Why aren't you all Communists?

[El_Machinae]

I have a long answer and a short answer.

The short answer is "nearly all the people who claim to understand 'true' communism turn into giant jerkwads when they're answering my questions". Their proselytizers are (in general) terrible.

The longer answer is that property is instinctive to humans. It's so instinctive, our dogs get it. They co-evolved with us for so long that they can digest starches. And they very commonly know the difference between 'mine' and 'not mine'.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

@Manfred Belheim

The pyramid of self-actualization is less an insistence of some overarching, romantic idea of human nature, like the idea of inherent selfishness, and is instead a widely accepted biological theory on the psychology of survival. Anyway, if you want to argue human nature, I did provide an alternative philosophy, assuming correctly that folks would be unable to accept that there is no way to call something human nature.

How is a "widely accepted biological theory on the psychology of survival", as applied to humans, not an aspect of human nature? And how can you have an aspect of something that doesn't exist?

 

[Lexicus]

We're territorial, competitive, and hierarchical.

We aren't territorial, we're at least as cooperative as we are competitive, and we're at least as egalitarian as we are hierarchical.

The longer answer is that property is instinctive to humans.

Property is no more instinctive to humans than skateboarding or computer programming.

 

[Lohrenswald]

The longer answer is that property is instinctive to humans. It's so instinctive, our dogs get it. They co-evolved with us for so long that they can digest starches. And they very commonly know the difference between 'mine' and 'not mine'.

the capitalist sense of ownership is quite perverted of the much more sensible way dogs go about it

 

[galdre]

We aren't territorial, we're at least as cooperative as we are competitive, and we're at least as egalitarian as we are hierarchical.

We can be cooperative when individuals realize that it is in their self interest to do so (not all are like that, but at least a significant minority if not most). The rest I would have to disagree with.

 

[Lexicus]

the capitalist sense of ownership is quite perverted of the much more sensible way dogs go about it

I'm reminded of this Quotation from Chairman Lincoln:

We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing.

With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name — liberty.

Replace the word 'liberty' with 'property' and it works well enough here.

We can be cooperative when individuals realize that it is in their self interest to do so (not all are like that, but at least a significant minority if not most). The rest I would have to disagree with.

"Individuals" (by which I mean the human species, and also the human capacity to even think of ourselves as individuals) would not even exist if it weren't for group cooperation.

 

[BvBPL]

If Communism rebranded itself as Greatism, or the Free Liberty Peace and Love Ideology, what would be peoples' problems with the actual doctrine and its application?

State control of production and property.

 

[El_Machinae]

Property is no more instinctive to humans than skateboarding or computer programming.

Dude, even a variety of animals 'get' property. The legal recognition of property didn't just fall out of the sky as a good idea.

 

[Lexicus]

Dude, even a variety of animals 'get' property. The legal recognition of property didn't just fall out of the sky as a good idea.

Dude, no, they really don't. Some animals are territorial but to leap from that to property in the legalistic sense is simply ridiculous.

As for falling out of the sky, you're right of course. The legal concept of property appears to have derived from slavery, which necessitated arrangements whereby one person could control the labor and output of other people.

 

[galdre]

Animals compete for resources, just watch a group of carnivores competing for a kill (the distribution of which is often defined by a hierarchy). The concept of private property comes out of that same drive. Society/human culture has added some nuances, but the basic concept is still there.

 

[El_Machinae]

Dude, no, they really don't. Some animals are territorial but to leap from that to property in the legalistic sense is simply ridiculous.

And how is 'territorial' not similar to 'property'? And, do you consider yourself familiar enough in ethology to just blanket declare that I am wrong?

Yes, legal definitions of property evolved. Because we're cognitive and cooperative beings. But it grew from an instinctive fundament.

 

[Zelig]

I'm not a communist because the current system works real well for me, and there haven't been any communist systems that have worked any better.

 

[Lexicus]

And, do you consider yourself familiar enough in ethology to just blanket declare that I am wrong?

I consider myself familiar enough with anthropology to just blanket declare that you are wrong.

Yes, legal definitions of property evolved. Because we're cognitive and cooperative beings. But it grew from an instinctive fundament.

Animals compete for resources, just watch a group of carnivores competing for a kill (the distribution of which is often defined by a hierarchy). The concept of private property comes out of that same drive. Society/human culture has added some nuances, but the basic concept is still there.

You are both ignoring the distinction I drew above. Mr. Lincoln's first kind of liberty, the right of a person to do what they want with the products of their own labor, I would at least hesitate to dismiss as instinctively-grounded. I will say the observed behavior of many pre-state societies directly contradicts this, in the sense that there were strong cultural taboos against any individual becoming possessive of the products of their labor.
I would imagine that for societies existing close to the margin of survival, a sense that an individual deserved first access to the fruits of his/her hunting/gathering work would have been an unaffordable luxury.

