Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
So there's a very big difference between X hasn't happened yet and X is factually impossible. Imagine standing there in 1750s and saying "we know for a fact that the human species is fundamentally incompatible with flight". Very shortly you would look like the complete arse that making that statement made you.
I don't dispute nobody has achieved the utopia Marx hypothesised, that is trivial to demonstrate, I'm asking how on earth you would establish fundamental incompatibility.
Actually the current prevailing theory is that primitive communism was the state humans lived in before the founding of the first proto states, so if anything your stance should be that evidence suggests humans are fundamentally compatible with communism, unless you mean to argue we have undergone some shift in our fundamental nature in which case I would again ask where your evidence is.
Tribalism is compatible with communism. Kind of where the idea comes from. Unfortunately that's not how society is these days. Whether communism, capitalism, or any other ism, control needs to be in place to ensure everyone is in line with it, since it's impossible for 100% of a population to be, especially as that population goes into the millions.
With an authority or controlling wealth, everything results in an elite of some form to try keep a system in place, and that's the start of failure.
If a village of 100 has just 1 asshole, things can be ruined. Scale up to global populations and you've got your answer. No ism can keep the psychopathic, narcissistic, or competitive nature of these people from ruining whatever ism it is you'd like to have.
Sorry, could you be a little more explicit in terms of how you're answering my questions? I don't really want to get drawn in to some aimless rambling bullshit.
I haven't mentioned tribalism, I don't even know what you're referring to or why you're bringing it up.
I don't know what you mean by how society is these days. Are you saying society has changed fundamental human nature? what is the relevance please?
you're talking to an anarchist so I have no disagreement there. I do wonder if you've ever read Marx though. Could you please honestly answer with what publications of his you've actually read? if none, what publications about Marxism have you read? if that list is exhaustive the three most recent?
???
Yeah, sure. The feeling's mutual.
The topic of conversation is the scale of success of communism. If an original comment gets dissected poorly and barrels down a tangents of off-topic rabble, I re-read it and ignore stuff off-topic or unrelated, since that's for a different conversation at a different time.
The points provided are my perspective of this topic and why I have that perspective. It is things I've experienced and know,, not belief to plug narrative.
Some things you have raised are loosely associated with our tribalism or post-tribalism era. However, tribalism is still relevant in modern society with political parties, sports teams, socioeconimcal ideologies, etc. It reaches back to our nature of belonging in a camp or community.
Quite the opposite. Society is a new thing. The more we attempt to progress it forward, we see more incompatibilities between our ideals and our nature. We will eventually evolve our nature into those ideals, but it cannot be entirely the other way around. As an anarchist, you'd understand your stance is predominantly the result of ideologies conflicting with human nature.
The manifesto, obv. However also a series of works and citations while studying. I don't see any purpose in listing anything. Though I'd like to point out I was reading a lot on other modern social/political/economical ideologies so as to prevent any bias. This resulted in my conclusion that none of them work and a fool tribes themself to one. For communism especially, this is an ironic position to take, but seems to be the most popular for thee average "communist" these days. It is quite literally impossible to have communism without acceptance of conflicting ideologies or nature.