Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Explain: Marx and the Idea of Communism Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think Marx ever noticed the obvious paradigm in human beings. We are greedy and selfish -- did he seriously think his idea of Communism would work? Where people would live in a society that is equal?

    I don't know SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME

    I suppose The Communist Manifesto seems great on paper, but other than that, in reality it's not so great. The main subject of his idea (humans) is flawed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He said we are materialistic to the degree of satisfying our most basic needs, IE food and shelter and clothing.
    Beyond that we are fundamentally cooperative human beings until we are subject to the corrupting nature material goods and how the more wealth we amass the more we want. He had quite a pragmatic method.

    Considering that he explains primitive communism, the majority of our existence, where we worked collectively to satisfy the needs of the group and we were relatively equal. He analyses the progression of history and how each period of society progresses. It is ultimately on class lines.

    In industrial capitalism there was a collective focus of which there was an innate capacity for the workers to seize the means of production and create communism.

    Where would we live? Where we do now.
    Is it possible, yes. Source?
    • Catalonia during the civil war (July 1936- March 1939)
    • Free Territory in Ukraine 1918- 1921
    • Marinaleda in Andalusia ( Modern day)
    • 'Hippie' communes
    • Chile under Salvador Allende


    Majority of human history (around 94%+) plus some modern day examples, we are cooperative.
    When we were in an agrarian economy in the 1200s if you told people then about modern society they would have scoffed.
    'It always seems impossible until it is done.' Nelson Mandela (who was a communist)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cylos)
    He said we are materialistic to the degree of satisfying our most basic needs, IE food and shelter and clothing.
    Beyond that we are fundamentally cooperative human beings until we are subject to the corrupting nature material goods and how the more wealth we amass the more we want. He had quite a pragmatic method.

    Considering that he explains primitive communism, the majority of our existence, where we worked collectively to satisfy the needs of the group and we were relatively equal. He analyses the progression of history and how each period of society progresses. It is ultimately on class lines.

    In industrial capitalism there was a collective focus of which there was an innate capacity for the workers to seize the means of production and create communism.

    Where would we live? Where we do now.
    Is it possible, yes. Source?
    • Catalonia during the civil war (July 1936- March 1939)
    • Free Territory in Ukraine 1918- 1921
    • Marinaleda in Andalusia ( Modern day)
    • 'Hippie' communes
    • Chile under Salvador Allende


    Majority of human history (around 94%+) plus some modern day examples, we are cooperative.
    When we were in an agrarian economy in the 1200s if you told people then about modern society they would have scoffed.
    'It always seems impossible until it is done.' Nelson Mandela (who was a communist)
    I agree. It's certainly possible and has indeed been partially achieved. It's evolutionarily beneficial to be altruistic, and altruism inspires more altruism. We're not inherently greedy or selfish.

    The only problem I see is that communist societies which have been formed, such as the Spanish Anarchist ones in the 1930s, were destroyed by all of the other political forces around them: the fascists under Franco destroyed the anarchist societies, and they were backed by the Nazis as well as the United States and the rest of the Western powers, who were helping the fascists economically. Meanwhile, the Stalinists from the USSR also helped to bring down the anarchist societies, because they probably didn't like pure Communism being put into practice.

    So, perhaps a spontaneous world revolution is needed for a long-term anarcho-communist society to be successful.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    So, perhaps a spontaneous world revolution is needed for a long-term anarcho-communist society to be successful.
    This is the biggest problem. Socialism will either be free or it will not be at all. I think under the correct conditions it would be achievable but it requires so much to go according to plan, everyone to co-operate and there will always be opponents to face that try and crush any anarchist revolution.

    I think reformism is a better and safer approach if your society allows that.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cylos)
    He said we are materialistic to the degree of satisfying our most basic needs, IE food and shelter and clothing.
    Beyond that we are fundamentally cooperative human beings until we are subject to the corrupting nature material goods and how the more wealth we amass the more we want. He had quite a pragmatic method.

