3 ms·

We have evidence that communalism (or at least something similar to it) has worked at large scales in the past. In fact, it ought to be one of the easiest thing

by kqr 5y ago

We have evidence that communalism (or at least something similar to it) has worked at large scales in the past. In fact, it ought to be one of the easiest things to get to work, because you don't have to coerce anyone of anything.

lobocinza 5y ago
Like if trust wasn't an issue.
- kqr 5y ago
  Trust is one of the most important issues! I trust my two-year old to carry his glass to the table because I've given him the opportunity to show me he can be trusted with that. I don't trust my two-year old to not fall down stairs because I've given him the opportunity to show me he can be trusted with that and he has failed to show it. That's how it works in an egalitarian society too. You give people a chance to show they can be trusted. If they fail to show that, you stop trusting them.
  - lobocinza 5y ago
    Based on personal experience I don't see communal societies scaling. When you have a small homogeneous group of individuals trust isn't a issue because people are bound by blood, culture, ethnicity and everyone knows each other intimately but for larger groups instead of a big family you have multiple groups fighting for power and resources. So unless the society have mechanisms to deal with it it's fated to fail. Our present societies have many in place: private property, courts arbitration, elected representatives, etc.
paisawalla 5y ago
Your contributions to this thread have the tone of a wishful, rosey, cherry-picking trip through history motivated by the desire to arrive at a predestined conclusion: that we all should be living in a Communist utopia today, because it's logically the easiest and most available organizing system for humans. Therefore, we don't live in that world today only because intense energy and effort is directed into maintaining a non-optimal status quo. At least please provide some specific and tangible reasons why you believe this is so obviously true, instead of repeatedly alluding to these numerous, incontrovertible, imminently applicable examples. Your statements are, I imagine for most readers, directly opposed to what history has shown about human nature and the nature of power.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  > that we all should be living in a Communist utopia today, because it's logically the easiest and most available organizing system for humans Socialism is what bootstrapped many ancient human communities, even if they didn't know the name It is known (and sustained by scholars) that many societies of the past were socalist in nature, hell, even Jesus teachings are considered socialist. It is by far more popular and spontaneous than feudalism, because it worked. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Early_socialism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Early_socialism
  - lobocinza 5y ago
    Socialism as in euphemism for cultural authoritarianism?
    - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
      note to self: don't ever talk about socialism in US centric forums. they won't understand.
  - paisawalla 5y ago
    Let's assume that there's a consistent and coherent definition of socialism which could be applied to all of these civilizations, which there isn't. Rank these historical civilizations by technological progress, quality of life, territory held, and population. You won't find historical proto-socialism at the top end of that list. Why is that?
    - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
      > You won't find historical proto-socialism at the top end of that list. Why is that? Interesting thesis, now prove it! First of all you're conflating two arguments, excessive governments and socialism. Excessive government in the past was bad because bureaucracy was slow, meaning physically slow. Proto-socialism or community driven government made it possible for people to form smaller communities inside larger settlements where they could offload some of the burden to others in a mutually supportive way. People scared today of government intervention think they still live a thousand years ago. Like that country that wait 11 weeks between election and inauguration of a new president because the process was designed around stagecoaches that brought the votes to the capital. Secondly: your question is frankly showing that you went straight to the comments without even reading what I wrote Socialism is what *bootstrapped* many ancient human communities, the answer is there. We are talking about spontaneous and "default economic system" after all, not the best at something. If you really think ranking historical civilizations means anything, well you'll agree that Egyptians were quite THE civilization, does that mean that the best way to run a country is having a semi-god Pharaoh that builds pyramids in the desert? The US is a glitch in history compares to what ancient Egyptian or Romans or Chinese or Greek or Mongols have achieved, it's quite possible that how the US are run today is a glitch in history as well that do not depend by the way they are run but only by the position they found themselves in after WW2, inertia is a bitch, it took centuries for the roman empire to fall. They are in fact challenged (and somewhat defeates) by China, which is [drum roll] a socialist country! It's quite possible that if the US switched to the political system of France or Sweden they would be as rich as today. Also, to counter your naive argument: the Minoans. And do ancient Greek qualify? scholars have extensively argued that Plato and Aristotle led the foundation of socialism in their philosophies (it is now accepts that Marx was influenced by his ancient Greek studies) The argument challenges a widespread interpretation of the connection between antiquity and socialism in Marx's work-that his socialist vision takes its bearings from the Aristotelian understanding of the relationship between necessity and leisure. In Marx's view, the fundamental legacy of antiquity was the notion of freedom as masterlessness. The roots of this legacy are in the political experience of the democratic polis, not in Aristotle's reflections on the ideal household. The core of Marx's project, then, is not to open a realm of freedom beyond necessity, but rather to create spaces for democratic action within the realm of necessity itself, to ensure that work is free and compatible with leisured activities. [1] All work and no play, which is much more common in the US that here in Europe, makes Jack a dull boy. Socialism and proto socialism have and will keep having a much longer history and importance than feudalism will never have and occur much more spontaneously and "by default" than many other systems, especially today that we should be more aware of our limited time on Earth and much less addicted to sacrifice for the benefit of the few (AKA the masters). [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-politics/article/abs/socialist-polis-antiquity-and-socialism-in-marxs-thought/51055E5A2B90FDEF0C54BDD404668153 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-politics/a...

