/dead/ - Post-Left

>>5155
I mean yeah, people are born greedy to some extent but they're also born generous and altruistic, humans exhibit a wide range of traits which can be endorsed or discouraged by their society. Will communism get rid of all greedy people? I think it will reduce their number but of course not, but those people will be able to do far less harm to society and other people. Communism doesn't rely on altruism anyway except in the most broad sense, people don't have to demonstrate that much altruism when society is built in an altruistic and egalitarian way.

>>5156
There are definitely people that are more greedy and selfish than others. but I think the problem is that there exists no society that ever succuseflly managed to punish enough of the negative behaviour.
capitalism is the worst, because it easily rewards greed and cruelty. but it's not like the sociopathic individuals would dissapear in a communist society. their behaviour would still manifest in other more subtle ways.
and nevermind the average person, I think that even the average person isn't good enough.

>Communism doesn't rely on altruism anyway except in the most broad sense
I feel like altruism should be a core tenant. if communism isn't explicitly about altruism then what's the point?

>>5157
Well no communist would say that communism will get rid of all negative traits from humanity forever. Communism is likely not even the 'final form' of society, and we will probably progress beyond it at some point to something we can't conceive of now.

If sociopathic people are forced to act in 'more subtle' ways is that not a net benefit since they clearly must be causing less harm?

>I feel like altruism should be a core tenant. if communism isn't explicitly about altruism then what's the point?

The point is everyone enjoying a better standard of living and freedom from exploitation, not everyone patting themselves on the back for what great people they are. That's christian morality, where the evils of this world should and can be overcome simply through individual generosity, but as we've seen this model is an abject failure. To build a better society we need to build better systems not simply strive to be 'better people'.

>>5155
>isn't it obvious that a lot of human bias is hardwired into us from birth rather than influnced by enviornent?
yes, but pretty much always in ways which leave enough scope for social engineering. take a gameboy, for example. a gameboy also has a large number of limitations hard-wired into the design. nevertheless, you can do basically anything with it if you think hard enough about how to achieve it within those limitations. a gameboy is thus also a blank slate.

it suits a small number of people to pretend that the limitations aren't there (usually because they're too lazy to understand them, rather than because they pose problems for their ideals), but it suits a much larger number of people to pretend that those hard-wired limitations make it categorically impossible to do things that - conveniently - they don't want you to do anyway.

>>5159
hmm… interesteing perspective.
hacking one brain is hard enough, but how do you handle an operation that needs to scale over countless brains with varying human cultures?

>>5158
"subtle" in the sense that they get better at hiding and blending and as a result induce more damage.
sort of like going to an armsrace against a constantly evolving virus.

>>5161
Well nonetheless it seems a lot harder to exploit others when the economy is centrally planned and/or worker controlled and nobody is able to own the MOP directly. I mean I'm not gonna say it's impossible people could find a way to siphon wealth into their pocket but certainly I doubt that anyone would be able to amass billionaire levels of wealth without anyone else noticing, or even hundred-millionaire.

Communism would also help with other kinds of antisocial behaviour since for example the primary reason people stay with abusive partners is economics. Anyone would be able to move out on their own in communism so this would present much less of an issue.

>>5156
i'm glad the dog girl came back :)

>>5155
>>5155
>I have a burning passionate hatred for all the negative aspects of humanity
That's your first problem. Morality is a mental illness.
>whenever I engage in chatter about this topic, eventually it comes down to human nature. almost all far leftists believe some form of the blank-slate
1. This isn't a leftist board.
2. Human nature is made up, there is no "blank state."
>born greedy
A geneticist has joined the chat.

Greed is a natural hoarding behavior in a competitive market but once you get rid of this constant threat of bankrupcy you stop caring really, money is just paper. We're born greedy as much as we're born sad or angry or horny.

>>5166
I doubt OP is still reading this.

>>5156
>they're also born generous and altruistic
This is no better than saying people are born greedy. At least the Marxists admit that our behavior is shaped by the social environment we are in, even though they often cling to morality just as much as the next guy.

>>5168
The point is that 'human nature' includes the possibility for a wide spectrum of contradictory traits.

>>5169
"Human nature" is a term made up by philosophers who do not actually know how real human beings work. These talks about the human nature are pointless. The max Aristotle was able to discern was "Humans are capable of reason." Which is, like, almost nothing. And that still does not include people with intellectual disabilities, even though it is true otherwise.

