society as explained by a lazy 5 year old.
If I were hypothetically a five year old, I'd be quite the intelligent one.
Quote from: Cassia on January 04, 2022, 05:01:10 PM
I am in favor of a social democracy, Nordic style. Some semblances of a free market system without the state controlling production or deciding your career, based grade school aptitude tests. Big difference between hard-core communism and democratic socialism however much of the right-wing conservative cohort would disagree.
The concept of a free market is absurd and not truly free as it is largely dominated by a minority of corporations and wealthy.
If you cant change the world, change your world.
I have a little farmyard far from eyes in a relatively sparsely populated area.
It can feed about ten people who collaborately work on daily routine. It takes 3 hours of work per capita.
Just as how I cannot scratcing my back, in the same way I cannot provide myself with my some basic needs and I need others to collaborate.
Think of a key and a lock, and their harmony. Thats what fits for a human.
Perfect communism. No ownership or kinda bond or commitment like marriage, after all, marriage is a commercial agreement, rather than something else it indicates for the society. Forget about the society, we are marginal.
Human nature is such that it we all believe our contribution to an effort is always just a little more than the next persons. It only takes a few days for one to think another is not properly holding their own. True communism must have a people better at their own psychology than most are, in order to understand that all efforts are somewhat subjective in as much as all people are incapable largely of putting forth the same effort.
A stateless, moneyless, classless society cannot work as long as humans possess a level of ego. But without ego, perhaps we don’t get new ideas, we continue with whatever is working even if it is less productive because to suggest new ideas may be seen as an attempt to improve one’s standing in the community by some. True such communal thinking requires a level of sacrifice of ideas, ego and innovation at the risk of fracturing a delicate balance of people trying to be equal at all levels. Such a community can work for only a short time as those whose ideas may improve the community may be met with resistance, thus the idea maker grows disillusioned at what they consider a wasteful or poorly conceived method of production. Then they leave. One by one.
I’m sorry but I’m only sharing what I work for with people that are close to me and I feel deserve the fruits of my labor. I’m a firm believer in property rights and what’s mine is mine and nobody should have the right to take that from me.
Quote from: Dantalion on January 25, 2022, 09:15:08 AMI’m sorry but I’m only sharing what I work for with people that are close to me and I feel deserve the fruits of my labor. I’m a firm believer in property rights and what’s mine is mine and nobody should have the right to take that from me.
That's a very, very old idea and one that can only be fully practiced in solitude (Rousseau had some words on that). Suffice it to say that communities require some level of communal-ness.
Quote from: Dantalion on January 25, 2022, 09:15:08 AM
I’m sorry but I’m only sharing what I work for with people that are close to me and I feel deserve the fruits of my labor. I’m a firm believer in property rights and what’s mine is mine and nobody should have the right to take that from me.
You realize how ignorant that sounds? Under Capitalism you are NOT entitled to the fruits of your labour and it is the Capitalist who takes that away from you, and since you believe in property rights, most likely referring to private property such as factories, you believe it should be a rich minority who own those factories instead of the community? You foolishly sell your labour to a Capitalist for a meager wage whilst they make millions and billions.
Quote from: aitm on January 08, 2022, 08:36:50 AM
Human nature is such that it we all believe our contribution to an effort is always just a little more than the next persons. It only takes a few days for one to think another is not properly holding their own. True communism must have a people better at their own psychology than most are, in order to understand that all efforts are somewhat subjective in as much as all people are incapable largely of putting forth the same effort.
A stateless, moneyless, classless society cannot work as long as humans possess a level of ego. But without ego, perhaps we don’t get new ideas, we continue with whatever is working even if it is less productive because to suggest new ideas may be seen as an attempt to improve one’s standing in the community by some. True such communal thinking requires a level of sacrifice of ideas, ego and innovation at the risk of fracturing a delicate balance of people trying to be equal at all levels. Such a community can work for only a short time as those whose ideas may improve the community may be met with resistance, thus the idea maker grows disillusioned at what they consider a wasteful or poorly conceived method of production. Then they leave. One by one.
