Human nature is not static. It has changed over time.

I wholeheartedly disagree, particularly when it comes to the principle of "everyone agree to put in an equal effort....and then take only and exactly what you need from the community pot..." THAT....Communism....has *never* worked without the overbearing use of FORCE....which means it is no longer communism, put some perversion which requires Authoritarian oversight.

That being said....no....human nature is human nature. Whether you believe in God (and thus God-given human characteristics) or Evolution (in which we suggest man has NOT changed significantly at all during recorded history) then human nature is static for the purposes of this conversation. Demonstrate otherwise, please.

Marx never said that people had to strive to live a certain life to live in Communism rather that economic forces would naturally lead people to that life. The question is whether or not humanity would arrive at that end. Even Marx said that society had to go "through" the capitalist stage to reach true communism. If that is true than there really never has been a communist state. Stalin and Mao were both ruthless sociopathic dictators with states that had the "appearance" of communism, as described by Marx, but little else. Though if one were to look at the historical record one would clearly see that, in so far as we know, Capitalism has been the economical mode that has arisen "organically" and is just as exploitive, ruthless and selfishly driven as every other human institution (including the previous and current manifestations of this thing called communism) has been because we as a species hold all those evils within ourselves. I agree that communism has never been implemented and that it can't be implemented solely for the reason that we would have to fix ourselves rather then find some different colored straight jacket told hold the human madness in check. Communism vs Capitalism.....does it really matter? In the end the decision rests not in asking if one system is more moral than the other but, which system is going to screw you over the most. So far from what I have read I would say I would have better luck with Capitalism. This is easy for me to say because I am from the USA because as Che said when asked from an American reporter "If our system is so bad then why do we have a much higher standard of living in the USA then in Communist states" (or words to that effect) Che answered "That is because you export your exploitation".

Human nature is here referring to general behavior of people in groups, I think. Neither a Christian nor an evolutionary view (if we must have such a dichotomy) suggest that humans have changed significantly physically in the last few thousand years, but that doesn't mean ways of thinking haven't changed.

The fact that we have large-scale elections and respect private property are some pretty big changes in human behavior. So, is this considered a change human nature? I'd say so.

As for implementing communism, I think the original concept revolved around the somewhat optimistic expectation that eventually production methods would become so efficient that goods would be abundant enough for everyone to meet their needs at no significant expense. In this sense implementation of communism is just sort of a natural transition from capitalism, similar to the transition from feudalism to capitalism. If this were true, then the argument would be kind of pointless: you don't hear anyone arguing for capitalism over feudalism nowadays.

I could be wrong on that, though, I'm no expert. Communism in one relatively poor country can't really be expected to succeed when pitted against the world system of rich capitalist countries, though.

Oh, well. Looks like I'm just kind of redundant, then.

@greysoni: "economic forces would naturally lead people to that life. The question is whether or not humanity would arrive at that end. ..." HISTORY has proven Marx to be UTTERLY wrong, unless be "economic forces" you mean "government authorities with lethal weapons".

I would link to an NPR story I recently linked to about community gardening....ie COMMUNIST GARDENING....that city after cityt after city after city FAILS to produce results UNTIL the "commnity" garden is divided up into individual plots and individuals are responsible for, and can only harvest from their own plot. Communism fails EVERY time it is tried.

I DEFY someone to provide a true example to the contrary. I sure as hell know {UTIN CAN'T...

@Cloister...how do you figure "large scale elections" is a recent invention. Support that ABSURD claim....If that is the basis of your argument....then you fail.

"Communism in one relatively poor country ..." Except that Communism has been tried in countries *insanely* wealthy with natural resources and massive populations....and FAILED.... so...your argument fails.

Like I said according to Marx the communism that he suggested could not have possibly happened yet as the Capitalist stage has to be gone through before reaching the Communist stage and as we are in the throws of Capitalism.....But do not think that by saying this I am a fan or proponent of Communism or that I think that things will unfold as Marx has written....I'm not and I don't (or rather how would I know...I can't read the future....). So your argument is besides the point in several ways.
As to political and and other human achievements being a sign of our progress as a species I think that may be misleading. The current collective beliefs of any particular culture or time may give a better chance for its members to achieve what they would call happiness (it's not the same everywhere...) it still does not insulate us from the more petty forms of "evil" that we visit upon each other. We see it every day. And we have all seen how peaceful, lawful societies, in the midst of some disaster, can tear that fabric apart. There is a reoccurring theme in which each society or group sees themselves at the pinnacle of human achievement only to be laughed at or, at best, thought quaint by its predecessors. How often do people have to presume this before coming to the conclusion that perhaps when we say "I know" it is only that we wish to be right about the world we live in. The question is why do we wish a thing so much that it has the power to fool us again and again....

