/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15168945]

>from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

[Anonymous No.15168973]

>>15168945
good point

[Anonymous No.15168983]

what if the population at large is low production and high necessity?

[Anonymous No.15169004]

>>15168945
>from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
explain to me how this wouldn't break up in a second. you give people whatever they desire and demand little to nothing in return simultaneously. what if some people decide to breed like fucking rabbits thereby exponentially increasing the amount of mouths that have to be fed? the principle requires us to feed them too all the while demanding very little from them. that way you've just created the tragedy of the commons situation and it's obviously unsustainable in the long run so they'd have to either a) revert back to private property which is a textbook solution to tragedy of the commons or b) impose strict limits on number of births but communism is supposed to be stateless so who's going to enforce that?

[Anonymous No.15169017]

>>15168945
What if there are niggers in your society (namely a demographic that consumes and steals a lot and contributes very little)?

[Anonymous No.15169019]

>>15169004
you are projecting capitalist behavior onto communism

[Anonymous No.15169056]

>>15169019
where's the capitalist behavior in what I've described?

[Anonymous No.15169065]

>>15169019
>people being greedy and exploitative is because of capitalism

[Anonymous No.15169069]

>>15169056
literally just read Marx, sweaty

[Anonymous No.15169082]

>>15169019
Explain how rabbits pumping out kids one after the other like a factory is a symptom of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.15169089]

>>15169065
correct

[Anonymous No.15169090]

>>15169065
Literally yes

>>15169056
Explain how it'd be unsustainable. Of course if an asteroid crashed on earth there won't be food or water for everyone either, putting such an unreasonable scenario such as 'everyone having tons of kids' to somehow have a shot at an argument is pretty ineffective.

[Anonymous No.15169099]

>>15169082
you are assuming humans are self-interested and unreasonable to the level of animals

[Anonymous No.15169100]

>>15169089
What is it called when people are greedy and exploitative in communism? Mental illness?

[Anonymous No.15169105]

>capitalism is good

[Anonymous No.15169106]

>>15169082
capitalist wolves oppress the proleharetariat

[Anonymous No.15169107]

>>15169069
I'd rather study communist behavior in practice. Science should be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Care to point out any society where we can observe communist behavior?

[Anonymous No.15169115]

>>15169099
>humans are self-interested and unreasonable
Some are, some aren't. Not all humans are the same.

[Anonymous No.15169117]

>>15169100
it would be outside the norm

[Anonymous No.15169210]

>>15169090
>putting such an unreasonable scenario such as 'everyone having tons of kids' to somehow have a shot at an argument is pretty ineffective
it's not unreasonable, that was just an example of the logic of the commons as applied to human reproduction. in communism everything is a part of the commons and therefore may be abused leading to the tragedy of the commons, exploitation of the commons is a very well documented fact in economics.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243

[Anonymous No.15169212]

>>15169117
That doesn't really support the idea of a base

[Anonymous No.15169295]

>>15169210
google elinor ostrom noob

[Anonymous No.15169333]

>>15169089
This is what commies actually believe.

[Anonymous No.15169348]

>>15169333
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15169390]

>>15169348
Verily. That's what happens when you don't start with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.15169407]

>>15168945
>rationed goods

[Anonymous No.15169421]

>>15169390
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics/#Comm

[Anonymous No.15169428]

>>15169019
more like human behavior

[Anonymous No.15169576]

>>15169089
>things shape other things
>in these relationships, some things are dominant
Wow, communist thought is so insightful.

[Anonymous No.15169600]

>>15169100
imperialist scum, siberia fodder

[Anonymous No.15169622]

>>15169421
The point is that greed pre-dates capitalism by thousands of years. All you need to do is read literature, the Bible, or any other moral work of the Ancients. It is part of human nature. Commies believe that by changing the system they change human nature, which is biologically naive.

As the greatest living biologist once said: ''Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species''.

Also, that article isn't very good, as it makes assumptions about Plato's beliefs. No one knows what Plato believed.