It is not human nature to be greedy, it's just that we live within an economic system that rewards greed. Primitive forms of Communism have existed in the past such as in hunter-gatherer societies where they lived and worked together, there were no classes, people were inherently bisexual, there was no private property, no patriarchy, etc.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 25, 2022, 10:44:54 AM
It is not human nature to be greedy,
I would disagree.
Quotepeople were inherently bisexual,
what the hell does sexuality have to do with any of this? There have been homo's since erectus........LOLOLOL.....sometimes I kill myself.
Quote from: aitm on January 25, 2022, 11:29:44 AM
I would disagree. what the hell does sexuality have to do with any of this? There have been homo's since erectus........LOLOLOL.....sometimes I kill myself.
Share the wealth, share the love, aitm.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 25, 2022, 10:44:54 AMIt is not human nature to be greedy
I think we're close to pinpointing why communism failed as an economic system.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 26, 2022, 12:23:25 AM
I think we're close to pinpointing why communism failed as an economic system.
Communism had not been achieved, Socialist nations had failed due to revisionism.
(https://www.scotsman.com/images-e.jpimedia.uk/imagefetch/http://www.scotsman.com/webimage/Prestige.Item.1.40835351!image/3508542223.jpg?&width=990)
Quote from: aitm on January 25, 2022, 11:29:44 AM
I would disagree. what the hell does sexuality have to do with any of this? There have been homo's since erectus........LOLOLOL.....sometimes I kill myself.
You would disagree, your disagreement doesn't mean anything, the truth is that long ago there were classless, stateless, and moneyless societies that had existed in a primative form of Communism, but not full Communism as that requires an industrialized proletariat, but back in these hunter-gatherer societies there were no classes, there was no patriarchy, there was no greed.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 26, 2022, 09:59:02 AM
... but back in these hunter-gatherer societies there were no classes, there was no patriarchy, there was no greed.
God Damn, but you are stupid if you believe that.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 26, 2022, 12:23:25 AM
I think we're close to pinpointing why communism failed as an economic system.
Communism involves a gift economy, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Quote from: the_antithesis on January 26, 2022, 10:00:52 AM
God Damn, but you are stupid if you believe that.
Goddamn you are quite ignorant if you believe not.
Quote from: the_antithesis on January 26, 2022, 10:00:52 AM
God Damn, but you are stupid if you believe that.
Patriarchy and greed had started to develop when society transitioned to the period of slavery and then increased during feudalism and Capitalism.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 26, 2022, 10:05:16 AM
Patriarchy and greed had started to develop when society transitioned to the period of slavery and then increased during feudalism and Capitalism.
Maybe--can you give any citations? Here is a brief article that talks about this subject.
Anthropological, archaeological and evolutionary psychological evidence suggests that most prehistoric societies were relatively egalitarian,[6] and that patriarchal social structures did not develop until many years after the end of the Pleistocene epoch, following social and technological developments such as agriculture and domestication.[23][24][25] According to Robert M. Strozier, historical research has not yet found a specific "initiating event".[26] Gerda Lerner asserts that there was no single event, and documents that patriarchy as a social system arose in different parts of the world at different times.[27] Some scholars point to about six thousand years ago (4000 BCE), when the concept of fatherhood took root, as the beginning of the spread of patriarchy.[28][29]
Marxist theory, as articulated mainly by Friedrich Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, assigns the origin of patriarchy to the emergence of private property, which has traditionally been controlled by men. In this view, men directed household production and sought to control women in order to ensure the passing of family property to their own (male) offspring, while women were limited to household labor and producing children.[16][19][30] Lerner disputes this idea, arguing that patriarchy emerged before the development of class-based society and the concept of private property.[2][page needed]
Domination by men of women is found in the Ancient Near East as far back as 3100 BCE, as are restrictions on a woman's reproductive capacity and exclusion from "the process of representing or the construction of history".[26] According to some researchers, with the appearance of the Hebrews, there is also "the exclusion of woman from the God-humanity covenant".[26][27]
The archaeologist Marija Gimbutas argues that waves of kurgan-building invaders from the Ukrainian steppes into the early agricultural cultures of Old Europe in the Aegean, the Balkans and southern Italy instituted male hierarchies that led to the rise of patriarchy in Western society.[31] Steven Taylor argues that the rise of patriarchal domination was associated with the appearance of socially stratified hierarchical polities, institutionalised violence and the separated individuated ego associated with a period of climatic stress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy
Evidently communism has never existed at any time. If there has ever been a communistic society in the history of this planet, could you direct me to when and where it existed? Seems to me your brand of communism is simply a pipe-dream; one that can never be achieved.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 26, 2022, 10:37:05 AM
Maybe--can you give any citations? Here is a brief article that talks about this subject.
