Because as much as I genuinely wish it was the case people/states aren't always rational and/or perfect actors in the economy, war, trade and otherwise.
Like in the Eritrea-Ethiopia war both sides took care to not bring fighting into key cities or infrastructure because of those vital assets post war. That's very rare in general because in other instances of a war of this type more or less you have the attacking power often wreck infrastructure or the defending side having to raze or to deny the attacker a resting/restock point.
Usually whenever a libertarian says "why do we have to keep bailing out the bankers from the public trough whenever they frick up the economy? We're supposed to let supply and demand fix everything!" What, do you expect the bankers not to group up and bilk the taxpayers for their losses?
Are they just gonna be like "oh I guess you're right, because we're not *supposed* to do that according to Real Capitalism... so we're just going to go under after screwing everybody because that'd be the fair and just thing to do"? Of course not. That's "human nature."
With their tribe, moron. The real midwits are those who unironically believe that commie countries fell apart because it's hooman naychur to just neglect all civic responsibility until your tribe gets consumed by another.
Literally everything outside of hunter-gatherer communalism is technically against "human nature" if we're being honest. Communism is moronic, but the "human nature" argument is pretty weak, you should use a different argument against it.
individualism is a meme. Humans in their true natural state (hunter gatherers) are social animals.
This itself doesn't support any notion that communism is the default, but it does btfo moronic "muh human nature" notions that hominids have only ever been out for themselves (or material gain) rather than their tribe.
But we only seen communism in "primitive" societies, where the were only a small group of individuals. Is it really possible to bring this type of solidarity in a society with millions of people?
2 years ago
Anonymous
And even in those societies we could see conflict and war, a tribe against other tribe; there was never a period in human history, that all of humanity was united in a under cause. >captcha: verification not required.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Group vs group fighting heavily varied on the area. Sometimes it was intense as hell (PNG) or basically just threats and/or showboating and minor flare ups. It's really hard to make a definite statement so I guess I'm more or less agreeing with you and am arguing semantics.
Because there is no socio-economic system which is a result of "human nature", the economic superstructure results from the present material conditions. Humans aren't naturally inclined to Eskimo fishing communities, Igbo communal villages, Mosuo primitive communism, European feudalism, Minoan palace economies or Dutch capitalism. Those systems are a product of contemporary conditions, and usually evolve as a historical process. There is no single system that is common to humanity because of "human nature". Even the notions of work and property aren't universal.
If you want to criticise Marxism using Marxism, I advise you to focus on automation instead. Marx' predictions about the intrinsic crisis cycles of capitalism, as a feature of capitalism, not a bug ("immanent critique") were based on Marx' central idea: if you analyse the whole process of industrial production, human labour is the only thing that adds value to products.
Well, you can thank Henry Ford for singlehandedly making Marxism outdated. Ford's assembly line created a new synergy that went beyond human labour, human skills, or the machines they used: the assembly line ITSELF was able to produce better cars than an underoptimised process. This is even clearer with modern robotics; better robots with better configurations produce better cars/TVs/washing machines without the input of human labour. In other words... there is an alternative to human labour when it comes to added value. The whole premise of Marxist critique breaks down when you make a robot. And you know what they say, if the first step of the argument is wrong, the whole argument is wrong.
So instead of "human nature", call out modern Marxists with "automation". Since if they don't understand why Marxism is outdated, either they haven't understood Marx, or they haven't read Marx, or they are suicidal masochists aware that they are defending a lie, who just want to see chaos and destruction.
I would reply that we get to the point where we have self-replicating robots that can repair themselves and add value without human input, so that Marx's labor theory of value breaks down, then robots will be so intelligent that they'll become new proletarians and a new class struggle will emerge and we'll have the Robot Wars.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>robots will be so intelligent that they'll become new proletarians
Why do so many people mistake "artificial intelligence" for "artificial consciousness"?
Not at all. It's weak argument in general for anything not to mention that critque would honestly work better as one against capitalism. An actual good critique of state market policies is how fricking hard it is to predict how market trends will spin even with our advanced computational power. It's just easier for a state capitalist or otherwise to let the market go as it dies and work around that then trying to predict snowflake patterns.
