6 Answers

  1. First, we would like to draw a clear line between” primitive communism “and” communism ” according to Marx. These are two things so different that I wouldn't call them the same word.

    I don't see much point in discussing communism according to Marx. This, in my opinion, is a fairly debunked utopia, which showed that any attempt to build a theoretically justified paradise inevitably leads directly to hell.

    Primitive communism is directly related to severely limited opportunities for the accumulation of wealth. In Diamond's “Guns, Microbes, and Steel,” it is shown that the stage of sedentary agriculture that completely destroys primitive communism, both in those who have passed to this stage and in all accessible neighborhoods, is preceded by the stage of mastering the technologies of resource accumulation – collecting, storing, and processing wild grain. Most likely, primitive communism is already disintegrating at this stage. And technologies of accumulation develop only where there is something to save – wild grains with a rich harvest. Where they do not exist, primitive communism has existed for tens and hundreds of thousands of years without any significant changes.

    That is, if we look at all this from the point of view of evolution and anthropology, then primitive communism is a stable state for huge periods of time, unable to offer any resistance to those who have moved to a sedentary agricultural way of life, with all its inequality and injustice.

    But now we are seeing another interesting process. The planet is fully developed, there is simply nowhere to grow extensively and the pendulum is flying in the opposite direction. If a few thousand years ago, those who reproduce faster had the advantage because they get more calories per person-hour of work, and the uniformity of the distribution of these calories practically did not play a role (hence, for example, gender inequality, which seriously began to gain momentum only in the era of agriculture – after all, what is it? It is precisely the uneven distribution of wealth, women began to give birth much more, and their property and rights became much less), but now the opposite is true – technological superiority is achieved not by the physical density of the population, but by comfort for the owners of brains. The principle of “where you were born, there you came in handy” is completely irrelevant in the 21st century, and territories with a high birth rate, but low comfort, have simply become remote incubators of the population for more highly developed countries. Moreover, only the owners of brains who are not lucky with brains will leave, and they will remain cheap labor for external consumers.

    This puts an end to numerous alarmists who are worried about the birth rate and are ready to increase it at the cost of civil rights and freedoms – the only place this path leads to is another incubator.

    It is easy to see that I have never used the word “capitalism”above. For me, this once again proves that the word is completely empty today (like, in fact, “communism” – it is easier to talk about primitive society without it, and in the surrounding reality it is not and is not expected). But if you still try to find a place for capitalism, then I see several places where it can be stuck. Capitalism” according to Marx ” was in the 19th century and died safely at the beginning of the 20th, not without the participation of Russian revolutions. He is no more, peace be upon him. Capitalism, as a property inequality that begins with the transition to agriculture, will accompany us for the rest of human history, but the degree of this inequality will change, depending on many circumstances. I will assume that it will fall more quickly in the next couple of centuries, but this is because I am an optimist. Capitalism from the horror stories of modern communists, as a system in which man is a wolf to man, everyone tries to deceive each other, and evil capitalists have entered into a conspiracy to enslave the working man, has never been and never will be.

    The real dichotomy is not capitalist / communism. This is freedom/security, individual / collective. We are doomed to find the best possible compromises between them for the present moment. A free individual cannot be complex. Protected from all possible dangers, a member of the society does not need to be enterprising. Complexity and enterprise are the key to the success of human civilization. And even in space, societies will be more successful if they allow their participants to take risks, reward them fairly if they succeed, and protect them from most everyday dangers.

  2. No way. There are simple rules in life.

    There is always a resource that most people are connected to in one way or another.

    There are always people who manage this resource.

    Those who manage a resource always get more out of it than the rest of the majority. However, in percentage terms, this is always a small value, and the larger the resource, the more insignificant it is.

    The larger the resource , the more shared it is. A person can eat a bun, and multibillion-dollar production can only be managed for a limited period of time. Even under “capitalism”, even under “communism”.

    How you can change these things, I can't imagine. You can only change the details. Communist position “Why are the ownership rights to Horns and Hooves registered with Nail Burzhuev? We will transfer the property to the people's property, and my friend Vaclav Kradek will be responsible for the relevant papers. And you don't even need to change the manager. A working day too-what if there's a war tomorrow?”

  3. It is almost impossible for you to get a qualified answer to your question. For the overwhelming majority of respondents do not understand at all the signs of communism, socialism and capitalism, nor the structure of these formations, much less the history of their formation.. In the forty years after perestroika , all knowledge of the theories of utopian socialism, dialectical materialism, and the theory of surplus value has been lost. Therefore, in order for you to understand the issue, you need to take up the sources yourself and study them

  4. History is a policy that has been pushed back into the past. Futurism is to some extent the antithesis of history. The historian says: let's do what the past teaches us. Futurist-forget induction and deduction-let's produce. I mean, to hell with everything that happened. We start with a clean slate.

    For this reason, neither one nor the other can serve not only as a support, but even as a pillar on the side of the road.

    Now for “capitalism” and ” communism.” Materialistic philosophy considers these concepts only from the angle of economic relations. And no matter how the “democrats” puff up their cheeks and the programmed masses of the people shake with indignation, communism is an evolutionary necessity for humanity. Moreover, the main thing in it is not industrial relations, but morality, which is the measure of spiritual development.

    Read the moral code of the builder of communism. And there, minus purely conjunctural political artifacts, you will find slogans that are truly moral, if not spiritual.

    Yes, the construction of communism in the USSR failed. Failed for the same reason that a five-year-old boy couldn't satisfy a sexually mature woman. And now it's my turn for anthropology.

    Indeed, there is an evolution going on in anthropology. Not Darwin's.

    Socio-political formations have the same relation to it as an autumn snowfall to the growth of ears.

    A person develops physically and spiritually at the same time. Only this simultaneity does not mean synchronicity.

    10,000 years is a very short time to record tangible changes in the structure, somatics, psyche, and even more so in consciousness.

    However, you can outline trends. 1. reduced life expectancy. 2. narrowing of the spectrum of perception – hearing and vision. (the spectrum here is not literal, but segmental). 3. reduced height. 4. slight but still general darkening of the skin.

    No other processes are observed.

  5. A very interesting question-after all, communism, as an equal distribution for all, was widespread precisely in the primitive community society, as it is believed, because of the scarcity of distributed resources.As the wealth of society increased, its organization became class-based-and finally came to capitalism.And then the founders of Marxism proposed (based on the vices of capitalism) a return to communism-which,in my opinion,shows a complete lack of understanding of human nature.Some 20th-century authors say this: “After spending 10,000 years trying to move away from primitive communism, we are now being offered it as a model.”Well, how did the attempts to build a system more perfect than capitalism end up-everyone can see and hear..

  6. 10,000 years ago, there was no capitalism, but only socialism. That is, the primitive communal system. And capitalism began to develop with the beginning of the industrial revolution. That is, in the last quarter of the seventeenth century. It began to develop in the UK and from there moved to other countries in Western and Central Europe, as well as to North America and Australia with New Zealand. Because the peoples of Western Europe wanted to learn and develop. And some peoples do not want to develop and they still have a primitive communal system. That is, socialism.

Leave a Reply