Anthropological, archaeological and evolutionary psychological evidence suggests that most prehistoric societies were relatively egalitarian,[6] and that patriarchal social structures did not develop until many years after the end of the Pleistocene epoch, following social and technological developments such as agriculture and domestication.[23][24][25] According to Robert M. Strozier, historical research has not yet found a specific "initiating event".[26] Gerda Lerner asserts that there was no single event, and documents that patriarchy as a social system arose in different parts of the world at different times.[27] Some scholars point to about six thousand years ago (4000 BCE), when the concept of fatherhood took root, as the beginning of the spread of patriarchy.[28][29]
Marxist theory, as articulated mainly by Friedrich Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, assigns the origin of patriarchy to the emergence of private property, which has traditionally been controlled by men. In this view, men directed household production and sought to control women in order to ensure the passing of family property to their own (male) offspring, while women were limited to household labor and producing children.[16][19][30] Lerner disputes this idea, arguing that patriarchy emerged before the development of class-based society and the concept of private property.[2][page needed]
Domination by men of women is found in the Ancient Near East as far back as 3100 BCE, as are restrictions on a woman's reproductive capacity and exclusion from "the process of representing or the construction of history".[26] According to some researchers, with the appearance of the Hebrews, there is also "the exclusion of woman from the God-humanity covenant".[26][27]
The archaeologist Marija Gimbutas argues that waves of kurgan-building invaders from the Ukrainian steppes into the early agricultural cultures of Old Europe in the Aegean, the Balkans and southern Italy instituted male hierarchies that led to the rise of patriarchy in Western society.[31] Steven Taylor argues that the rise of patriarchal domination was associated with the appearance of socially stratified hierarchical polities, institutionalised violence and the separated individuated ego associated with a period of climatic stress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy
Evidently communism has never existed at any time. If there has ever been a communistic society in the history of this planet, could you direct me to when and where it existed? Seems to me your brand of communism is simply a pipe-dream; one that can never be achieved.
Not full Communism, but primitive Communism in hunter-gatherer societies which were egalitarian.
Oh. They're still here.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 26, 2022, 10:42:19 AM
Not full Communism, but primitive Communism in hunter-gatherer societies which were egalitarian.
You keep saying that. Can you give any examples? I don't think that that is accurate. I don't think hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian.
If greed is not human nature, then who taught it to us?
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 26, 2022, 12:17:46 PM
You keep saying that. Can you give any examples? I don't think that that is accurate. I don't think hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian.
From studies of modern isolated hunter-gatherer tribes, the evidence is they were; it makes sense too, as all members of the tribe would have been required to carry their weight and, because of their small numbers, unity is extremely necessary for survival. They are essentially one large family, even if it doesn't necessarily fit our model of a family, and you can see this in their mythology with tribes generally believing they are all descendent of one person. We still have this in the Judeo-tradition, with all mankind coming from Adam/Eve and then Moses.
But that doesn't mean that all hunter-gatherers are peaceful, or that it is an inherent trait of humanity to behave this way; it's survival of the fittest... the tribes that worked together are more likely to survive than the ones that have a lot of internal strife. Once a civilization gets large enough that if x-amount of people no longer contribute to society it won't cause any large-scale damage you almost uniformly see chieftains and a warrior class emerge, meaning that it is also human nature that once people extend outside their tribe/family, greed and conflict is 100% human nature.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways)
I think I've said it before, but in my opinion no civilization should be larger than a city-state; at most a county, because the larger a society is the more expansionist and corrupt it tends to become + the individual loses any real representation or decision-making power.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 26, 2022, 12:17:46 PM
You keep saying that. Can you give any examples? I don't think that that is accurate. I don't think hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian.