>thread full of morons that don't understand how individualism and communalism are opposite ends of a single spectrum that encapsulates all human behavior >morons who don't even understand that the same individual is capable of intense selfishness and equally capable altruism depending on scenario or emotional state >morons who can't even grasp that cultural rules can mandate selfishness and selflessness at different times within a single culture
it realistically shouldn't be a surprise that IQfy posters would be so blatantly unable to grasp human nature
>All people are exactly equivalent and because there must be some explanation for their behavior, I must be able to understand and predict it because I'm smarter than everyone else >I'm not just applying a teenage level of cynical reductive reasoning to peoples' motives and treating everyone I don't personally know like indistinguishable cattle fit in to the broadest of boxes >I'm being totally rational about human nature, because as we all know, only the 100 or so people we personally know are sentient beings and everyone else is an automaton whose behavior you should only predict based on what similar people did in the past >I'm not just a dumb ape doing dumb ape things, this is the smart and rational way to view the world because I'm so smart and rational
The materialist in a nutshell. >it realistically shouldn't be a surprise that IQfy posters would be so blatantly unable to grasp human nature
A level of irony so intense it beggars belief. What's self-awareness?
Yes and no. It is basically right, but communists tend to be ideologically biased and the slightest ambiguity will be picked apart. It is better to be more specific.
Nearly every communist regime was authoritarian and immediately began exploiting the workers and peasants to a degree even more extreme than "capitalist" societies in which ordinary people are allowed to accumulate private property. I don't even need to mention "human nature", people are naturally cynical enough to connect the dots.
Hierarchy is just the natural order of things, it is like if I want to create a society without laws of physics, it is just doesn't work, that is why their regimes are all stuck in that tyrannical dictatorship phase, at this point in time contemporary communism should be view as nothing more then a imperial (or rather globalist) scam.
No, it's a reason FOR communism. Human nature is trash and the more we restrict it the better. People will do absolutely everything that society allows them to do in order to improve their own situations no matter who is harmed by it, and as long as there's no law stopping them, they won't see a problem with it. If you want better results out of humanity, it needs to be forced with an iron fist.
No, humans are evil by nature and it's right to go against it even if it's difficult. An evil system like communism actually fits "human nature" quite well, the idea that you can be a parasite and live off of the state's welfare instead of earning an honest living! The idea that workers should take things from others that don;t belong to them in a murderous barbaric "revolution"! Or the idea that one must not pass his wealth to his sons, how on earth does that promote family values and hard work? If not for your beloved family then why? Just look at nature and how evil it is, many of the most successful organisms are parasites too! It is entirely within human nature to strive to be a parasite.
No, the most valid criticism of communism is that is demands a revolution and I abhor revolutions, as anyone with a shred of loyalty to their country should. But it is not human nature to be loyal, it is natural to be an opportunist. It is not natural to have a family, in nature it is natural to pump a girl full of semen and skip town to look for the next gratification of your lower lusts with no regard to building family and supporting your lover or her offspring at all! It is our duties as humans within a society of honor and love to fight against our evil natural desires.
Communism is an indulgence of natural desires. It's an opportunity to take from those more fortunate than you instead of gently asking. It is a breakdown of the family and the intentional loss of man's legacy to his sons. Human nature is for communism, not against it, and I hate human nature, so I hate communism.
Think about how many times you interact with the owner of the company you. Now imagine a world in which you and all your friends and coworkers own the company instead of one guy you've probably never met. That's the only difference between Capitalist and Communist production.
It's also a good argument against capitalism
Why?
Because as much as I genuinely wish it was the case people/states aren't always rational and/or perfect actors in the economy, war, trade and otherwise.
Like in the Eritrea-Ethiopia war both sides took care to not bring fighting into key cities or infrastructure because of those vital assets post war. That's very rare in general because in other instances of a war of this type more or less you have the attacking power often wreck infrastructure or the defending side having to raze or to deny the attacker a resting/restock point.
Usually whenever a libertarian says "why do we have to keep bailing out the bankers from the public trough whenever they frick up the economy? We're supposed to let supply and demand fix everything!" What, do you expect the bankers not to group up and bilk the taxpayers for their losses?
