3 ms·

I'm suggesting that in all previous attempts to reach the state you consider heretofore unreached, the states passed through have highly undesirable consequence

by Kalium 11y ago

I'm suggesting that in all previous attempts to reach the state you consider heretofore unreached, the states passed through have highly undesirable consequences. The uniformity of this result is striking and the consequences grave. I'm suggesting that attempting to create a Communist society is a really bad idea. Every previous attempt to do so has led to exceptionally bad consequences. You've provided no reason to think that a new effort will avoid repeating these mistakes. In fact, all you've done is insist that the end goal of Communism has not been achieved. That a leaderless society has not yet been created in the name of Communism isn't relevant to what has resulted from historical attempts to create such. It matters not one whit to the question of what all previous attempt to achieve such a goal have produced. Is your goal of a leaderless society with shared means of production achievable? I don't know. I do know that I don't think it's worth killing another thirty million people for the sake of another attempt at finding out. History strongly suggests that that is a significantly more likely outcome of an attempt than the creation of a stable leaderless society with shared means of production. It's in no way relevant that (Russia|China|North Korea|Cuba) are not or have ever been genuinely Communist in an idealist sense. It doesn't matter if there ever has been a True Scotsman. In conclusion, every attempt at Communism has failed. This is because every attempt to get to Communism has failed. This is significant because it calls into question the plausibility and achieveability of any kind of transition to Communism. This in turn suggests that Communism cannot ever be evaluated because it is not achieveable by means we consider acceptable. Thus, the initial question of "Has Communism been attempted and failed, where Communism is defined in a textbook manner and the transition to it ignored?" is rendered null and void. In other words, if you can't find unicorns, it might be time to reconsider the policy of virgin human sacrifice in order to search for unicorns.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
> "This is significant because it calls into question the plausibility and achieveability of any kind of transition to Communism." It's clear now this is the core of your argument, so let's explore possible transitions further. First of all, let's examine direct democracy. Direct democracy is closer to communism than any of the attempts (by nation states) that have been given its name. In the age of the Internet, direct democracy is easier than ever to organise. Effectively, you need two things: 1. An inclusive, informative news media. 2. A way to collect votes. Are two things above hard to achieve? Depends on who you ask, but I'd say they were more than achievable. How does direct democracy pave the way for communism? Firstly, it begins the process of breaking down the power structures that currently exist, and provides an alternative means of organising society that can fill the power vacuum. Secondly, it gets people used to the balance between the individual and the collective. We can achieve great things when we work together, but that should not come through forceful means, the rights of the individual to choose their own path should still be valued. Thoughts?
- Kalium 11y ago
  I think that primates are instinctual hierarchical creatures, much given to hierarchies of power. I think we are also subject to a wide variety of cognitive flaws and easily misled by emotions. I think that any political philosophy based on blithely ignoring the traits of human psychology is highly likely to fail. I further think that historical attempts to do so have displayed a disturbing tendency towards spectacular failure. You have also erred in other ways, such as assuming that an identical balance between the individual and the collective is desirable for all. Further, you've assumed that breaking down current power structures will be followed by your preferred "means of organizing society" being adhered to instead of new power structures being established. You've also ignored tribe-forming behaviors that can be reasonable expected to occur around active, inclusive, informative news media. Or how nearly-hairless primates react to the presence of tribes other than their own. Along the way, you've also ignored the implicit power structures inherent in having news media systems and voting systems. So, let's go back to the problem here. All historical attempts to transition to Communism have resulted in terrifying numbers of dead people. This is so strikingly uniform that I am disinclined to think it an accident. Why would this time be any different at all, given that we're still dealing with the same nearly-hairless primates? The core of my argument is that every time someone who thinks like you gets taken seriously at a society-wide level, a crapload of people die and the end goal is never achieved. So far, you've failed to make a case that this time is different.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    > " All historical attempts to transition to Communism have resulted in terrifying numbers of dead people. This is so strikingly uniform that I am disinclined to think it an accident. Why would this time be any different at all, given that we're still dealing with the same nearly-hairless primates?" The difference is that it won't be a small group in power, taking away the rights of people. The power will be distributed throughout society, so there isn't a single point of failure and/or corruption. > "You have also erred in other ways, such as assuming that an identical balance between the individual and the collective is desirable for all." There's no such thing as an identical balance here, the balance will always be imperfect, but it is up to the individuals in the society to understand this balance, and try to make it as good as it can be. > "Further, you've assumed that breaking down current power structures will be followed by your preferred "means of organizing society" being adhered to instead of new power structures being established." I didn't state that direct democracy would definitely lead to communism, I stated that it would be a useful step to take before communism. In other words, should direct democracy take off, communism is not guaranteed, but it helps pave the way should people decide they want a communist society. > "You've also ignored tribe-forming behaviors that can be reasonable expected to occur around active, inclusive, informative news media." I don't doubt that tribes will form, but respect can still exist between tribes. For example, I'm not on the right-wing of the political spectrum but I can still respect thoughtful individuals that are. Furthermore, healthy debate is invigorating, people aren't only drawn to that which they agree with, debates between tribes can draw a crowd, especially if both groups feel well represented. Also, I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by an 'inclusive, informative' news media, which isn't surprising. Inclusivity is important to ensure all views can be heard, the only way this is going to happen is by removing the filters that control mass media. If it helps, consider the new model for inclusivity will be closer to YouTube than TV. However, this is only part of the solution, increasing available information doesn't help unless we can make sense of that information, which is why it is important for media to be informative. Extending the YouTube analogy further, every person is free to have their own channel, but efforts would be made to create cross channel content, either to refine the message of one 'tribe', or to engage with those they disagreed with. The easier these types of collaborative efforts are to organise and promote, the better chance we have of increasing our collective political consciousness. > "I think that primates are instinctual hierarchical creatures, much given to hierarchies of power. I think we are also subject to a wide variety of cognitive flaws and easily misled by emotions. I think that any political philosophy based on blithely ignoring the traits of human psychology are is highly likely to fail. I further think that historical attempts to do so have displayed a disturbing tendency towards spectacular failure." It'll take time to move beyond our past programming, but that's no reason not to try. The misguided attempts of the past show is that trying to force change through a totalitarian means is not desirable, it's important to raise our collective consciousness first, get people exploring new ways of living together without hierarchical social structures. Once we've had chance to understand this on a personal level, it'll be easier to get working on a larger scale.