You know, even if she's right about that, if that kind of society is so great, why did we change it? Obviously, it sucks balls. So, even if she right about these egalitarian societies and
even if she's able to convince the whole world to adopt her definition of communism, it will be abandoned because it ultimately doesn't work.
Quote from: the_antithesis on January 26, 2022, 12:39:29 PM
You know, even if she's right about that, if that kind of society is so great, why did we change it? Obviously, it sucks balls. So, even if she right about these egalitarian societies and even if she's able to convince the whole world to adopt her definition of communism, it will be abandoned because it ultimately doesn't work.
Listen bud, it's not my definition of Communism, it's the true definition of full Communism which involves the "withering away of state" as Engels worded it and a gift economy "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as Marx had said. It's just in the western world people inaccurately and quite often refer to Socialism as Communism, despite the fact they had not achieved it and were merely Socialist that's why those nations and their leaders had proclaimed to be building Socialism. You can not guarantee that Communism would not work, if you went back into the feudal time period and told them about Capitalism they would most likely laugh at you and call it impossible, just because you think it's impossible doesn't mean it is, especially when due to the inherent contradictions within Capitalism we start to see a new era of Socialism and then eventually after that and its conflicts, the achievement of Communism.
Quote from: the_antithesis on January 26, 2022, 12:39:29 PM
You know, even if she's right about that, if that kind of society is so great, why did we change it?
Advancements in technology (primarily agriculture) allowed people to contribute less to society while not causing significant damage to society as well as allowed tribes to expand far beyond the family units that held them pretty tightly together.
You suddenly need less people to generate food while simultaneously having a massive boon in population. Like evolutionary traits, not all progress is necessarily positive... or rather not all aspects of that progress will be positive. And like evolutionary traits, cultural evolution has only one goal, reproduction.
And of course once a society is, say, 5,000 people strong... why wouldn't they see the lands of tribal people's and say to themselves, "We out number them 500-1, why not just take it for ourselves", meaning the tribal societies will die off not just to evolution and people migrating to cities, but the cities using violence to kill them off.
I would argue neither is great... they both have their positives and their negatives.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 26, 2022, 10:05:16 AM
Patriarchy and greed had started to develop when society transitioned to the period of slavery and then increased during feudalism and Capitalism.
What a theistic expression. Humans are animals. Our basic needs, desires and behavioral patterns can be explained, and tracked back to their evolutionary and sometimes even direct genetic roots. Greed has always existed along with every kind of other human trait.
There is no such matriarchy -or patriarchy for that matter- to shape society into homogenic (?) system, some -archy place back in ancient world. People were really busy trying to survive. Average life span was around 30. Women kept dying like flies giving birth. The big problem is that they don't anymore. That's how we got here. The urgent part of the big problem of over population is that it is very recent kind of past. Before building socialist utopias, you need to find place for these human animals because they keep breeding.
Centralisation of arms and administration, and chasing resources with that make life easier. That's the transition you talk about. And guess what? The soldiers were men. They still are. Female combat troops are a political construct and they should exist. It doesn't change anything.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 26, 2022, 02:38:25 PM
What a theistic expression. Humans are animals. Our basic needs, desires and behavioral patterns can be explained, and tracked back to their evolutionary and sometimes even direct genetic roots. Greed has always existed along with every kind of other human trait.
There is no such matriarchy -or patriarchy for that matter- to shape society into homogenic (?) system, some -archy place back in ancient world. People were really busy trying to survive. Average life span was around 30. Women kept dying like flies giving birth. The big problem is that they don't anymore. That's how we got here. The urgent part of the big problem of over population is that it is very recent kind of past. Before building socialist utopias, you need to find place for these human animals because they keep breeding.
Centralisation of arms and administration, and chasing resources with that make life easier. That's the transition you talk about. And guess what? The soldiers were men. They still are. Female combat troops are a political construct and they should exist. It doesn't change anything.
Listen pal, my expression was not in any way theistic. There is indeed a patriarchy within society! You have misinterpreted my points.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 26, 2022, 11:54:32 AM
Oh. They're still here.
