Is workable Communism really impossible?
03 Aug 2012, 10:32 am
AspieRogue wrote:
And JakobVirgil: The United States is not a true democracy. It is a (democratic)Republic based on representation. 'We the people' have little control over the federal government, which certainly IS a central authority even though there is no single person in the government who has complete control over it. There does remain the possibility, though hopefully quite small, that the President could declare a state of emergency and summon the military to dissolve the rest of the government and establish himself as a dictator.....But it's highly unlikely our military would go along with that.
not really addressing anything I have said but . . .
thanks?
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
03 Aug 2012, 11:15 am
JakobVirgil: Might I remind you that ITT, it is you who are claiming that a decentralized, cooperative society can work in practice. There have been experiments to test this and they haven't worked very well. Therefore, if you claim that this really can work then the burden off proof is on YOU to demonstrate it! That's really the bottom line here. Argue all you want, but without real life proof it's just speculation.
I seriously question Robert Hare's stats on the frequency of sociopaths because many people do selfish, opportunistic things even though they are not considered sociopaths by the majority of people who know or have known them. Until there is a scientifically rigorous test for sociopathy I regard Robert Hares findings with cynicism. In fact, I have doubts about the whole concept of sociopathy because it is based on certain assumptions about normal human behavior. I've witnessed selfish and opportunistic behavior amongst the people around me my entire life. I'm astonished you haven't, then again you might be conveniently omitting this because it contradicts your ideals.[b]
03 Aug 2012, 11:26 am
AspieRogue wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Pretty sure that before civilization, power and status were based on raw strength.
No, more on personality. The qualities of leadership have never really been any different than they are now. Elders were often chiefs, frail as they were.
People tend to forget a key distinction between modern civilization and ancient hunter-gatherer bands. In modern civilization, almost everyone is a stranger. But bands were just extended families. It was not necessary to bludgeon people into submission, the unit already existed cohesively, because it was a family unit.
I don't buy that. Strong, aggressive men who had other strong men following them could easily overpower others and take what they wanted by force.
Does that happen in your family?
If not, ask yourself why, then you have your answer.
What stuff was there to take anyway? I don't think people really grasp what it means when there is no surplus. If you take somebody's stuff, he dies. The strong man who takes everyone's stuff, kills them all, and then he finds himself in an increasingly smaller group with no further means to sustain himself. Meanwhile his neighbours thrive and grow numerous - and therefore covetous of land and hunting grounds. What stands in their way now? A starving hermit?
People who acted like this, were wiped out. It is not sustainable until you have a surplus, which is why stratification doesn't happen until agrarianism and pastoralism take root in a major way. Prior to this, no group could support entrenched authorities of any sort, secular or religious, or they would die out. Which is why priests and warlords don't make their appearance until there is a surplus available to support them.
Last edited by edgewaters on 03 Aug 2012, 12:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
03 Aug 2012, 11:51 am
AspieRogue wrote:
JakobVirgil: Might I remind you that ITT, it is you who are claiming that a decentralized, cooperative society can work in practice. There have been experiments to test this and they haven't worked very well. Therefore, if you claim that this really can work then the burden off proof is on YOU to demonstrate it! That's really the bottom line here. Argue all you want, but without real life proof it's just speculation.
I seriously question Robert Hare's stats on the frequency of sociopaths because many people do selfish, opportunistic things even though they are not considered sociopaths by the majority of people who know or have known them. Until there is a scientifically rigorous test for sociopathy I regard Robert Hares findings with cynicism. In fact, I have doubts about the whole concept of sociopathy because it is based on certain assumptions about normal human behavior. I've witnessed selfish and opportunistic behavior amongst the people around me my entire life. I'm astonished you haven't, then again you might be conveniently omitting this because it contradicts your ideals.[b]
I seriously question Robert Hare's stats on the frequency of sociopaths because many people do selfish, opportunistic things even though they are not considered sociopaths by the majority of people who know or have known them. Until there is a scientifically rigorous test for sociopathy I regard Robert Hares findings with cynicism. In fact, I have doubts about the whole concept of sociopathy because it is based on certain assumptions about normal human behavior. I've witnessed selfish and opportunistic behavior amongst the people around me my entire life. I'm astonished you haven't, then again you might be conveniently omitting this because it contradicts your ideals.[b]
Oh? in that case The Ache, The San, The Goshute and the Andaman Islanders.
Do I get a prize?
ITT I have not made many or (any that I can remember). At all I have just doubted yours and showed that the literature did not fit your world view.
the last paragraph is full of weird assumptions. Where did I say that there are not selfish and opportunistic people? -I know quite a few- Your accusation of "conveniently omitting this because it contradicts your ideals" is more telling on your theory of mind an thus your practice than it is on mine.