by Kalium 11y ago

ZenoArrow 11y ago

> "This is significant because it calls into question the plausibility and achieveability of any kind of transition to Communism." It's clear now this is the core of your argument, so let's explore possible transitions further. First of all, let's examine direct democracy. Direct democracy is closer to communism than any of the attempts (by nation states) that have been given its name. In the age of the Internet, direct democracy is easier than ever to organise. Effectively, you need two things: 1. An inclusive, informative news media. 2. A way to collect votes. Are two things above hard to achieve? Depends on who you ask, but I'd say they were more than achievable. How does direct democracy pave the way for communism? Firstly, it begins the process of breaking down the power structures that currently exist, and provides an alternative means of organising society that can fill the power vacuum. Secondly, it gets people used to the balance between the individual and the collective. We can achieve great things when we work together, but that should not come through forceful means, the rights of the individual to choose their own path should still be valued. Thoughts?

Kalium 11y ago
I think that primates are instinctual hierarchical creatures, much given to hierarchies of power. I think we are also subject to a wide variety of cognitive flaws and easily misled by emotions. I think that any political philosophy based on blithely ignoring the traits of human psychology is highly likely to fail. I further think that historical attempts to do so have displayed a disturbing tendency towards spectacular failure. You have also erred in other ways, such as assuming that an identical balance between the individual and the collective is desirable for all. Further, you've assumed that breaking down current power structures will be followed by your preferred "means of organizing society" being adhered to instead of new power structures being established. You've also ignored tribe-forming behaviors that can be reasonable expected to occur around active, inclusive, informative news media. Or how nearly-hairless primates react to the presence of tribes other than their own. Along the way, you've also ignored the implicit power structures inherent in having news media systems and voting systems. So, let's go back to the problem here. All historical attempts to transition to Communism have resulted in terrifying numbers of dead people. This is so strikingly uniform that I am disinclined to think it an accident. Why would this time be any different at all, given that we're still dealing with the same nearly-hairless primates? The core of my argument is that every time someone who thinks like you gets taken seriously at a society-wide level, a crapload of people die and the end goal is never achieved. So far, you've failed to make a case that this time is different.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  > " All historical attempts to transition to Communism have resulted in terrifying numbers of dead people. This is so strikingly uniform that I am disinclined to think it an accident. Why would this time be any different at all, given that we're still dealing with the same nearly-hairless primates?" The difference is that it won't be a small group in power, taking away the rights of people. The power will be distributed throughout society, so there isn't a single point of failure and/or corruption. > "You have also erred in other ways, such as assuming that an identical balance between the individual and the collective is desirable for all." There's no such thing as an identical balance here, the balance will always be imperfect, but it is up to the individuals in the society to understand this balance, and try to make it as good as it can be. > "Further, you've assumed that breaking down current power structures will be followed by your preferred "means of organizing society" being adhered to instead of new power structures being established." I didn't state that direct democracy would definitely lead to communism, I stated that it would be a useful step to take before communism. In other words, should direct democracy take off, communism is not guaranteed, but it helps pave the way should people decide they want a communist society. > "You've also ignored tribe-forming behaviors that can be reasonable expected to occur around active, inclusive, informative news media." I don't doubt that tribes will form, but respect can still exist between tribes. For example, I'm not on the right-wing of the political spectrum but I can still respect thoughtful individuals that are. Furthermore, healthy debate is invigorating, people aren't only drawn to that which they agree with, debates between tribes can draw a crowd, especially if both groups feel well represented. Also, I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by an 'inclusive, informative' news media, which isn't surprising. Inclusivity is important to ensure all views can be heard, the only way this is going to happen is by removing the filters that control mass media. If it helps, consider the new model for inclusivity will be closer to YouTube than TV. However, this is only part of the solution, increasing available information doesn't help unless we can make sense of that information, which is why it is important for media to be informative. Extending the YouTube analogy further, every person is free to have their own channel, but efforts would be made to create cross channel content, either to refine the message of one 'tribe', or to engage with those they disagreed with. The easier these types of collaborative efforts are to organise and promote, the better chance we have of increasing our collective political consciousness. > "I think that primates are instinctual hierarchical creatures, much given to hierarchies of power. I think we are also subject to a wide variety of cognitive flaws and easily misled by emotions. I think that any political philosophy based on blithely ignoring the traits of human psychology are is highly likely to fail. I further think that historical attempts to do so have displayed a disturbing tendency towards spectacular failure." It'll take time to move beyond our past programming, but that's no reason not to try. The misguided attempts of the past show is that trying to force change through a totalitarian means is not desirable, it's important to raise our collective consciousness first, get people exploring new ways of living together without hierarchical social structures. Once we've had chance to understand this on a personal level, it'll be easier to get working on a larger scale.