Altruism, like greed, is nurtured through society, there is nothing "innate" about greed or altruism other than some basic psychological mechanisms that give rise to hoarding or generosity, which by themselves are not greed and altruism. Say, you're hungry. And you are given lots of food. You overeat a little. Then you get used to the constant flow of dopamine you get from eating food. And that's how you become glottonous. Glottony is the result of lots of internal and external factors, and saying that glottony is innate is confusing cause and effect and does not take into the account the environment a person is raised in.

>not well read
apparent
>money(capitalism)
no, capitalism is not when moeny. Read Capital. Money and Capital both predate Capitalism.

>>5166
Anon… bad behaviour from humans is bad because it causes harm not because it's "immoral".
>human nature is made up
>there is no "blank slate"
contradicton

I don't consider that a particularly worthwhile question. I believe now what I should have believed from the very start, and what I did believe in my heart but was told to lie to myself about, in a world of liars. I assumed naively that other people were smarter than me, better than me, and they ruled so what do I know? Having seen enough, it is a wonder to me why humanity let these people rule at all, let alone encouraged the rot.

I never got into the "look for thought leader to tell me what I'm allowed to think", or a "total system" to fill my head with in that way. I believe in the truth, and what works. I'm not interested in dogmatic quotes and I don't know an actual person who is. I'm interested in whether anything someone wrote is useful for me to know anything. If I were to invest authority in anyone, that's not a decision I make legalistically like there's a formula to "solve who is right". I place authority in something that is worthy of it, and anyone abasing themselves is a faggot who should be ignored. Heaven gave you a brain and all of the means to do something with it, and it's depressing that so many fags on this board - and they are fags - can only think to supplicate to some new trend in an effort to stay relevant. I might be one of a few people on this board that takes the study of actual communism seriously, and I rail against Marx for being a hatchetman! It's telling that the "Marxists" of today don't know anything about anything. I learned more form basic bitch liberal polisci students than anyone here. That said there are a few people who link actual stuff of interest and can have some sort of conversation. The fucking Satanics ruin it for everyone.

>>5156
My god the eugenism runs so deep that it is unquestioned. Infants out of the womb aren't born with anything. They have no idea about the world or what "greed" is, beyond siphoning off their mother's umbilical cord, and wanting to suckle something with milk. Complex social traits are not programmed into people in that way. Even what it means to be greedy or lacking in decency varies from culture to culture. To some, they wonder how white men act so shamelessly about things that are in tribal culture matters of basic honor, yet they'll completely understand capitalism - it's not that complicated to understand and take its values on board once the system is seen in action. The idea of doing "capitalism" would have been absurd without a long chain of events, and greed in another situation would entail something different. If you were a Roman, you did not have a great moral compunction about slavery or believe that freedom was an ideal of any sort. The concept of a world without slavery was beyond the pale, and they would have recognized wageslavery as de facto slavery anyway.

Of course, "freedom" was co-opted by the Krauts, who have no familiarity whatsoever with the concept and identified it with this Hegelian faggotry that ruined the world with its stupidity.

Some dishonest asshole is going to say "DURRR YOU DENY HEREDITY AND BELIEVE IN BLANK SLATES", which is not the argument. Of course people have hereditary traits and proclivities. The point is that no one is "born greedy" or "born with sin" in that way. Spiritual / moral sin is something other than an information-form or projection that you can lie about endlessly. You don't inherit any virtue from the deeds or beings of your parents. That is always summoned by whatever you claw back from this cursed world. But, the sins of the father, mother, and the whole line will come down on the child, no matter what their personal guilt. That is a simple reality of moral thought if morality pertains to a world, as it must to actually mean anything. If anyone thinks morality is just information, they are fags and should hang themselves and I don't know how such people can live with themselves.

Like, I get genuine naivety, or people making a reasonable argument against the claim. The claim I make isn't "objective morality" either, which just shows how devoted they are to this idiotic faith in "total systems" and "total society" - a Germanic disease. Morality is judged by thinking entities who could have assign such a value to something in the world. What goes on in a fantasy is not a moral decision. It's funny how the Galtonite creed glorifies internalization and false moral dilemmas, but no form of that morality can say anything other than more shrieking to torture something. It's all their Satanic race knows how to do.

So horrible is this world that a simple claim - people make moral valuations based on the actual world we live in and have to for those moral values to be worth anything, and do not make those values for their "own world" - is utterly inadmissible, yet this Germanic and Galtonite slop which justifies unlimited torture and shouting like retards over nothing is supposed to be praiseworthy and the height of reason. What a Satanic and retarded race.