    Considering that he explains primitive communism, the majority of our existence, where we worked collectively to satisfy the needs of the group and we were relatively equal. He analyses the progression of history and how each period of society progresses. It is ultimately on class lines.

    In industrial capitalism there was a collective focus of which there was an innate capacity for the workers to seize the means of production and create communism.

    Where would we live? Where we do now.
    Is it possible, yes. Source?
    • Catalonia during the civil war (July 1936- March 1939)
    • Free Territory in Ukraine 1918- 1921
    • Marinaleda in Andalusia ( Modern day)
    • 'Hippie' communes
    • Chile under Salvador Allende


    Majority of human history (around 94%+) plus some modern day examples, we are cooperative.
    When we were in an agrarian economy in the 1200s if you told people then about modern society they would have scoffed.
    'It always seems impossible until it is done.' Nelson Mandela (who was a communist)
    Jewish kibbutz system. Amish.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Marx conceived of the subject as conditioned by historically particular relations of exploitation, postulating little beyond non-trivial constants in human nature. In the idiom of German philosophy, this conception was formalised by the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory into a dialectical interplay between subject and object - of persons being constituted in such a way as to reproduce the social totality. The upshot of which is that Marx thought class consciousness was a necessary prerequisite to revolutionary action and, by extension, communism and its prefiguring.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    back in the 1840s it was unthinkable that capitalism could create a world such as the one in 2014 built around entertainment, technology, more free time, etc
    marx clearly underestimated the free market and its ability to make things better for everybody over time
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by potestas)
    I don't think Marx ever noticed the obvious paradigm in human beings. We are greedy and selfish -- did he seriously think his idea of Communism would work? Where people would live in a society that is equal?

    I don't know SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME

    I suppose The Communist Manifesto seems great on paper, but other than that, in reality it's not so great. The main subject of his idea (humans) is flawed.
    This raises the question of why material possessions turn to ashes in our mouths once acquired, and why we universally derive deeper happiness from altruism and cooperation.

    I'm not sure to what extent selfishness is in our nature and to what extent it is perpetuated by our culture. I'm inclined to agree with the user who said that it only really applies to our most basic needs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Karl Marx was a greedy Jewish supremacist. The Bolskevikl revolution was funded by wealthy Jewish bankers and used class warfare to turn peasants against others. All communism did to Russia and other eastern European countries is create wealthy Jewish oligarch who ruled over them.**** you Marxist commy scum.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SatanLivesInNY)
    Karl Marx was a greedy Jewish supremacist. The Bolskevikl revolution was funded by wealthy Jewish bankers and used class warfare to turn peasants against others. All communism did to Russia and other eastern European countries is create wealthy Jewish oligarch who ruled over them.**** you Marxist commy scum.
    Not a Marxist, I'm an evolutionary.

    1. People don't judge Jesus for the crusades, yet Marx is judged for the Bolsheviks that he had no direct involvement with. I've mentioned earlier that he opposed authoritarianism and wished for the eradication of the state.
    2. Nice to know we have open minded people.

    Unless you're a troll
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    This raises the question of why material possessions turn to ashes in our mouths once acquired, and why we universally derive deeper happiness from altruism and cooperation.

    I'm not sure to what extent selfishness is in our nature and to what extent it is perpetuated by our culture. I'm inclined to agree with the user who said that it only really applies to our most basic needs.
    Agreed. In any case there is no way you can show, either way, whether people are inherently greedy or have that imposed upon their psyche a later date by social conditioning.

    Even if you could prove it, that is a thoroughly terrible argument against a communist state. There are so many, many things that humans do that are 'unnatural' from digging up fossils, to cooking food, to wearing clothes, you could argue all these things are 'unnatural' if you so choose.

    And then we must address what the point in a society is. If we see society as a thing with which to make the world a better place then should we not try to supress our natural urges in order to do that. In fact we, largely, already do. You could of course lie and steal and cheat and rape and put it all down to your natural greed for more stuff yo be yours. However, most people don't because that is, truly the deal we make when we form a society; to supress our urge to do wrong unto others in exchange for protection from other peoples same urges and the betterment of all.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.