Socreges:
Whoops, sorry.
Socreges said:
But could you, with certainty, say that humans could never be so empathetic/reasonable to sustain a communist state? I think it's incredibly unlikely, but I'm not convinced either way.
With
certainty? No, of course not. But I'm 99+% sure of it. Look at it this way:
In a Hobbesian sense, man had to renounce his "right to everything", which was considered by Hobbes to be a "natural right", in order to enter into covenants (i.e., civil society); though this trade-off involves many benefits for people (e.g., safety, allowing us to be trusting enough to sustain meaningful relationships with one another etc.) we
still see daily examples of people who try to exercise that natural right despite our best efforts at proper socialization (think: Bernie Ebbers, a jilted lover who returns to rape/murder his ex etc.). In the cost-benefit analysis of such a system, the "costs" (our loss of some of our natural rights) are largely outweighed by the "benefits" (the protections afforded us).
Pure communism involves an even
more drastic curtailment of our "natural rights" (i.e., our natural inclinations), with similar "benefits" (i.e., inclusion in civil society); the calculus would necessarily be different here, and the system would tend to be rejected. As for why we don't include "the prosperity of others" in our "benefit" matrix (which is the allure of communism for most people-- the fact that our fellow man will never be for want), it's because we're pretty much inherently self-interested beings. If we weren't, then we'd see an entirely different dynamic at work in many different spheres of activity and interaction. But we don't see this different dynamic, largely-- we see the exact dynamic we'd expect under a Hobbesian account: self-interest that can be mitigated, not discarded. To take an example:
I often used to think to myself (when I was about 11 years old and green
), "hey, imagine if every time there was a crime committed, everyone in the general vicinity went after the perpetrator?" There'd certainly be little crime if such things regularly transpired. After all, a gun has at most, what, 15 bullets? The criminal would be overwhelmed by sheer numbers. Of course, the only thing standing in the way is our desire for self-preservation-- most people aren't going to willingly give their lives for the sake of idealism. When people do, we call it bravery, and it is lauded. Can we reasonably expect
every person to be courageous in that same manner? Clearly not, despite the fact that the "benefit", in an ideal sense, would be an incredible one-- the virtual eradication of crime.
Or, if this scenario seems too drastic for you, think about the human dynamic in any situation you can think of, and try to posit how it would be different in its features if we were capable of detaching ourselves entirely from our self-interest in favor of idealism. And, yes, I realize that you may say that communism would not require us to "detach" ourselves from self-interest, but only that we align our self-interest with the interests of others (i.e., align our interests with our idealism, similar to humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers' idea of "congruence"); this phenomenon is popularly referred to as "enlightened self-interest", and though it's quite a powerful and motivational idea, it, too, has limits, which are readily discernible if one examines various areas of human activity. As mentioned,
despite our idealism, we often behave in ways that are contrary to it-- why hasn't "enlightened self-interest" worked in any other sphere of human activity? (it's worked incrementally, as societies
have become more enlightened in their rules and practices; however, I feel that it's plain that it has limits) The prepotency of self-interest is visible everywhere. Do I lament this fact? Sure, I think we all do-- on our good days, at least.
Believe it or not, however, self-interest
does have its benefits; I don't believe that civilization would have progressed as rapidly as it has without it. The best we can do is to temper and channel that self-interest into socially desirable behaviors.
So if we see people attempting to circumvent even the comparatively limited restrictions we place on their self-interest presently (and this, in a system where we already
allow people to amass vast fortunes-- yet they still desire more), imagine how much more prevalent such behavior would be under a more stringent system. The potential for abuse would be too great, imo. This is to say nothing about power dynamics and the nature of government, which would both have to drastically change if such a system were enacted. In essence, you'd have to turn the entirety of human history and common human experience (not to mention commonly accepted psychological paradigms) on its head for it to work; I'm not too hopeful that it can be done, and I'm certainly not going to hold my breath waiting for it.
