That’s not true, though. Communism, ie a system where production and distribution are fully collectivized and run according to a common plan, doesn’t care at all if someone is “greedy,” and socialist economies that have begun building towards such a society have proven the opposite of your claims; they’ve been remarkably effective at achieving positive economic growth while delivering better metrics for the working class than capitalist systems.
If it were true that communism was even resistant to the corruption of human greed, it wouldn’t end in dictatorship or oligarchy as it does.
Don’t misunderstand my position, I deeply wish we weren’t such a young species and that we’d developed enough psychologically that we could get past our basic instincts, to see past the immediate short term as a whole, to work collectively for everyone’s benefit, including those that will inherit this earth when we become raw materials once again.
However, this is not the case. Look at how easy we are as a species to manipulate, to make think and do what a small subset want us to, for their benefit.
That’s because we’re still very instinct driven, simple creatures for the most part. Yes, in some cases an individual stands above this definition, but they are categorically not the norm. Until they are, we’re led around by our collective basic drives, and that includes making sure us and ours have “enough” , which means taking it, by hook or by crook.
To discount basic human nature when mulling political systems is pure folly.
Socialist countries have not been oligarchial nor dictatorial. They haven’t been utopian wonderlands free from any problems either, but they’ve been dramatically more democratic for the working class than capitalist countries.
I understand your position very well, it’s just wrong and based on critical misunderstandings of socialism in theory and in practice. Simple as that. Collectivized production and distribution works very well when it comes to economic growth and satisfying the needs of more people.
I’m not discounting “human nature,” you’re attributing it as a problem for socialism when that isn’t the case. Again, socialism doesn’t care if everyone is perfectly moral and upstanding, that has nothing to do with how we run collectivized production. You should familiarize yourself with what leftists are actually talking about before waxing poetic about how there’s some fundamental flaw we haven’t properly understood, as though we don’t hear the same tired arguments day in and day out.
This is basically an intro course on ML, isn’t it! I’ve been meaning to read leftist theory from different angles so your links are handy. There’s a good (looking) anarchist reading list out there too that I’ve been meaning to dig into.
That’s not true, though. Communism, ie a system where production and distribution are fully collectivized and run according to a common plan, doesn’t care at all if someone is “greedy,” and socialist economies that have begun building towards such a society have proven the opposite of your claims; they’ve been remarkably effective at achieving positive economic growth while delivering better metrics for the working class than capitalist systems.
If you want, I made an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list, feel free to give it a look. Albert Einstein’s Why Socialism? | Audiobook is a good intro!
If it were true that communism was even resistant to the corruption of human greed, it wouldn’t end in dictatorship or oligarchy as it does.
Don’t misunderstand my position, I deeply wish we weren’t such a young species and that we’d developed enough psychologically that we could get past our basic instincts, to see past the immediate short term as a whole, to work collectively for everyone’s benefit, including those that will inherit this earth when we become raw materials once again.
However, this is not the case. Look at how easy we are as a species to manipulate, to make think and do what a small subset want us to, for their benefit.
That’s because we’re still very instinct driven, simple creatures for the most part. Yes, in some cases an individual stands above this definition, but they are categorically not the norm. Until they are, we’re led around by our collective basic drives, and that includes making sure us and ours have “enough” , which means taking it, by hook or by crook.
To discount basic human nature when mulling political systems is pure folly.
Socialist countries have not been oligarchial nor dictatorial. They haven’t been utopian wonderlands free from any problems either, but they’ve been dramatically more democratic for the working class than capitalist countries.
I understand your position very well, it’s just wrong and based on critical misunderstandings of socialism in theory and in practice. Simple as that. Collectivized production and distribution works very well when it comes to economic growth and satisfying the needs of more people.
I’m not discounting “human nature,” you’re attributing it as a problem for socialism when that isn’t the case. Again, socialism doesn’t care if everyone is perfectly moral and upstanding, that has nothing to do with how we run collectivized production. You should familiarize yourself with what leftists are actually talking about before waxing poetic about how there’s some fundamental flaw we haven’t properly understood, as though we don’t hear the same tired arguments day in and day out.
This is basically an intro course on ML, isn’t it! I’ve been meaning to read leftist theory from different angles so your links are handy. There’s a good (looking) anarchist reading list out there too that I’ve been meaning to dig into.
Yep, that’s the intent behind it! It’s designed to be approachable by anyone, feel free to leave feedback if you decide to follow it!
I appreciate it, I will.