Are they just gonna be like "oh I guess you're right, because we're not *supposed* to do that according to Real Capitalism... so we're just going to go under after screwing everybody because that'd be the fair and just thing to do"? Of course not. That's "human nature."
Yes but it's also a clear indicator that you probably can't put together an original argument aside from boomer-tier PragerU israelite pilpul.
Midwit fear.
You will never have a socialist state.
With their tribe, moron. The real midwits are those who unironically believe that commie countries fell apart because it's hooman naychur to just neglect all civic responsibility until your tribe gets consumed by another.
>But we only seen communism in "primitive" societies
We don't. Even the earliest semblance of human societies had rulers, slaves, warriors, etc..
Literally everything outside of hunter-gatherer communalism is technically against "human nature" if we're being honest. Communism is moronic, but the "human nature" argument is pretty weak, you should use a different argument against it.
No. It's a terrible argument. A better argument is automation.
Why is it a bad argument?
Because
individualism is a meme. Humans in their true natural state (hunter gatherers) are social animals.
This itself doesn't support any notion that communism is the default, but it does btfo moronic "muh human nature" notions that hominids have only ever been out for themselves (or material gain) rather than their tribe.
Vague bullshit. Social with whom? Certainly not with neighbors they shared 99.99% similarity with.
But we only seen communism in "primitive" societies, where the were only a small group of individuals. Is it really possible to bring this type of solidarity in a society with millions of people?
And even in those societies we could see conflict and war, a tribe against other tribe; there was never a period in human history, that all of humanity was united in a under cause.
>captcha: verification not required.
Group vs group fighting heavily varied on the area. Sometimes it was intense as hell (PNG) or basically just threats and/or showboating and minor flare ups. It's really hard to make a definite statement so I guess I'm more or less agreeing with you and am arguing semantics.
Have you considered that humans are pragmatically social, and not out of some kind of altruism?
communism works in tribal settings (dunbar's #)
capitalism is better than communism in large scale alienated societies , but the notion of property is ultimately unjustifiable
we should return to monke but we cant because of hostile nation states
Because there is no socio-economic system which is a result of "human nature", the economic superstructure results from the present material conditions. Humans aren't naturally inclined to Eskimo fishing communities, Igbo communal villages, Mosuo primitive communism, European feudalism, Minoan palace economies or Dutch capitalism. Those systems are a product of contemporary conditions, and usually evolve as a historical process. There is no single system that is common to humanity because of "human nature". Even the notions of work and property aren't universal.
If you want to criticise Marxism using Marxism, I advise you to focus on automation instead. Marx' predictions about the intrinsic crisis cycles of capitalism, as a feature of capitalism, not a bug ("immanent critique") were based on Marx' central idea: if you analyse the whole process of industrial production, human labour is the only thing that adds value to products.
Well, you can thank Henry Ford for singlehandedly making Marxism outdated. Ford's assembly line created a new synergy that went beyond human labour, human skills, or the machines they used: the assembly line ITSELF was able to produce better cars than an underoptimised process. This is even clearer with modern robotics; better robots with better configurations produce better cars/TVs/washing machines without the input of human labour. In other words... there is an alternative to human labour when it comes to added value. The whole premise of Marxist critique breaks down when you make a robot. And you know what they say, if the first step of the argument is wrong, the whole argument is wrong.
So instead of "human nature", call out modern Marxists with "automation". Since if they don't understand why Marxism is outdated, either they haven't understood Marx, or they haven't read Marx, or they are suicidal masochists aware that they are defending a lie, who just want to see chaos and destruction.
t. modern Marxist
I would reply that we get to the point where we have self-replicating robots that can repair themselves and add value without human input, so that Marx's labor theory of value breaks down, then robots will be so intelligent that they'll become new proletarians and a new class struggle will emerge and we'll have the Robot Wars.
>robots will be so intelligent that they'll become new proletarians
Why do so many people mistake "artificial intelligence" for "artificial consciousness"?
Inability to distinguish mind and soul
It's a shit argument because humans are inherently social, not selfish
Human nature is a community of individuals, strong individuals make a strong community.