By the way, I'm not suggesting that Hobbes "got it right", because he got a lot wrong. For instance, the "state of nature" he posited as the basis for the ingression into covenants has been shown by cultural anthropologists to have likely never existed; this removes the cornerstone from his theory, and the rest consequently crumbles. In other words, he did not account for the fact that human beings seem to be intrinsically "wired" for community in a sense, and this has been shown to be the case as far back as history allows us to go. Nowhere do we see individual men constantly (and violently) at odds with one another, protecting their interests; on all levels, we see some basic form of communal behavior, which has been built upon-- not created
ex nihilo-- as we've progressed as people. This speaks against his theory. I was just using his views as an illustrative device, since the self-interest he spoke of
is readily apparent, though perhaps not to as great an extent, or in the same manner, as he maintained.
Minotauro said:
Are you sure you used that phrase? After searching for "bludgeon", I was unable to find a post where you use it.
Either way, I certainly didn't knowingly crib it from you. Still, I was truly terrified there for a second...
Heh, actually, I later realized that I used the phrase on that "other" forum, not here. Still, I used the exact same phrase, which I found amusing.
Oh and, by the way, I do read your posts. I never claimed I didn't.
Oh, I know you didn't; I was referring to Hammy (since it seemed that he was saying he didn't read my posts) as well as (the numerous) others who have said such things both here and elsewhere.
Inumaru said:
Did Marx envisage "meta-humans"? Are you sure you're not thinking of Nietzsche's "Übermensch"? It's been too long since I've read any of this, though...
Well, it's been (roughly 7) years since I've read Marx, but as I recall, the transitional phase between capitalism and communism required man to come to view his work as an extension of himself, to no longer be "alienated" from his work. We're currently estranged from our work in the capitalist system because labor is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Since, under his account, all social relations are ultimately economic relations, we are in essence cut off from one another
as people, and, similarly, view others as means to an end rather than ends in themselves. Communism was seen as the synthesis in the Hegelian dialectical process, with the injustices of capitalism being the thesis and the struggle of the proletariat against those injustices being the antithesis; in order to transition from one phase to the next, human beings first had to become "social beings" as opposed to "material beings"-- this "eminently socially conscious" human is what I was referring to with the "meta-human" term; I'm not sure whether or not that exact phrase is actually used in his writing, since it was so long ago. It might be, but I forget.
I also apologize if I got any of the details wrong; like I said, it's been many years since I've looked at this stuff. I'm pretty sure this is the gist of it, however.
What your writing lacks in economy of words it makes up nicely in preciseness.
Hah, don't tell that to anyone else.
Though I've said the same thing in the past (re: my desire to be as precise as possible), I was derided for it. Apparently, some (many?
) people don't see it that way, but rather view me as some sort of grandiloquent poser.
But whatever-- I let people believe what they want to believe.
Thanks for the kind words, btw.
I don't deny that I can repeat myself sometimes, and that I ramble a bit here and there, but for the most part, I merely desire to be precise and to convey the texture of my thoughts accurately. How I write is pretty much
exactly how I think (when I
do think at length on things), so draw what (possibly unflattering) conclusions you will.
Regarding Loki... he may have resented it when I called him "pathologically verbose", but when I see him continually post in a thread saying "this will be the past post", "this really will be the last post", "ok, no fooling this time, I have important stuff to do", "NO I REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME"... there's few other phrases to describe it.
:lol
Yeah, I'm pretty much addicted to this forum (and to the internet in general). It's something I've been meaning to fix for a good while now, and it
will be fixed at some as yet undetermined point in the immediate future...
EviLore said:
Hammy said:
Of course I'm paying attention to what you're saying. I just let other people distill it down for me.
Oh, ok.
I was gonna say...
Still, though, you're in danger of only getting misrepresentations of my stances that way, seeing as how my opinions are sometimes contrary to those generally held by the board.