The math works better if you assume the folks are rational maximizers to bad this is more and more being shown to false in experiment.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
03 Aug 2012, 12:07 pm
edgewaters wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Pretty sure that before civilization, power and status were based on raw strength.
No, more on personality. The qualities of leadership have never really been any different than they are now. Elders were often chiefs, frail as they were.
People tend to forget a key distinction between modern civilization and ancient hunter-gatherer bands. In modern civilization, almost everyone is a stranger. But bands were just extended families. It was not necessary to bludgeon people into submission, the unit already existed cohesively, because it was a family unit.
I don't buy that. Strong, aggressive men who had other strong men following them could easily overpower others and take what they wanted by force.
Does that happen in your family?
If not, ask yourself why, then you have your answer.
What stuff was there to take anyway? I don't think people really grasp what it means when there is no surplus. If you take somebody's stuff, he dies. The strong man who takes everyone's stuff, kills them all, and then he finds himself in an increasingly smaller group with no further means to sustain himself. Meanwhile his neighbours thrive and grow numerous - and therefore covetous of land and hunting grounds. What stands in their way now? A starving hermit?
People who acted like this, were wiped out. It is not sustainable until you have a surplus, which is why stratification doesn't happen until agrarianism and pastoralism take root in a major way. Prior to this, no group could support entrenched authorities of any sort, secular or religious, or they would die out. Which is why priests and warlords don't make their appearance until there is a surplus available to support them.
What about the strong man who teams up with others, conquers another tribal family group, kills the men and then rapes the women, establishing his own new extended family?
Also, what makes you so certain that there weren't multiple filial groups living in single area and coming into contact with each other?
Hunter gatherers tend to dwell in areas where game and edible plants are plentiful. And if one wondering group stumbles into such an area and finds another group, they just might decide to *move in*.
03 Aug 2012, 12:13 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Pretty sure that before civilization, power and status were based on raw strength.
No, more on personality. The qualities of leadership have never really been any different than they are now. Elders were often chiefs, frail as they were.
People tend to forget a key distinction between modern civilization and ancient hunter-gatherer bands. In modern civilization, almost everyone is a stranger. But bands were just extended families. It was not necessary to bludgeon people into submission, the unit already existed cohesively, because it was a family unit.
I don't buy that. Strong, aggressive men who had other strong men following them could easily overpower others and take what they wanted by force.
Does that happen in your family?
If not, ask yourself why, then you have your answer.
What stuff was there to take anyway? I don't think people really grasp what it means when there is no surplus. If you take somebody's stuff, he dies. The strong man who takes everyone's stuff, kills them all, and then he finds himself in an increasingly smaller group with no further means to sustain himself. Meanwhile his neighbours thrive and grow numerous - and therefore covetous of land and hunting grounds. What stands in their way now? A starving hermit?
People who acted like this, were wiped out. It is not sustainable until you have a surplus, which is why stratification doesn't happen until agrarianism and pastoralism take root in a major way. Prior to this, no group could support entrenched authorities of any sort, secular or religious, or they would die out. Which is why priests and warlords don't make their appearance until there is a surplus available to support them.
What about the strong man who teams up with others, conquers another tribal family group, kills the men and then rapes the women, establishing his own new extended family?
Also, what makes you so certain that there weren't multiple filial groups living in single area and coming into contact with each other?
Hunter gatherers tend to dwell in areas where game and edible plants are plentiful. And if one wondering group stumbles into such an area and finds another group, they just might decide to *move in*.
or not. It does not change the fact that ingroup both are probably hunter-gatherer groups are egalitarian or familial.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
03 Aug 2012, 12:19 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
What about the strong man who teams up with others, conquers another tribal family group, kills the men and then rapes the women, establishing his own new extended family?
Yes, but who do you team up with? This happened - and it was done by groups that cooperated well. Those that didn't were at a distinct disadvantage and ended up being the ones this happened to.
Quote:
Also, what makes you so certain that there weren't multiple filial groups living in single area and coming into contact with each other?
There were ... but they generally tried to get along with close neighbours, because they had to avoid inbreeding. In your above example, they still wind up with this problem, unless they go after a group not tied in with them by exchange of daughters/sons (which means one living at some distance away, usually, not a close neighbour).
Quote:
Hunter gatherers tend to dwell in areas where game and edible plants are plentiful. And if one wondering group stumbles into such an area and finds another group, they just might decide to *move in*.
Again, same problem as above. If violent parasites been preying on the members of their own group, they'll have fewer and less fit men to fight, and they'll be the victims, not the aggressors. These were the sort of groups that got wiped out. Strong families that cooperated well, dominated other groups (and in fact, that has never changed, it remains true today).