Listen screw you, why would you think I wouldn't be here?!
Quote from: Shiranu on January 26, 2022, 12:30:23 PM
If greed is not human nature, then who taught it to us?
I wasn't saying, implying, nor attempting to imply that it was taught as if by some nonsensical deity, it was rather something that developed, this doesn't mean it's natural.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 26, 2022, 11:54:32 AM
Oh. They're still here.
You tryin' to imply I was or should be banned?
Quote from: Shiranu on January 26, 2022, 12:37:50 PM
From studies of modern isolated hunter-gatherer tribes, the evidence is they were; it makes sense too, as all members of the tribe would have been required to carry their weight and, because of their small numbers, unity is extremely necessary for survival. ...
That sounds like an exaggerated romanticized notion, imho. People in small groups can learn to act according to the benefit of the family, and be greedy, ambitious... Especially when survival is in question which was often. They are not stupid. That's why human culture invented politics and social roles, key roles, side roles...etc.
Do you have a link or some source?
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 26, 2022, 02:43:44 PM
Listen pal, my expression was not in any way theistic. There is indeed a patriarchy within society! You have misinterpreted my points.
Yes, it is theistic. It suggests humans have learned to be greedy in some artificial way. ?
QuoteThere is indeed a patriarchy within society! You have misinterpreted my points.
Yeah it is nauseating. Men do not like it either. Human culture = Mad Max Fury Road in a nutshell. And then look at socialists. We are doomed.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 26, 2022, 03:01:06 PM
Yes, it is theistic. It suggests humans have learned to be greedy in some artificial way. ?
Yeah it is nauseating. Men do not like it either. Human culture = Mad Max Fury Road in a nutshell. And then look at socialists. We are doomed.
No, it is not theistic dipstick, something can be developed without coming from a deity.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 26, 2022, 03:01:06 PM
Yes, it is theistic. It suggests humans have learned to be greedy in some artificial way. ?
Yeah it is nauseating. Men do not like it either. Human culture = Mad Max Fury Road in a nutshell. And then look at socialists. We are doomed.
Look at ignorant bootlickers to the Capitalist ruling class and the bourgeoisie, individuals who are brainwashed by them and foolishly sell their labour to them for a meager wage whilst the Capitalists make billions, that is what dooms humanity and the planet as a whole especially as Capitalism leads to immens overproduction and Under-Consumption and pollution as a result.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 26, 2022, 03:01:06 PM
Yes, it is theistic. It suggests humans have learned to be greedy in some artificial way. ?
Yeah it is nauseating. Men do not like it either. Human culture = Mad Max Fury Road in a nutshell. And then look at socialists. We are doomed.
I'm not a Socialist, I'm a Communist because my end goal isn't Socialism but the eventual achievement of Communism and a Communist-Society and world through Socialism as a temporary transitory stage.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 26, 2022, 02:51:15 PM
That sounds like an exaggerated romanticized notion, imho. People in small groups can learn to act according to the benefit of the family, and be greedy, ambitious... Especially when survival is in question which was often. They are not stupid. That's why human culture invented politics and social roles, key roles, side roles...etc.
Do you have a link or some source?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 26, 2022, 02:48:25 PM
I wasn't saying, implying, nor attempting to imply that it was taught as if by some nonsensical deity, it was rather something that developed, this doesn't mean it's natural.
So it developed unnaturally?
Quote from: Shiranu on January 26, 2022, 03:23:19 PM
So it developed unnaturally?
I'm saying it's not human nature... As in it's not inherent, it's not instinct or anything of the sort.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 26, 2022, 03:22:57 PM
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways
This article---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy--dovetails with the one above.
Apparently what we call a 'family unit' helped end the egalitarian ways of the hunter/gatherers and helped usher in the era of patriarchy that we are in now.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 26, 2022, 12:17:46 PM
You keep saying that. Can you give any examples? I don't think that that is accurate. I don't think hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian.
I guess I'll have to walk that back. Apparently most, if not all, hunter-gatherer groups were egalitarian. Learning is fun. :)
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 26, 2022, 12:47:25 PM
as Engels worded it and a gift economy "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as Marx had said.
