Could Communism have worked?

[Marv]

But none of those things negate individualism.

I think any external interference on someone's choices limits a persons individuality. You asked for examples...well...

You don't think the right to private contract is the very definition of individualism?

[Loredoctor]

Therefore every society limits individualism. I could cite examples where democracy limits the individual.

But what do you mean by 'individualism'?

[Marv]

Therefore every society limits individualism. I could cite examples where democracy limits the individual.

Agreed. There is no perfect system and only one that comes close, but it's certainly not communism. Most of the more extreme forms of government or society do one of two things imo...place too much value on the individual or too much value on the collective.

But what do you mean by 'individualism'?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism#Pol ... ividualism

[Loredoctor]

But what do you mean by 'individualism'?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism#Pol ... ividualism

Thanks for that. Personally, I'd prefer a system that governs excesses of human nature as opposed to individualism, since that leads to anarchy (which, by extension, results in the road to a different tyranny).

[Avatar]

Every system attempts to "govern the excesses" of human behaviour, and ultimately fails.

--A

[Revan]

But what do you mean by 'individualism'?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism#Pol ... ividualism

Thanks for that. Personally, I'd prefer a system that governs excesses of human nature as opposed to individualism, since that leads to anarchy (which, by extension, results in the road to a different tyranny).

Well, I am by all means a liberal; so I value the personal choices of an individual's way of life; e.g. the right to vote, sexual ordination etc. However I fail to see how communism would take this away from a person if the regime were done correctly. So I am predisposed to agree with Loremaster; Communism isn’t evil.

However I thought Gart’s post had much eloquently to it. However I often think this argument has more applicability to it because we all live in capitalist regimes. We are used to seeking out for our own personal gain; this exploit is inbred in us from the point where we can start to learn it.

I, however, believe in nurture over nature. Human nature can ultimately be put aside with the right kind of nurture. So I also deviate from the argument that communism has to fail for this reason. It doesn’t have to; it just happens to because no society has been nurtured in the way which would require Communism to succeed.

Studying it further, it's human nurture that makes it fail; not nature.

[CovenantJr]

I, however, believe in nurture over nature. Human nature can ultimately be put aside with the right kind of nurture. So I also deviate from the argument that communism has to fail for this reason. It doesn’t have to; it just happens to because no society has been nurtured in the way which would require Communism to succeed.

Studying it further, it's human nurture that makes it fail; not nature.

I disagree. If you were to remove society entirely, our actions would still be self-interested. Our own survival and benefit would take precedence; we are, after all, animals. What you seem to be saying is communism would succeed if everyone within the society was indoctrinated with communist ideals from birth.

This has a couple of flaws, as I see it:

1) You cannot indoctrinate everyone from birth. It's just not achievable. Unless you set up a society comprised entirely of newborn infants without any parents or other adults, your fledgling communist society will necessarily be comprised of people who have not been indoctrinated in the ways of communism. If it is, as you say, the nurture of these adults that prevents them being entirely in favour of a communist society, then there will be some who refuse to indoctrinate their children into the communist mindset. Thus you end up with a second generation of people with their own dissenters and rebels. From a practical point of view, if no other, you simply cannot ensure everyone is a communist.

Now to point 2:

2) When you say "Human nature can ultimately be put aside with the right kind of nurture" you are, essentially, demonstrating the point about individuality that has already been made. You are advocating taking choice away and ensuring everyone is, for want of a better word, brainwashed from birth with the ideals of your society, regardless of whether this goes against their own nature. You are leaving them no free choice. This takes our hypothetical communist society a long way along the path to an Orwellian form of totalitarianism in which the state shapes the citizens as it sees fit, and individuals cease to exist. Surely there can be few greater violations of our essential humanity than to remove our personalities by indoctrination.

[Revan]

I, however, believe in nurture over nature. Human nature can ultimately be put aside with the right kind of nurture. So I also deviate from the argument that communism has to fail for this reason. It doesn’t have to; it just happens to because no society has been nurtured in the way which would require Communism to succeed.

Studying it further, it's human nurture that makes it fail; not nature.

I disagree. If you were to remove society entirely, our actions would still be self-interested. Our own survival and benefit would take precedence; we are, after all, animals. What you seem to be saying is communism would succeed if everyone within the society was indoctrinated with communist ideals from birth.

This has a couple of flaws, as I see it:

1) You cannot indoctrinate everyone from birth. It's just not achievable. Unless you set up a society comprised entirely of newborn infants without any parents or other adults, your fledgling communist society will necessarily be comprised of people who have not been indoctrinated in the ways of communism. If it is, as you say, the nurture of these adults that prevents them being entirely in favour of a communist society, then there will be some who refuse to indoctrinate their children into the communist mindset. Thus you end up with a second generation of people with their own dissenters and rebels. From a practical point of view, if no other, you simply cannot ensure everyone is a communist.

Now to point 2:

2) When you say "Human nature can ultimately be put aside with the right kind of nurture" you are, essentially, demonstrating the point about individuality that has already been made. You are advocating taking choice away and ensuring everyone is, for want of a better word, brainwashed from birth with the ideals of your society, regardless of whether this goes against their own nature. You are leaving them no free choice. This takes our hypothetical communist society a long way along the path to an Orwellian form of totalitarianism in which the state shapes the citizens as it sees fit, and individuals cease to exist. Surely there can be few greater violations of our essential humanity than to remove our personalities by indoctrination.