Last edited by edgewaters on 03 Aug 2012, 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
03 Aug 2012, 1:11 pm
enrico_dandolo wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
I don't buy that. Strong, aggressive men who had other strong men following them could easily overpower others and take what they wanted by force.
In real life, strong, aggressive men who take other people's stuff are called bullies, not leaders.
That's true. But bullying unfortunately seems to work very well in many situations where bullies aren't punished for their behavior by a higher authority.
2 very interesting thing about Ants: Like humans, ants enslave one another. IDK of any examples of this behavior among others mammals. Also, both us and them wage war.
03 Aug 2012, 1:39 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
I don't buy that. Strong, aggressive men who had other strong men following them could easily overpower others and take what they wanted by force.
In real life, strong, aggressive men who take other people's stuff are called bullies, not leaders.
That's true. But bullying unfortunately seems to work very well in many situations where bullies aren't punished for their behavior by a higher authority.
2 very interesting thing about Ants: Like humans, ants enslave one another. IDK of any examples of this behavior among others mammals. Also, both us and them wage war.
I would not trust one bully to save you from another.
Ants of one species enslave ants of other species.
Do you like ants? I have done some work with Hodobler he wrote "ANTS" with E.O. Wilson.
You should read it. It is a great book. I think socio-biology may answer your questions about
the formation of society.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
03 Aug 2012, 1:50 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
That's true. But bullying unfortunately seems to work very well in many situations where bullies aren't punished for their behavior by a higher authority.
It may or may not work well for the individual, but it's destructive and expensive to groups and weakens them, relative to other groups. This is why succesful societies take steps to minimize theft and robbery, sometimes to the point of physical mutilation or death to discourage the practice. A group ridden with many robbers preying on their own, will not be as competitive as one with fewer problems there, all else being equal.
In the era before the agricultural revolution (and during the early part of that) such competitive disadvantages meant extermination, usually. Either by collapse (starvation, inbreeding, etc) or external rivals. There was no margin that allowed competitive disadvantage without benefit.
03 Aug 2012, 6:55 pm
Aspie_Chav wrote:
Communism can't work. It has to use the resources created by capitalism as a starting point.
I don't think it can work either, but that's not why. Capitalism had to use the resources and institutions created by feudalism to develop, too. You just couldn't go from a usufructory property system where possession and ownership were indistinguishable, to a system of rent, profit from the labour of others, ownership by deed and title, etc. The concept of property that wasn't actually possessed, being owned by virtue of a title to land had to develop. Among other things.
03 Aug 2012, 11:55 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
I don't buy that. Strong, aggressive men who had other strong men following them could easily overpower others and take what they wanted by force.
In real life, strong, aggressive men who take other people's stuff are called bullies, not leaders.
That's true. But bullying unfortunately seems to work very well in many situations where bullies aren't punished for their behavior by a higher authority.
Who says, under a communal system with common ownership, that there wouldn't be any punishment?
Also, interestingly, in small communities with a strong sense of solidarity, exclusion is the worst punishment.
04 Aug 2012, 12:01 am
enrico_dandolo wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
I don't buy that. Strong, aggressive men who had other strong men following them could easily overpower others and take what they wanted by force.
In real life, strong, aggressive men who take other people's stuff are called bullies, not leaders.
That's true. But bullying unfortunately seems to work very well in many situations where bullies aren't punished for their behavior by a higher authority.
Who says, under a communal system with common ownership, that there wouldn't be any punishment?
Also, interestingly, in small communities with a strong sense of solidarity, exclusion is the worst punishment.
You're right, there is a punishment under communal systems with common ownership:
lynching. What you are prescribing was common in rural 19th century america, and they even had a name for it...........MOB RULE. It wasn't just lynchings though, there were extremely violent family and blood feuds whose cycle of violence continued from one generation to the next.
In the absence of a central authority and an officially sanctioned legal system with rule of law, people take matters into their own hands. The result is endless violent reciprocity.
04 Aug 2012, 3:19 am
No, lynching is what happens when a central authority is not listened to and is totally inadequate. In this case, the central authority is just strong enough to prevent the creation of smaller, autonomous communities, but not strong enough to truly enforce anything. The individuals have no legal means of enforcing justice, so they have to use extralegal means. This is chaos, not anarchy.
I don't know specifically how it would be handle under a communal system, because each community would create its own rules and its own system. However, I can assure you that it would not involve random violence, nor wanton revenge. Rather, the group would decide what is best, either by creating its own rules and procedures, by judging individual cases collectively or any other way.
