A contradiction in terms. What you mean if "communist society".
That would only result in Anarcho-Syndicalism, though. Communism implies a particular social structure and approach to distribution.
It's very hard to tell, at this point, given that ownership of capital is becoming increasingly de-personalised. Part of the problem may be traditional socialism doesn't take into account the theorised coordinator class, as represented by the Soviet Nomenklatura or the contemporary corporate elite, who do not necessarily own the means of production, but are exercising increasing control over it. Of course, some would hold them to be just another manifestation of the bourgeoisie, as in the Soviets-as-state-capitalists model, so there's certainly a discussion to be had there. Either way, formal ownership seems to be of increasing irrelevance to the issue of class struggle, and that must be acknowledged.
What do you mean?
Duh?Quackers said:
But of course, that's entirely the point!
Oh, certainly, it applies to more forms of society than just A-S, I simply mean that those reforms alone would merely result in A-S. It would take some additional reforms, particularly in regards to distribution, to achieve communism.
I've always wondered why people feel so confident talking about "human nature" as something bestial and intrinsically wicked, as if that was self-evident. Marx, for one, felt that capitalism contradicted human nature, and that communism would restore man to his natural, cooperative state; a sort of "international clan", as it were.
Who the hell ever did that?
But isn't enough time to show bad results either.
I still don't see what you're sayingTraitorfish said:
Because human society is not simply the manifestation of innate urges, but is influenced by both concious choice and socialisation, neither of which can be entirely attributed to some unknown biological cause?
It's not a "No True Scotsman" if the observation in question is that the fellow was born and bred in Wiltshire.
Well, if we adopted workplace democracy and bottom-up democracy overnight, we'd merely have a form of Syndicalism, because the method of distribution would not have been fundamentally altered, the market still being used to distribute goods outside of a given collective, and wages, of a sort, within it. Communism demands the abolition of both the market and of wage labour, so deeper reforms would be necessary to achieve it.I still don't see what you're saying
A worthwhile contribution to the thread?
So does the Bourgeoisie/Proletariat split Marx envisioned need updating?
And yet human beings are frequently moved to help others, for no possible benefit to themselves, and even at great risk. How do we know that it is the "bad" side, and not the "good" side, that is innate?Is that mere socialisation? And, if so, how do we know that such socialisation cannot entirely over-power our apparently wicked nature?
Possibly. It depends on whether you see the Coordinator class as representing a distinct class, a sub-class of the bourgeoisies, or a sub-class of the proletariat. There's no consensus, as of yet, as to the most likely state of affairs, although it seems improbable that the third, once the most common outlook, will be sustained in a world so dominated by bureaucratic elites as ours.