[Anonymous No.15169632]

>>15169100
Class traitor

[Anonymous No.15169707]

>>15169632
>noooooooo you can't betray your class noooooooo you have to stick with your fellow workers noooooooo we believed in you how could you do that to us how can you become a millionaire while we have nothing to eat nooooooooooo

[Anonymous No.15169714]

>>15168945
Marx utterly BTFO

[Anonymous No.15169720]

>>15169632
you can stick the red flag up your arse
i've got the foreman's job at last

[Anonymous No.15169783]

>>15169089
>>15169090
>Literally yes
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.15169836]

>>15168945
>this thread
Wow Marxists are stupid

[Anonymous No.15169892]

>>15168945
This clash in ideology can actually be tied back to the theory of whether man is inherently good or inherently evil. Communism tries to provide a method of social motion based on the idea that people are inherently good and will sacrifice individual things for the good of all. Capitalism straps a harness to the idea that people are inherently evil and selfish, using this as the driving force. Given the fact that many an attempt at communism typically results in leaders who pamper themselves while the rest of the society bears the burdens, on top of accounts that people will snitch on each other when they feel that they are disadvantaged, we can assume that, for the most part, man is inherently evil in that they are selfish in the attempt to preserve themselves and those whom they deem precious. It is usually not until these qualities are met, or they come into contact with someone of seemingly undeserved consequences that people will become charitable.

[Anonymous No.15169928]

>>15169622
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

[Anonymous No.15169981]

>>15169105
Capitalism is better. Yes, it increases the likelihood of squandering resources and can drive people to the extremes of greed, but on the other hand, it is simply impossible to expect a surgeon or other similar professionals to be complacent with the same living conditions as shopping cart collectors and burger flippers. Capitalism has the potential to reward effort, when effort is put into achieving what is rewarding. Under communism, effort towards reward would be rewarded with a pat on the back and a "way to support the community, comrade", since you can't tangibly compensate for that work because it would provide an avenue for financial gain in selling it. If the state did financially compensate you, it would cease to be communism and would just be state-sponsored capitalism instead of free-market capitalism.

[Anonymous No.15170020]

>>15169928
Anthropology is quite often a pseudoscience, so one should be very skeptical of those claims. Anthropologists are story-tellers, and you can invent any stories you want.

The impulse towards private property has been observed in monkeys, as well as behavior that could be easily described as ''greedy''. Only controlled experiments and objective gathering of data should be trusted as science.

At any rate:

>There would be no private property, which is distinguished from personal property[6] such as articles of clothing and similar personal items, because primitive society produced no surplus; what was produced was quickly consumed and this was because there existed no division of labour, hence people were forced to work together

Therefore, even if those claims are true, people were ''forced to work together'' because they ''produced no surplus''. Well, then, of course adverse conditions will alter human nature in many ways. It's like saying no human beings (other than eskimos) have a tendency to get fat just because in primitive societies people were thin.
The question is: once surplus arises, once the conditions of industrial societies are met, private property (however you define, since commies tend to define ad hoc), also arises, and this is human nature, just like geting fat once a lot of food is available is also human nature (because tendency to get fat gives you certain evolutionary advantages in certain environments, such as during the ice age).

Finally, you seem to be mistaking greed for private property. Typical conceptual confusion that you find in commies, who cannot think clearly. These things are definitely not the same. Greed exists in all areas of life, even in love or aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.15170026]

>>15169107
> Care to point out any society where we can observe communist behavior?

Animal kingdom if one might call that communism. If you want human examples look at all of the prehistory.

[Anonymous No.15170054]

>>15170020
>The impulse towards private property has been observed in monkeys

care to point out any such studies? I don't think you understand what private property means.
You don't understand capitalism, let alone communism.

[Anonymous No.15170060]

>>15168945
“Assez de ces formules ambiguës telles que le «droit au travail», ou «à chacun le produit intégral de son travail». Ce que nous proclamons, C’EST LE DROIT À L’AISANCE — L’AISANCE POUR TOUS"

[Anonymous No.15170080]

>>15169928
>A primary inspiration for both Marx and Engels were Lewis Henry Morgan's descriptions of "communism in living" as practised by the Iroquois Nation of North America.[2] In Marx's model of socioeconomic structures, societies with primitive communism had no hierarchical social class structures or capital accumulation.[3]
Boy, he must have done some shit research if he's never heard of village elders, chieftains, hunters/warriors, then boys and cripples, at least along the male side.
It also doesn't help that since they were also nomadic, the accumulation of wealth would only be a burden when they pack up and move. The overwhelming majority of societies stopped being nomadic long before the introduction of the Iroquois and company to the rest of the world.