My problem with this saying, is that I think it is impossible to determine. Who or what defines what my 'needs' are. Many would say that my computer would not fill a 'need'. But I think it does. So, who determines what my needs are??? And who decides what my 'abilities' are? What if I was good at building widgits, yet hated doing the work. Yet my society has a great use for them--would I be told to keep making them? If so, who would be telling me this. I don't think a 'gift' society is workable.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 26, 2022, 02:44:33 PM
Listen screw you, why would you think I wouldn't be here?!
Because you talk about only one thing. You don't contribute to any threads other than this one, the one you made to complain about this forum being "stupid," and any other threads you could use as a platform for pro-Communist talking points. How long can this go on before you get bored and move on?
Quote from: Shiranu on January 26, 2022, 12:30:23 PM
If greed is not human nature, then who taught it to us?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ufh8fctr3o
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 26, 2022, 04:42:43 PM
I'm saying it's not human nature... As in it's not inherent, it's not instinct or anything of the sort.
You know those people who say 'organic' and 'energy' 50 times a day? What they think 'organic' is like what you think 'natural' is. Do you follow that? Human nature is what humans develop under any circumstances. If they can develop and do that, it is in their nature. If you think humans have some set of defined 'natural' traits with boxes to check, you either do not understand evolution or have some distorted, idealistic vision of humans which of the latter by the way is very common among in socialists.
Calling an adult, 'communist' is absurd. It is like calling a child 'Jedi' because he thinks it's awesome! It's either socialist or Jedi. Pick one.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 26, 2022, 03:22:57 PM
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways
Thanks. Yeah, I remember something like this. I'm reluctant about this. First, because there is something I recognise here. We live this situation with early modern Europe all the time guys, hunter gatherers? You kidding? It sounds a bit positively anachronistic to me. Also a few things poke my eye. In the first place, why do we assume that what is egalitarian for us is also the same to people who lived in survival mod tens of thousands years ago, under completely different circumstances?
See, egalitarianism is very important to us and we have arrived here in a very long time with a very hard process. Awareness of the past, present and future. And that things can be changed for people for today and tomorrow for the better because people can do this. Most importantly what happens when there is no egalitarian structure or even a fight, push about this. But just around the second corner back with a few hundred years, people can't even imagine this even though they are drowning in shit. We know that people living in the Middle Ages basically thought that the past was the same as the present they live, and expected the future to be so. It's not wrong to say that until the French Revolution, people didn't know that the future was something that could be shaped by them. This process is actually a terrible shock, a painful crisis which we call enlightenment. E: the age part seemed too much while reading.
People living with cycles of nature, do not need an awareness like that. (Well, we can envy them.) See, there is a description of the expectation of how a person should be or behave - a common trait of old world human history- and this is actually the other way around saying there is rigidity and why not, it's about survival. We often confuse what is important for people living in some time in the past and what is important for us. Being egalitarian doesn't mean anything to people roughly back from 300 years ago -actually much less- which makes the egalitarian. The awareness makes it real. Social equality is a result of abstract thought in theory and ironically the hypermodern minds are the last to grasp that I feel.
Long story short, may be there is a need of another concept for what's meant as 'egalitarian' here. (Ironically, generally I'm strictly against creating new concepts.) Because it's copy pasting our understanding of that -and maybe also a bit of our longing- to the beautiful, symmetric simple and real natural life we fantasize. I mean just thinking about it is therapeutic, can you deny that? Otherwise, it is just death from anything in a week.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 27, 2022, 12:49:03 AM
You know those people who say 'organic' and 'energy' 50 times a day? What they think 'organic' is like what you think 'natural' is. Do you follow that? Human nature is what humans develop under any circumstances. If they can develop and do that, it is in their nature. If you think humans have some set of defined 'natural' traits with boxes to check, you either do not understand evolution or have some distorted, idealistic vision of humans which of the latter by the way is very common among in socialists.
Calling an adult, 'communist' is absurd. It is like calling a child 'Jedi' because he thinks it's awesome! It's either socialist or Jedi. Pick one.
Listen bud, just because I do something doesn't mean it's common among leftists, I could argue such nonsense along with the use of logical fallacies is very common with supporters of Capitalism.