by kqr 5y ago

lobocinza 5y ago

Like if trust wasn't an issue.

kqr 5y ago
Trust is one of the most important issues! I trust my two-year old to carry his glass to the table because I've given him the opportunity to show me he can be trusted with that. I don't trust my two-year old to not fall down stairs because I've given him the opportunity to show me he can be trusted with that and he has failed to show it. That's how it works in an egalitarian society too. You give people a chance to show they can be trusted. If they fail to show that, you stop trusting them.
- lobocinza 5y ago
  Based on personal experience I don't see communal societies scaling. When you have a small homogeneous group of individuals trust isn't a issue because people are bound by blood, culture, ethnicity and everyone knows each other intimately but for larger groups instead of a big family you have multiple groups fighting for power and resources. So unless the society have mechanisms to deal with it it's fated to fail. Our present societies have many in place: private property, courts arbitration, elected representatives, etc.

paisawalla 5y ago

Your contributions to this thread have the tone of a wishful, rosey, cherry-picking trip through history motivated by the desire to arrive at a predestined conclusion: that we all should be living in a Communist utopia today, because it's logically the easiest and most available organizing system for humans. Therefore, we don't live in that world today only because intense energy and effort is directed into maintaining a non-optimal status quo. At least please provide some specific and tangible reasons why you believe this is so obviously true, instead of repeatedly alluding to these numerous, incontrovertible, imminently applicable examples. Your statements are, I imagine for most readers, directly opposed to what history has shown about human nature and the nature of power.

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
> that we all should be living in a Communist utopia today, because it's logically the easiest and most available organizing system for humans Socialism is what bootstrapped many ancient human communities, even if they didn't know the name It is known (and sustained by scholars) that many societies of the past were socalist in nature, hell, even Jesus teachings are considered socialist. It is by far more popular and spontaneous than feudalism, because it worked. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Early_socialism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Early_socialism
- lobocinza 5y ago
  Socialism as in euphemism for cultural authoritarianism?
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    note to self: don't ever talk about socialism in US centric forums. they won't understand.
- paisawalla 5y ago
  Let's assume that there's a consistent and coherent definition of socialism which could be applied to all of these civilizations, which there isn't. Rank these historical civilizations by technological progress, quality of life, territory held, and population. You won't find historical proto-socialism at the top end of that list. Why is that?
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    > You won't find historical proto-socialism at the top end of that list. Why is that? Interesting thesis, now prove it! First of all you're conflating two arguments, excessive governments and socialism. Excessive government in the past was bad because bureaucracy was slow, meaning physically slow. Proto-socialism or community driven government made it possible for people to form smaller communities inside larger settlements where they could offload some of the burden to others in a mutually supportive way. People scared today of government intervention think they still live a thousand years ago. Like that country that wait 11 weeks between election and inauguration of a new president because the process was designed around stagecoaches that brought the votes to the capital. Secondly: your question is frankly showing that you went straight to the comments without even reading what I wrote Socialism is what *bootstrapped* many ancient human communities, the answer is there. We are talking about spontaneous and "default economic system" after all, not the best at something. If you really think ranking historical civilizations means anything, well you'll agree that Egyptians were quite THE civilization, does that mean that the best way to run a country is having a semi-god Pharaoh that builds pyramids in the desert? The US is a glitch in history compares to what ancient Egyptian or Romans or Chinese or Greek or Mongols have achieved, it's quite possible that how the US are run today is a glitch in history as well that do not depend by the way they are run but only by the position they found themselves in after WW2, inertia is a bitch, it took centuries for the roman empire to fall. They are in fact challenged (and somewhat defeates) by China, which is [drum roll] a socialist country! It's quite possible that if the US switched to the political system of France or Sweden they would be as rich as today. Also, to counter your naive argument: the Minoans. And do ancient Greek qualify? scholars have extensively argued that Plato and Aristotle led the foundation of socialism in their philosophies (it is now accepts that Marx was influenced by his ancient Greek studies) The argument challenges a widespread interpretation of the connection between antiquity and socialism in Marx's work-that his socialist vision takes its bearings from the Aristotelian understanding of the relationship between necessity and leisure. In Marx's view, the fundamental legacy of antiquity was the notion of freedom as masterlessness. The roots of this legacy are in the political experience of the democratic polis, not in Aristotle's reflections on the ideal household. The core of Marx's project, then, is not to open a realm of freedom beyond necessity, but rather to create spaces for democratic action within the realm of necessity itself, to ensure that work is free and compatible with leisured activities. [1] All work and no play, which is much more common in the US that here in Europe, makes Jack a dull boy. Socialism and proto socialism have and will keep having a much longer history and importance than feudalism will never have and occur much more spontaneously and "by default" than many other systems, especially today that we should be more aware of our limited time on Earth and much less addicted to sacrifice for the benefit of the few (AKA the masters). [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-politics/article/abs/socialist-polis-antiquity-and-socialism-in-marxs-thought/51055E5A2B90FDEF0C54BDD404668153 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-politics/a...