*Bangs head on desk*

Respect for private property is a big change in human behavior from what, when, and where? Individual ownership of property dates back to the beginnings of human civilization in the West.

By beginnings of human civilization in the West I assume you mean beginnings of the Enclosure movement in the late 14th/early 15th century. Prior to which land was held in common via the open field system.

On a small scale it appears that it already does in certain other cultures. On a large scale, it hasn't yet, but could. We will probably never know though because implementation remains fraught with danger. The consensus is and will likely remain that capitalism is the safer course.

Safer for whom? Not the billions who toil in misery under Capital's heel.

Cuba survived 60 years of terrorism and embargo, not only survived but leads its region in health & education. But you people will continue to congratulate yourselves for the supposed 'success' of your free market systems. It'd be humorous if the planet wasn't at stake.

For all. Full stop.

Putin can you recognize a moderate when you see one or are there just communists and non-communists for you?

The private ownerhsip of animals and herds, signified by branding, goes back to the emergence of writing in Ancient Sumeria and Egypt. Enclosure Acts were laws passed in sixteenth-century England that allowed landowners to fence in the open fields that surrounded many villages and use them for grazing sheep. These enclosures deprived peasants of land to cultivate and forced them to work as wage laborers or as wool spinners and weavers.

Capitalism is killing the planet....Communism would probably kill the planet too.....Human beings are killing the planet....Though it has to be said Capitalism does tend to be more efficient then Communism.....not always a good thing apparently

I have a legendary tolerance for moderates, no matter how insufferable and mealy mouthed.

".Communism would probably kill the planet too."

Not really, a planned economy takes into account the level of resources that the state wants to use, and organizes/mobilizes the economy accordingly. Cuba has one of the most advanced reforestation programs in the world. Capitalism relies on the profit motive & private incentive, good look saving the planet that way.

"The private ownerhsip of animals and herds, signified by branding, goes back to the emergence of writing in Ancient Sumeria and Egypt."

How is that private ownership? Was the herd owned by one single person? Or by a clan or tribe?

liberal, conservative, communism, capitalism, socialism, blah blah blah

Half the arguments here seem to be peoples different interpretations of the same word.

In the real world we all pay taxes and all benefit from the likes of defence and roads. Hey! Isn't that *communism* by the pedantic interpretation of this forum?

Hey! Do you pay all your medical bills yourself or do you have insurance? Don't you REALISE that insurance is just a non-governmental form of socialism! OMG!
If you're not terribly sick do you realise your insurance 'tax' dollars are paying for someone else's chemotherapy??? OMG OMG OMG.

Putty, come towards the light and start ignoring krelln. Its great.

@greyson - the ussr's environmental record was appalling.



apalling.

Herds marked by brands were owned by one individual and registered. The cuneiform records show inheritance of the herds from father to eldest son through the male line. The Hebrew Bible shows the same pattern of private property ownership and inheritance. Frederick Engels, who collaborated with Marx, disagrees and says that private property emerged with the Greeks six centuries before the birth of Christ in chapter IV of his famous study The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.

So was/is every country that tried to move from being an agrarian to industrialized society in a handful of decades.

@putty, true, on reflection i think its very difficult to say which system is better - depends on specifics

which system is better .... for the environment
;P

I've yet to see a market economy that expresses any urgency about the environment, unless you're Maldives.

But as things get scarcer, they get more expensive. That's market forces protecting what we value. I think, if I had to choose, capitalism is the safer bet.

BTW
This thread makes me think of this scene from Tinker Tailor, which screened recently. Great movie of a typical Le Carre masterpiece. I luv this cold war spy shizzle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfU7M3RU63I&list=FLSEaF5KPWR6sbYJpggZU6VA&index=20&feature=plpp_video

Is there a man made environmental disaster that rivals Chernobyl? The Soviets destroyed the Aral Sea which lost 60% of its water from 1924-1988. Tens of thousands of tons of salt picked up from the dry Aral Sea bed get dumped on Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan each year. The former Soviet test site at Semipalatinsk saw hundreds of nuclear devices exploded that cracked the underlying bedrock and have allowed plutonium and strontium to leak into the Irtysh River and contaminate the Artic Ocean as a result. Not every industrial society has such a record of environmental catastrophe.