I am not a Socialist because I advocate for Communism, yes Socialism is used as a temporary transitory stage to achieve it, but it's not the end goal.
A lack of understanding of evolution is quite common with conservatives and the supporters of Capitalism.
Marxist professors do pretty well under capitalism as they send out their converts bursting with student loans and degrees that qualify them to work the Wendy's takeout window. They just know they deserve a better position; I am sure
Quote from: Cassia on January 27, 2022, 10:47:49 AM
Marxist professors do pretty well under capitalism as they send out their converts bursting with student loans and degrees that qualify them to work the Wendy's takeout window. They just know they deserve a better position; I am sure
So what if THEY do well under Capitalism, sure people in first-world nations, the individuals who aren't homeless or in poverty that is, have better qualities of life, but look at the people in third-world nations that are exploited by the first-world Imperialist superpowers and how they live in slums, starve, and don't have access to drinking water.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 27, 2022, 09:24:02 AMA lack of understanding of evolution is quite common with conservatives and the supporters of Capitalism.
I find it strange that the extremely relevant trait of religious fundamentalism was left out of that equation while the not particularly relevant trait of capitalism (literally almost everyone) was included.
QuoteQuote from: Cassia on Today at 10:47:49 AM
Marxist professors do pretty well under capitalism as they send out their converts bursting with student loans and degrees that qualify them to work the Wendy's takeout window. They just know they deserve a better position; I am sure
QuoteSo what if THEY do well under Capitalism, sure people in first-world nations, the individuals who aren't homeless or in poverty that is, have better qualities of life, but look at the people in third-world nations that are exploited by the first-world Imperialist superpowers and how they live in slums, starve, and don't have access to drinking water.
It is disappointing that thousands of college professors aren't revolting outright about the burden of higher education. Just minding their tenure while they instill cancel culture that just causes a backlash against liberalism. Filling students with false hope of change when they themselves put a fake front on the shitty system. I hate when I have to agree with conservatives on certain key points; being the pragmatist, a kid had a much better chance at a comfortable life earning a practical degree than earning a "just for learning" type degree and then campaigning for the entire economic system to change over for their benefit.
This conversation is exhausting because she doesn't listen.
Quote from: the_antithesis on January 27, 2022, 12:31:13 PM
This conversation is exhausting because she doesn't listen.
Neither do you...
To yourself, dear, and how poorly you're making your case. Because you aren't even trying to change your tact. You're only hammering on the same fucking, boring, fruitless points over and over again. And you don't even allow the thought that it might be you and you should change.
You're externalizing blame.
Congratulations.
You are a theist.
Quote from: the_antithesis on January 27, 2022, 12:37:14 PM
To yourself, dear, and how poorly you're making your case. Because you aren't even trying to change your tact. You're only hammering on the same fucking, boring, fruitless points over and over again. And you don't even allow the thought that it might be you and you should change.
You're externalizing blame.
Congratulations.
You are a theist.
Nope, I'm not a theist... That doesn't make me a theist dipstick. I don't participate in any religion, I don't believe in a holy deity...
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 27, 2022, 12:53:15 PMNope, I'm not a theist... That doesn't make me a theist dipstick. I don't participate in any religion, I don't believe in a holy deity...
Well, religions often operate with a founder who alone received special knowledge/enlightenment - as if he received it from on high - and founded a glorious religious movement destined to change the world. Next is a sort of messiah figure who will cast down evil and lead the chosen people to a glorious new future without strife or hardship. This messiah figure may be the object of a cult of personality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality) - adherents plaster his face everywhere, exaggerate his good qualities to ridiculous levels, and deny his bad qualities, usually portraying them as lies from their ideological enemies. Adherents usually have a holy text that they recite with little/no independent reasoning. Adherents also believe that one day, their religion will conquer the world, forever defeating/dominating its competition. Remind you of anything?
