I’m not the original commenter but I agree with them and I see it like this: Under communism, you need people in power to make sure everything is “fair”, but human nature will lead many of these people to selfishly abuse their position.
You need organization, yes. What is “fair?” Why can’t there be democratic processes keeping these people in check? What does “human nature” have to do with this, does the local post office go rogue?
I understand that the basis of Capitalism is that it isn’t fair in any way, shape, or form, but why does that mean it’s better?
You are the perfect person to ask, because you claimed Communism cannot work because “power corrupts” and “human nature.” I am not saying you are a Capitalist. Your ideas regarding Marxism are immaterial and vibes-based, which is why I am trying to get you to take a Materialist stance.
Why does power corrupt? How can representatives be held accountable? What determines “human nature?”
Power itself does not corrupt. People generally act in their material interests, and in Capitalism, this is dominated by the profit motive, like all class society. The bourgeoisie are focused on making profit, no more and no less. The Capitalist State is molded by the class in power, ie the bourgeoisie, and thus serves the interests of Capital. In an alternative, collectivized system, these same dynamics would be abolished, with a different set of challenges taking their place, such as the question of allocating labor.
Representatives can be held accountable via democratic measures, ie a representative democracy. Worker councils and parliaments can handle coordination and check against corruption.
Human Nature is determined by material conditions. Humans are thought to be competitive naturally because Capitalism is competitive, even though the average worker does not care, only the bourgeoisie do. In different Modes of Production, “Human Nature” appeared very different. In primitive Communism, for example, Human Nature was cooperative and communal, class society arose from technological advancements like the agricultural revolution.
On the other hand it’s been about 20 years since I read the work of Marx and Weber. I had classes on social stratification, feminism, materialism, and conflict theory. I’m pretty rusty.
You make good points and ask great questions that I don’t have the answers to. Where I tend to focus in your post is at the end, where you rightly state that class society arose from the Neolithic revolution (agriculture basically)
How do we put the genie back in the bottle when we released it so very long ago? Let’s try looking at children. Education would certainly help, but can you teach empathy without the help of the parent(s)? Even if the parental figures teach empathy and structured education enforces these teachings, we come to secondary groups. This would be groups like the child’s friends or peers.They are considered more important to childhood development after a certain age (12? Not the same for everyone of course maybe an average). If the members of these secondary groups do not value empathy, the child who was taught it by their parental figures and enforced by education will begin to value it less.
I don’t know the answers. Believe me I want fully automated post-scarcity space communism. I really want it. I just can’t see the way there.
On the other hand it’s been about 20 years since I read the work of Marx and Weber. I had classes on social stratification, feminism, materialism, and conflict theory. I’m pretty rusty.
How do we put the genie back in the bottle when we released it so very long ago? Let’s try looking at children. Education would certainly help, but can you teach empathy without the help of the parent(s)? Even if the parental figures teach empathy and structured education enforces these teachings, we come to secondary groups. This would be groups like the child’s friends or peers.They are considered more important to childhood development after a certain age (12? Not the same for everyone of course maybe an average). If the members of these secondary groups do not value empathy, the child who was taught it by their parental figures and enforced by education will begin to value it less.
This is a very ideas-focused view of society. Largely, culture and values are shaped by Material Conditions amd Mode of Production. This is the concept of Base and Superstructure, the base being the material conditions and mode of production, and the superstructure being ideology and culture.
We move beyond class society through collectivization and Socialism. This society then moves on to Communism.
I don’t know the answers. Believe me I want fully automated post-scarcity space communism. I really want it. I just can’t see the way there.
Believe me, everyone wishes we could jump hundreds of years to higher-stage Communism. Anarchists even think we can approximate that now, which is a whole other school of thought. However, Socialism is a drastic improvement on Capitalism, and lower-stage Communism is a drastic improvement on Socialism as well. Progress should not be impeded because the target is far away, especially if the process of building it is itself progress.
When they think communism is a great idea
It can’t be fully implemented properly because power corrupts.
Why would “power corrupts” mean Communism can’t be fully implemented? What on Earth are you talking about, specifically?
I’m not the original commenter but I agree with them and I see it like this: Under communism, you need people in power to make sure everything is “fair”, but human nature will lead many of these people to selfishly abuse their position.
You need organization, yes. What is “fair?” Why can’t there be democratic processes keeping these people in check? What does “human nature” have to do with this, does the local post office go rogue?
I understand that the basis of Capitalism is that it isn’t fair in any way, shape, or form, but why does that mean it’s better?
I’m the wrong person to ask these questions, I’m a socialist. I despise what capitalism has caused.
You are the perfect person to ask, because you claimed Communism cannot work because “power corrupts” and “human nature.” I am not saying you are a Capitalist. Your ideas regarding Marxism are immaterial and vibes-based, which is why I am trying to get you to take a Materialist stance.
Why does power corrupt? How can representatives be held accountable? What determines “human nature?”
Power itself does not corrupt. People generally act in their material interests, and in Capitalism, this is dominated by the profit motive, like all class society. The bourgeoisie are focused on making profit, no more and no less. The Capitalist State is molded by the class in power, ie the bourgeoisie, and thus serves the interests of Capital. In an alternative, collectivized system, these same dynamics would be abolished, with a different set of challenges taking their place, such as the question of allocating labor.
Representatives can be held accountable via democratic measures, ie a representative democracy. Worker councils and parliaments can handle coordination and check against corruption.
Human Nature is determined by material conditions. Humans are thought to be competitive naturally because Capitalism is competitive, even though the average worker does not care, only the bourgeoisie do. In different Modes of Production, “Human Nature” appeared very different. In primitive Communism, for example, Human Nature was cooperative and communal, class society arose from technological advancements like the agricultural revolution.
I do believe it could possibly work.
On the other hand it’s been about 20 years since I read the work of Marx and Weber. I had classes on social stratification, feminism, materialism, and conflict theory. I’m pretty rusty.
You make good points and ask great questions that I don’t have the answers to. Where I tend to focus in your post is at the end, where you rightly state that class society arose from the Neolithic revolution (agriculture basically)
How do we put the genie back in the bottle when we released it so very long ago? Let’s try looking at children. Education would certainly help, but can you teach empathy without the help of the parent(s)? Even if the parental figures teach empathy and structured education enforces these teachings, we come to secondary groups. This would be groups like the child’s friends or peers.They are considered more important to childhood development after a certain age (12? Not the same for everyone of course maybe an average). If the members of these secondary groups do not value empathy, the child who was taught it by their parental figures and enforced by education will begin to value it less.
I don’t know the answers. Believe me I want fully automated post-scarcity space communism. I really want it. I just can’t see the way there.
Critique of the Gotha Programme is a quick read on how Marx envisions the transition to Socialism and eventually Communism.
This is a very ideas-focused view of society. Largely, culture and values are shaped by Material Conditions amd Mode of Production. This is the concept of Base and Superstructure, the base being the material conditions and mode of production, and the superstructure being ideology and culture.
We move beyond class society through collectivization and Socialism. This society then moves on to Communism.
Believe me, everyone wishes we could jump hundreds of years to higher-stage Communism. Anarchists even think we can approximate that now, which is a whole other school of thought. However, Socialism is a drastic improvement on Capitalism, and lower-stage Communism is a drastic improvement on Socialism as well. Progress should not be impeded because the target is far away, especially if the process of building it is itself progress.
Basically this. I should have put it into words more clearly
So why is it a bad idea? Have you read Marx?
Reading Marx is like reading Scripture, huh?