Dumb thread. Communism itself is a purely practical movement based entirely on the self-interest of a class - proletarians will fight bourgeois society not because they are angel-hearted souls seeking to put an idea into effect, but because, being excluded from bourgeois society, they can only permanently fulfil their material needs by going against this society and demolishing it.

>>5661
Do you think for a moment of how the bourgeois became the bourgeois? Of course not, because it's just words for you - an enemy of the weak for your latest grift. They didn't get it by magic or rule the world by decree and rule as a hive mind. The bourgeois was not a class of "pure capitalists". They were the interests of the city - of civilization - and those who ruled it, which included landholders of the old guard, priests and the conspirators that always comprise aristocracy, torturers, and the usual gang of filth that are attached to civic religion of some sort. There were members of the commoners and capitalists who never wanted "bourgeois values", who would have been perfectly fine with buying venal office, and have always bemoaned the liberal revolution. I don't think you understand any history, or what capitalism is, or what anything at all is.

It's funny how the people who say the most about hating the bourgeois are stereotypically bourgeois and come from money, or got hepped on ideology. The working class people who were smart and got it, like seminary student-turned-bank-robber Stalin, never got into horseshit like this and thought it was serious. It's the province of space-wasters who are there to make noise and make the world worse.

>>5662
>>5663
I think you ought to take your meds.

>There were members of the commoners and capitalists who never wanted "bourgeois values",
They're irrelevant. Why was the French revolution able to abolish feudalism? Because French society had reached a point where decaying feudal relations were a barrier to the futher development of society, which could only take place with the destruction of these relations.

HUEMON NATUR is not real lol, finds proofs(you cant). No one goes around pointingat oak trees and salmon like "every individual of this organism is imbued to be ontologically evil and greedy for the rest of time" or "yeah every southern red oak on earth is has a natural tendency towards greed and theres just nothing we can do about it" This is basically textbook idealism where you pull some random philosophical concept out of your ass and say the all of material reality is actually controlled by this random ass ideal(i.e. mind over matter).


Humans are animals in material world there are no inherent set of fixed morals and ethics that come with it, these "basal desires" you speak of are just primate behavior and no one goes around saying every baboon on earth is a good or bad person. Libs that invoke my muh human nature might as well invoke the soul or actual fucking magic. Not to mention 9 times of 10 the human nature arguement just devolves in cringey ass misanthropy "everyone is evil wahwawah we can never have anyhting good happen wahwahwah" like if thats the case just kys fr

HUEMON NATUR is not real lol, finds proofs(you cant). No one goes around pointingat oak trees and salmon like "every individual of this organism is imbued to be ontologically evil and greedy for the rest of time" or "yeah every southern red oak on earth is has a natural tendency towards greed and theres just nothing we can do about it" This is basically textbook idealism where you pull some random philosophical concept out of your ass and say the all of material reality is actually controlled by this random ass ideal(i.e. mind over matter).


Humans are animals in material world there are no inherent set of fixed morals and ethics that come with it, these "basal desires" you speak of are just primate behavior and no one goes around saying every baboon on earth is a good or bad person. Libs that invoke my muh human nature might as well invoke the soul or actual fucking magic. Not to mention 9 times of 10 the human nature arguement just devolves in cringey ass misanthropy "everyone is evil wahwawah we can never have anyhting good happen wahwahwah" like if thats the case just kys fr

You'd think a board for people against moralism and eternal values would be less retarded.

>>5664
Feudalism ended because a new ruling clique were kicking out those who didn't get in the big club, not because of "abstract social forces" that exist in a grand narrative. This was understood at the time. By destroying the feudal order, the Assembly was saying "we're in charge, not these assholes" - and they were also not too happy that the peasants took matters into their own hands, basically because they could and the Jacobins / agentur gave them the signal that doing so wouldn't really be punished as it would be any other time.

But really, "feudalism ended" a long time ago, because it was kept alive by selling venal office to the sort of people who decided they could just make a republic and vote themselves free money basically. That's what they always do, and it didn't take long for the Jacobins to do it with the assignot, and then set up a revolutionary dictatorship to try and keep it together. I think you should also figure out from that example by the way - revolutionary dictatorships are a terrible idea. That's why Marx recommended them - to derail the socialists and make sure they would fail and be as unpleasant as possible, until it was time to really shit up humanity with his next stunt.