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 27, 2022, 01:56:13 PM
Well, religions often operate with a founder who alone received special knowledge/enlightenment - as if he received it from on high - and founded a glorious religious movement destined to change the world. Next is a sort of messiah figure who will cast down evil and lead the chosen people to a glorious new future without strife or hardship. This messiah figure may be the object of a cult of personality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality) - adherents plaster his face everywhere, exaggerate his good qualities to ridiculous levels, and deny his bad qualities, usually portraying them as lies from their ideological enemies. Adherents usually have a holy text that they recite with little/no independent reasoning. Adherents also believe that one day, their religion will conquer the world, forever defeating/dominating its competition. Remind you of anything?
Listen bud, an ideology or socio-economic system is not the same as a religion.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 27, 2022, 01:59:25 PMListen bud, an ideology or socio-economic system is not the same as a religion.
Right. If you do it correctly, no parallels can be reasonably made.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 27, 2022, 01:56:13 PM
Well, religions often operate with a founder who alone received special knowledge/enlightenment - as if he received it from on high - and founded a glorious religious movement destined to change the world. Next is a sort of messiah figure who will cast down evil and lead the chosen people to a glorious new future without strife or hardship. This messiah figure may be the object of a cult of personality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality) - adherents plaster his face everywhere, exaggerate his good qualities to ridiculous levels, and deny his bad qualities, usually portraying them as lies from their ideological enemies. Adherents usually have a holy text that they recite with little/no independent reasoning. Adherents also believe that one day, their religion will conquer the world, forever defeating/dominating its competition. Remind you of anything?
You all just develop cults of personality around your little billionaires who don't earn their wealth and gain it through the exploitation of the labour of others.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 27, 2022, 02:02:43 PMYou all just develop cults of personality around your little billionaires who don't earn their wealth and gain it through the exploitation of the labour of others.
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Oh man, that was a good one! If only you knew who I voted for in the primaries!
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 27, 2022, 02:06:40 PM
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Oh man, that was a good one! If only you knew who I voted for in the primaries!
Oh please, spare me your humour.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 27, 2022, 02:12:48 PM
Oh please, spare me your humour.
They say that all the time in the funny picture thread. :P
(https://i.imgur.com/PDLxB.gif)
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 27, 2022, 02:02:43 PM
You all just develop cults of personality around your little billionaires who don't earn their wealth and gain it through the exploitation of the labour of others.
This is your problem on this board. You paint all of us with the same broad strokes, putting ideologies, thoughts and opinion into our mouths without knowing what it is we think. You insist I love capitalism without knowing the first thing about what I think. You don't discuss your thoughts nor how/why you developed them. You simply make pronouncements and expect us to agree with them. What do you have against discussion?
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 27, 2022, 03:35:56 PM
This is your problem on this board. You paint all of us with the same broad strokes, putting ideologies, thoughts and opinion into our mouths without knowing what it is we think. You insist I love capitalism without knowing the first thing about what I think. You don't discuss your thoughts nor how/why you developed them. You simply make pronouncements and expect us to agree with them. What do you have against discussion?
I try to explain!
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 27, 2022, 03:35:56 PM
This is your problem on this board. You paint all of us with the same broad strokes, putting ideologies, thoughts and opinion into our mouths without knowing what it is we think. You insist I love capitalism without knowing the first thing about what I think. You don't discuss your thoughts nor how/why you developed them. You simply make pronouncements and expect us to agree with them. What do you have against discussion?
The eventual achievement of Communism would be the antithesis of Capitalism, it would be the solution and natural result of the contradictions inherent in Capitalism, but in order to achieve Communism, we would first have to go through Socialism as a temporary transitory stage.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 27, 2022, 03:45:08 PM
I try to explain!
I'm up for discussions, but not to have words put into my mouth. You do not know anything about what I think nor why I think that. I know what you believe, but not why you believe as you do.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 27, 2022, 03:45:08 PM
I try to explain!
Preaching and explaining aren't the same thing.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 26, 2022, 09:59:02 AM
, there was no greed.
Bullshit. You keep talking as if people were born as thoughtful caring adults. For Chris sake…we all start as infants ya know? And infant behavior has not changed. Once again I go back to a post similar nearly a month ago. The true nature of humans are found in the behavior of children. We teach them to share, we teach them to help, we teach them to cooperate. You’re focused on the end product and proclaiming such and such is true when it is most certainly not.