Not at all. It's weak argument in general for anything not to mention that critque would honestly work better as one against capitalism. An actual good critique of state market policies is how fricking hard it is to predict how market trends will spin even with our advanced computational power. It's just easier for a state capitalist or otherwise to let the market go as it dies and work around that then trying to predict snowflake patterns.
>thread full of morons that don't understand how individualism and communalism are opposite ends of a single spectrum that encapsulates all human behavior
>morons who don't even understand that the same individual is capable of intense selfishness and equally capable altruism depending on scenario or emotional state
>morons who can't even grasp that cultural rules can mandate selfishness and selflessness at different times within a single culture
it realistically shouldn't be a surprise that IQfy posters would be so blatantly unable to grasp human nature
>All people are exactly equivalent and because there must be some explanation for their behavior, I must be able to understand and predict it because I'm smarter than everyone else
>I'm not just applying a teenage level of cynical reductive reasoning to peoples' motives and treating everyone I don't personally know like indistinguishable cattle fit in to the broadest of boxes
>I'm being totally rational about human nature, because as we all know, only the 100 or so people we personally know are sentient beings and everyone else is an automaton whose behavior you should only predict based on what similar people did in the past
>I'm not just a dumb ape doing dumb ape things, this is the smart and rational way to view the world because I'm so smart and rational
The materialist in a nutshell.
>it realistically shouldn't be a surprise that IQfy posters would be so blatantly unable to grasp human nature
A level of irony so intense it beggars belief. What's self-awareness?
Yes and no. It is basically right, but communists tend to be ideologically biased and the slightest ambiguity will be picked apart. It is better to be more specific.
Nearly every communist regime was authoritarian and immediately began exploiting the workers and peasants to a degree even more extreme than "capitalist" societies in which ordinary people are allowed to accumulate private property. I don't even need to mention "human nature", people are naturally cynical enough to connect the dots.
Thanks for reminding me of that one romanian village that was flooded and submerged with toxic runoff due to the nearby copper mine
Hierarchy is just the natural order of things, it is like if I want to create a society without laws of physics, it is just doesn't work, that is why their regimes are all stuck in that tyrannical dictatorship phase, at this point in time contemporary communism should be view as nothing more then a imperial (or rather globalist) scam.
No, it's a reason FOR communism. Human nature is trash and the more we restrict it the better. People will do absolutely everything that society allows them to do in order to improve their own situations no matter who is harmed by it, and as long as there's no law stopping them, they won't see a problem with it. If you want better results out of humanity, it needs to be forced with an iron fist.
Yes, people innately believe in private property.
Surely you meant to say personal property.
No, humans are evil by nature and it's right to go against it even if it's difficult. An evil system like communism actually fits "human nature" quite well, the idea that you can be a parasite and live off of the state's welfare instead of earning an honest living! The idea that workers should take things from others that don;t belong to them in a murderous barbaric "revolution"! Or the idea that one must not pass his wealth to his sons, how on earth does that promote family values and hard work? If not for your beloved family then why? Just look at nature and how evil it is, many of the most successful organisms are parasites too! It is entirely within human nature to strive to be a parasite.
No, the most valid criticism of communism is that is demands a revolution and I abhor revolutions, as anyone with a shred of loyalty to their country should. But it is not human nature to be loyal, it is natural to be an opportunist. It is not natural to have a family, in nature it is natural to pump a girl full of semen and skip town to look for the next gratification of your lower lusts with no regard to building family and supporting your lover or her offspring at all! It is our duties as humans within a society of honor and love to fight against our evil natural desires.
Communism is an indulgence of natural desires. It's an opportunity to take from those more fortunate than you instead of gently asking. It is a breakdown of the family and the intentional loss of man's legacy to his sons. Human nature is for communism, not against it, and I hate human nature, so I hate communism.
Think about how many times you interact with the owner of the company you. Now imagine a world in which you and all your friends and coworkers own the company instead of one guy you've probably never met. That's the only difference between Capitalist and Communist production.
now wake up from your troony lib dream and imagine the first guy calls himself generalissimo instead of CEO and you get the actual truth