The Official Socialism/Democratic Socialism/Communism/Marxism Thread

[JahFocus CS]

"Socialism is dead"/"Socialism is against human nature."
"How could socialism possibly be dead, or against human nature, if they're so concerned to keep killing it off?"

Is socialism against "human nature?"

As Gould put it: "Why imagine that specific genes for aggression or spite have any importance when we know that the brain's enormous flexibility permits us to be aggressive or peaceful, dominant or submissive, spiteful or generous? Violence, sexism and general nastiness are biological since they represent one subset of a possible range of behaviors. But peacefulness, equality and kindness are just as biological--and we may see their influence increase if we can create social structures that permit them to flourish."

Human beings have basic physical and emotional needs--for food and shelter, for social contact and affection--which all too often go unmet under capitalism. But we also have a need to exercise control over our own lives and to engage in activities that make use of our creative abilities. Capitalism, like other forms of class society, frustrates these needs, leading those who are exploited to fight back against it.

In different circumstances, people behave differently. But this doesn't mean that people are simply unalterable products of their society. Workers have the collective capacity to change the circumstances in which they live. In the process of doing so, they change themselves.

What do socialists say about human nature?

 

[CHL]

"Socialism is dead"/"Socialism is against human nature."
"How could socialism possibly be dead, or against human nature, if they're so concerned to keep killing it off?"

Is socialism against "human nature?"


What do socialists say about human nature?

Anyone who proclaims a universal, set "human nature" needs to

 

[JahFocus CS]

Political Economy

Even the outstanding thinkers of antiquity could not imagine the existence of society without slavery. .For example, the Greek philosopher Plato (fifth to fourth centuries B.C.) wrote the first Utopia in the history of mankind about an ideal social system. But even in his ideal State he retained slaves. The labour of slaves, tillers of the soil and artisans, had to supply the means of existence for the higher class of rulers and warriors.

In the eyes of the greatest thinker of antiquity, Aristotle" (fourth century B.C.), slavery was also an eternal and inevitable necessity for society. Aristotle greatly influenced the development of thought in the ancient world and in the middle ages. Though he rose high above the level of contemporary society in his scientific conjectures and anticipations, on the question of slavery Aristotle remained a prisoner of the conceptions of his age. His views on slavery amounted to the following: for the helmsman the rudder is an inanimate instrument, but the slave is an animate instrument. If implements performed their work to order, if, for example, shuttles wove of themselves, there would be no need for slaves. But since in economic life there existed many occupations demanding simple unskilled labour, Nature had made wise provision, by creating slaves. In Aristotle’s opinion Nature itself had ordained that some men should be slaves and that others should rule them. Slave labour supplied free men with leisure for perfecting themselves. Hence, he concluded, the whole art of the master consisted in knowing how to use his slaves.

Many people on this board seem to have an Aristotlean view of society, still, in 2015

Also, I've been thinking: as capital is borderless, is there a long-term tendency to cause states to integrate? Is a world government the logical conclusion here? In the short-term, I don't think this applies, as it is in the interests of capitalists to stoke divisions for various reasons (nationalistic sentiment to boost profits, divide the working class, etc.). If there is a tendency to integrate, do you think the conscious action of the working class has anything to do with that? Calls for open borders are becoming more and more mainstream across the world... as capital flows freely, does labor also fight for the same? Should labor do so? (EDIT: to clarify, I mean should labor also fight for open borders, so that it is free to move around? Unlike today where capital freely moves but labor is restricted, which facilitates the power of capitalists)

 

[CHL]

Which reminds me, @JahFocus CS what are your thoughts on a world government? I'm definitely in favour of a form it, but there are many ways it could occur and be set up, some vastly more preferable than others. And mundialization and post nationalism?

 

[Tate]

Hmm, I think the closest capital can take us to a world government is a EU type organization, give or take a little strength.

 

[JahFocus CS]

Which reminds me, @JahFocus CS what are your thoughts on a world government? I'm definitely in favour of a form it, but there are many ways it could occur and be set up, some vastly more preferable than others. And mundialization and post nationalism?

I don't know... World government under capitalism to me is

Under it, there would be a more or less unified bourgeoisie. These motherfukkers have drones and have militarized space and shyt. I just can't see it not being a dystopia. But it would simplify the contradictions of society along exceedingly clear class lines, and so would create a situation resembling that of other modes of production of class societies late in their development.

Of course I support a form of socialist internationalism and internationalist solidarity, but I feel that for practical purposes, that is a conscious project of the working class movement. If it is forced into being by capital, I think we're already in a bad situation at that point

 

[CHL]

I don't know... World government under capitalism to me is

Under it, there would be a more or less unified bourgeoisie. These motherfukkers have drones and have militarized space and shyt. I just can't see it not being a dystopia. But it would simplify the contradictions of society along exceedingly clear class lines, and so would create a situation resembling that of other modes of production of class societies late in their development.

Of course I support a form of socialist internationalism and internationalist solidarity, but I feel that for practical purposes, that is a conscious project of the working class movement. If it is forced into being by capital, I think we're already in a bad situation at that point

What about post capitalism? Would of a form of mundialization/democratic globalisation be appealing then?

 

[Tate]

A global government would certainly put class lines in a starker context. However history tells us far off rule leads to nationalist reaction. Perhaps it would be different in a modern setting with the trappings of democracy though.

 

[JahFocus CS]

What about post capitalism? Would of a form of mundialization/democratic globalisation be appealing then?

I mean, sure, it sounds good. We could start by democratizing the UN and getting rid of the Security Council

 

[JahFocus CS]

A global government would certainly put class lines in a starker context. However history tells us far off rule leads to nationalist reaction. Perhaps it would be different in a modern setting with the trappings of democracy though.

I thought that too, world government under capitalism would certainly be very unstable as it would provoke a lot of secessionist efforts. That already happens in a lot of large countries though (and even small ones)... but we know what the response would be to such secessionist rebellions: militarized repression Those rebellions combined with working class agitation just makes me think the repression under capitalist world government would make what we see today, look like child's play.

 

[CHL]

I mean, sure, it sounds good. We could start by democratizing the UN and getting rid of the Security Council

That would be a good start we will see whether a retooled UN is capable of being the entity to move the world in that direction or not.

A global government would certainly put class lines in a starker context. However history tells us far off rule leads to nationalist reaction. Perhaps it would be different in a modern setting with the trappings of democracy though.

It could be structured in many different ways. Imagine a form of democratic socialism scaled all the way up to the supranational level, with world leaders beholden much more to the voters in a society where the influence of private capital is constrained and there is a much more ideal degree of income distribution.


Obviously the problem is getting to that position though

 

[JahFocus CS]

Directly and Indirectly Social Labor: What Kind of Human Relations Can Transcend Capitalism? - by Peter Hudis - The International Marxist-Humanist

I'm about halfway through it right now but ...

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

America needs socialism

 

[DEAD7]

America needs socialism

 

[Tate]