I didn't say it was right, I said it was possible.

I don't concur that this would be brainwashing; but let us speculate it is. We are all influenced, and indeed, brainwashed by our respective societies. We are all brainwashed by what that society beliefs is right and wrong; it's social perspectives. Believers in capitalism and religion, and indeed any practiced belief, did not come out of the womb with those beliefs. So we could speculate that indoctrination exists, in some structure, right now.

I do not actually belief that brainwashing exists; but certainly indoctrination does; and I do not presume it is a depraved thing for it to do so. It provides our society with a certain kind of structure. Though the kind of indoctrination I speculate exists is far less extreme than what would exist if what I hypothesize about the conditions for Communism to exist came to fruition.

[Menolly]

I do not actually belief that brainwashing exists; but certainly indoctrination does; and I do not presume it is a depraved thing for it to do so. It provides our society with a certain kind of structure. Though the kind of indoctrination I speculate exists is far less extreme than what would exist if what I hypothesize about the conditions for Communism to exist came to fruition.

Heh, Av and I were discussing the indoctrination of American Jews from birth regarding the "We will never forget" mindset in a different thread. I don't remember which thread that was though...

[Loredoctor]

I, however, believe in nurture over nature. Human nature can ultimately be put aside with the right kind of nurture.

I strongly disagree. The only way to put aside our nature is to adopt a complete tyranny of the individual. Who we are - our selfish natures - is an essential part of us. You can't develop a society where we deal with it and it's fixed. Likewise for many other 'flaws' in humans - processing limitations, etc.

[Avatar]

Now, I come down strongly on the nurture side of the debate. Nature is affected, perhaps even formed, by nurture in the mjority of cases.

However, I'm completely opposed to indoctrination, although I realise it is something that society practices continually.

We ourselves are the victims of indoctrination, don't fool yourselves that we're not.

The very process of socialisation is indoctrination.

--A

[I'm Murrin]

Socialism could probably work, in some forms. I just don't think Communism is one of those forms.

[Avatar]

You mean limited private ownership? Its always struck me as a better deal than the undiluted communism.

--A

[Revan]

Another point in which I overlooked in commenting upon is that we cannot indoctrinate everything within a given society; this I will have to consent with. Murrin and CovenantJr made accurate points when stating this.

And there was a recent survey done in the Soviet Union and China; and there were hundreds of millions who stated they would rather go back to communism; so belief in the system is not too implausible.

We ourselves are the victims of indoctrination, don't fool yourselves that we're not.

I certainly agree with this; good post.

I strongly disagree. The only way to put aside our nature is to adopt a complete tyranny of the individual. Who we are - our selfish natures - is an essential part of us. You can't develop a society where we deal with it and it's fixed. Likewise for many other 'flaws' in humans - processing limitations, etc.

Well many psychologists would allege that human “nature”, as it were, is to survive. Yet we can see many examples from which this claim is exempt; again I refer to suicide bombers.

I also disagree with the fact that placing aside our nature is a tyranny of any kind. Our personalities are largely formed by the society around us; the external stimuli; so what we value has been placed on us already – so does that make us under a certain kind of tyranny?

[danlo]

Our personalities are largely formed by fear...

[Loredoctor]

Well many psychologists would allege that human “nature”, as it were, is to survive. Yet we can see many examples from which this claim is exempt; again I refer to suicide bombers.

Those same psychologists would also argue that much of human behaviour is governed by the reward mechanism. A suicide bomber detonates the bomb simply because he or she believes in a higher cause; that their sacrifice will be rewarded in heaven. The same with the myth of the selfless sacrifice of a soldier when he falls onto a grenade to save his squad mates: a higher cause - be it Christianity, or another afterlife, will make people do all sorts of 'noble' things. But at the end, something great motivates them.

I also disagree with the fact that placing aside our nature is a tyranny of any kind. Our personalities are largely formed by the society around us; the external stimuli; so what we value has been placed on us already – so does that make us under a certain kind of tyranny?

I did not say placing aside our nature is a tyranny. It would be a utopia. I stated that any attempt to control our natures involves tyranny.

Second, our personalities are not only the product of society. They are also the product of cognitions (memories, etc), biological factors, and the physical environment. What we value is a judgement made by the individual.

[Avatar]

Of course we live under tyranny of all sorts. The tyranny of our fears as danlo so rightly says, but also the tyranny of all sorts of other things over which we have no control, but which all exert pressure on us to do certain things, behave in certain ways, etc.

As for our personalities, I think that they're a combination of those factors.

Our cognition, evaluation, judgement and perception are all affected to greater or lesser degrees by our upbringing and environment.

The less that is true, the better for you. But it's still true to extents that vary from the minimal to the extreme.

--A

[Reave the Unjust]

Has communism ever truly existed?

Sorry, got mixed up with the philosophy forum

[danlo]

There might be some semi-real communes still running in California... no, you're right the idea exists, the practice in everycase seems to be immediately overwrought with oppression and KGB-like fear...

[Avatar]

I wonder if that is because the people who run it aren't actually interested in the ideal themselves?

--A