Anyway, the more relevant sense of private property for this thread, what anti-capitalists generally are talking about when they critique private property, is Mr. Lincoln's second kind of liberty, the power to control other people's labor and the products of that labor. The drive to lump these two senses of private property together is due to the influence of Marx's "scientific socialism" and really only became prevalent in anti-capitalist thinking in the late 19th century.
But of course, even since Marx died, the most prevalent and important anti-capitalist political force (social democracy) has generally distinguished between the two and sought to reduce the scope for abuse and domination within the property system, rather than abolishing it altogether.

 

[El_Machinae]

I consider myself familiar enough with anthropology to just blanket declare that you are wrong.

The word 'instinctive' means something in a neuroscience/psychological sense. I'm not denying that you can find instances of people overcoming some instincts in order to act in a communal way, or even that some communal behaviour has an instinctive basis.

But I'll just use you and I as an example. I think of property as instinctive. You don't. Now, just because you're able transcend this conception doesn't mean much. You'll also need me to, or else communism doesn't work. And my first point, that communist 'explainers' are terrible at it means that eventually the threats of violence kick in. And then the experiment crashes and the armchair commies wring their hangs explaining how it wasn't 'true' communism.

It's not a transmissible system.

 

[galdre]

You are both ignoring the distinction I drew above. Mr. Lincoln's first kind of liberty, the right of a person to do what they want with the products of their own labor, I would at least hesitate to dismiss as instinctively-grounded. I will say the observed behavior of many pre-state societies directly contradicts this, in the sense that there were strong cultural taboos against any individual becoming possessive of the products of their labor.
I would imagine that for societies existing close to the margin of survival, a sense that an individual deserved first access to the fruits of his/her hunting/gathering work would have been an unaffordable luxury.

Anyway, the more relevant sense of private property for this thread, what anti-capitalists generally are talking about when they critique private property, is Mr. Lincoln's second kind of liberty, the power to control other people's labor and the products of that labor. The drive to lump these two senses of private property together is due to the influence of Marx's "scientific socialism" and really only became prevalent in anti-capitalist thinking in the late 19th century.
But of course, even since Marx died, the most prevalent and important anti-capitalist political force (social democracy) has generally distinguished between the two and sought to reduce the scope for abuse and domination within the property system, rather than abolishing it altogether.

Regarding the concept of workers owning the results of their labor, that's not the way societies have generally operated - that's why we still have such a starkly uneven distribution of income.

 

[Truthy]

Tech industry gives me money, markets work very often, planning is hard to get right, communism has a poor track record, I don't think it's immoral to extract value from the labor of employees, I'm suspicious of collectivism, tearing down existing institutions tends to be bad, market failures can be addressed, lots of problems people blame capitalism for aren't unique to capitalism (or even made worse by capitalism), Marxist philosophy mostly sounds crankish.

And no, humans aren't blank slates, lol

 

[Lexicus]

The word 'instinctive' means something in a neuroscience/psychological sense. I'm not denying that you can find instances of people overcoming some instincts in order to act in a communal way, or even that some communal behaviour has an instinctive basis.

But if a behavior and the opposite behavior are both 'instinctive' what's the point of calling either instinctive? I think you know that the term has a lot of freight with it in these sorts of debates. Generally it is used to imply that a given behavior is inherent, impossible to get rid of, and must be accommodated rather than abolished.

You'll also need me to, or else communism doesn't work.

Well, I can't speak for doctrinaire Marxists but to me "communism" started when wages grew beyond the level necessary for the mere subsistence of the workforce, and when the workforce began to have enough free time to do more than eat and sleep when not on the job.

"Communism" is all those things that enable the working class, and not just capitalists, to enjoy the fruits of the fantastic wealth we have as a result of increasing specialization and its consequence, increasing productivity.

 

[BvBPL]

The legal concept of property appears to have derived from slavery, which necessitated arrangements whereby one person could control the labor and output of other people.

Concepts of property are created when the benefits of the concept of property exceed the costs of creating those concepts. For example, intellectual property concepts emerged when the social value of the intellectual property concept were worth more than the enforcement of those property interests cost society.

Looking to the future, we are going to see more and more concepts of property. There’s an emerging concept of one’s personal likeness as a piece of property owned by the person. We will probably see conceptual property interests in our personal genetic material develop in the next few years.

 

[Lexicus]

Concepts of property are created when the benefits of the concept of property exceed the costs of creating those concepts. For example, intellectual property concepts emerged when the social value of the intellectual property concept were worth more than the enforcement of those property interests cost society.

So does this contradict what I said? Can you empirically support this notion?

 

[AlpsStranger]

The same reason I'm not an Ancap or anything else wildly unrealistic. Why bother worrying about something that won't happen and probably shouldn't happen?

The real future is going to be something much muddier and less ideologically satisfying than libertarianism or communism. It's not going to be something that satisfies autists and ideologues.