Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

It is problematic to analogize human political choices to arrangements in the animal kingdom that are instinctual, not a matter of debate and choice.

There are, for example, ants that take what are called "slaves" -- but that term obscures more than it explains, because there are no other alternatives for them, that's what they do as a matter of instinct, nor moral, political or intellectual choice. There are no "abolitionist" slavemaker ants (though there are "slave rebellions")

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and...-relationship/

I agree. The burden of proof is on those scientists who make haste conclusions about "animal politics." But if they will find an ape, or perhaps a few individuals (prophets-kings) among apes, with conscious decision-making, that would be interesting.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Enrico32

Humans are different because their primary aims are metaphysical - progress, culture, religion (?), doing a thing for its own sake - rather than direct satisfaction.

Our primary aims are exactly the same as the primary aims of an insect and every kind of living creatures.
We first need to get access to energy.

Animal metaphysical aims are hard to define, because we are unable to understand them and they also result of the lottery process called evolution.
Which human do you define? Our ancestors who shared about 6 millions years ago the same common ancestors with today chimpanzees and bonobos or our 40'000 years ago ancestors or 2018 homo sapiens.

I highly recommend you to read:

"Peacemaking among Primates."
and
"Are We Smart Enough to Understand How Smart Animals Are?"

Ethology is a recent captivating science that has broken the insurmountable wall (often created by religion and vanity) between the human animal and its more or less close genetic cousins.

Originally Posted by Enrico32

I agree. The burden of proof is on those scientists who make haste conclusions about "animal politics." But if they will find an ape, or perhaps a few individuals (prophets-kings) among apes, with conscious decision-making, that would be interesting.

I had a lot of cats and trust me or not, but I had one who clearly was conscious decision-making. He let me on my ass several times during his life.
He brought us a female cat girlfriend. When she left him, he had a terrible heartache.

But here is a story that proved to me how clever he was.
There was another strong female cat who was used to terrorize the feline neighborhood. My family had not idea and welcomed her until we saw after a very short period of time, that she brutalized our two male cats. (A feminazi )
We terrified her and she never came back home.
Our brilliant male cat watched that we protected him.
Several weeks later, I was in the living room reading a book.
My brilliant male cat came into home and called me. He insisted in a way that I was not used. I followed him outside the house to the garden......

There was the female cat walking in the garden.
Our male cat pressed himself against my leg, looking at her.
I runned after her shouting.
When I came back he was extremely happy.

In my point of view, he made an observation, analyzed the situation and took a decision... and not a little one. He asked for help. He searched a strong ally to fight an enemy.

During his life, this cat was so brilliant that he changed my perception of animals.
I get other cats later. All were different. None were as clever as he was, but since 6 months there is a new cat who wants to live at home.
Sadly my actual cat doesn't want.
I'm terribly impressed to watch all the comedies and the ways they both try to manipulate me to be in their camp.

One of the worst injustices made by a quite too important part of the humanity against other animals, is to think that we are the only one who are able to think, to love, to judge, etc...


Only 6 millions years ago, our common ancester with chimpanzee (and bonobo) gave birth to at least two children... one was our common ancester and another one was the ancester of the chimpanzee.
According to Max Planck institute, our DNA is similar at 98.7% with chimpanzees and bonobos.
if we do not make them disappear from the planet, what will we reserve their evolution, like the evolution of the other species?

Originally Posted by Estreeter

It's exactly why put that picture there, take away the cars, the communications, the appliances, heavy industry, modern medicine and it won't look too different from that ridiculous picture in my post.

Communism didn't tell not developping technologies.
When I was in Yugoslavia after the iron curtain, it was a modern country. I didn't think I was in the middle age.

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

In my point of view, he made an observation, analyzed the situation and took a decision... and not a little one. He asked for help. He searched a strong ally to fight an enemy.

.

Now this is WAAAY of topic! Exactly, it's actually a little sad that many people think so little of the non-human intellect. The time I asked my Australian shepherd to take my sock off and give it to me was simple proof. Then I asked for the other one. That dog knew subject, verb and object. He also understood concepts and abstracts - much like a mature 4 year old would. He would what I asked and tell me in no uncertain terms he thought it was a make work thing and stupid. If you've never learned how to talk and listen to non-humans, you're not wholly human.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Our primary aims are exactly the same as the primary aims of an insect and every kind of living creatures.

No.

If you're looking at the social insects, many of them are sterile. Their "aim" -- a misleading word-- is that the queen reproduce, full stop. They themselves are completely expendable. Its more useful to think of a bee hive or an ant or termite colony as a super organism; individual ants are more like cells your body than individuals. Red blood cells don't have "aims", neither do termite soldiers.

Insects have no brains, just on the order of 100 thousand neurons, arranged into a few ganglia. This ain't much-- compare with humans, who have on the order of 100 billion neurons. That's not just "more", that's one million times more.

Originally Posted by xyzde69

"Peacemaking among Primates."
and
"Are We Smart Enough to Understand How Smart Animals Are?"

There are behaviors in primates that appear very similar to humans, and de Waals' "Chimpanzee Politics" is looking at the animals that are closest to humans, where there are some interesting parallels to human behavior that can be found. They may even be motivated by similar neurologic processes. But these are wild animals, and humans frequently come to grief by mistaking familiar _looking_ processes in animals for something that they think is an analogous human emotion.

For example, take something so simple as a smile. Smiles in humans are friendly. Smiles in many animals -- including many other primates-- are an aggressive or fearful display, showing their teeth. This includes chimpanzees, for whom what "looks like a smile" -- isn't. Similarly, they misunderstand human smiles.

As an example of this profound misunderstanding, I'd note the unhappy history of people keeping chimpanzees as pets, which then attack them in bloody ways. "He seems like my friend" -- no, what is going on in Mr. Chimp's mind is not what you think it is.

[silkies]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

If you're looking at the social insects, many of them are sterile. Their "aim" -- a misleading word-- is that the queen reproduce, full stop. They themselves are completely expendable. Its more useful to think of a bee hive or an ant or termite colony as a super organism; individual ants are more like cells your body than individuals.

A perfect explanation of Communism, and every other collectivist political theory. To the Collectivist, Marxist or otherwise, the individual is not only expendable, but useful only to the extent that they are of benefit to the collective.

Anyone who believes that Communism is an acceptable line of thought is the would be murderer of anyone who believes that a person has unique, individual value.

As a descendant of Poles, I know the cost of Collectivism. I have seen the photos from the old country. This one murdered by the Nazis, this one murdered by the Communists, this one never heard from again, murdered by one or the other.

I come from a family of religious minorities who fled the Nazis into the jaws of the Communists. Today they present themselves as polar opposites, but their victims know that to die at the hands of a Nazi is no better than to die at the hands of a Communist.

No Collectivist ideology can stand without a great deal of murder being committed in the name of The Common Good. That is the absolute truth that no Communist will tell you.

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Our primary aims are exactly the same as the primary aims of an insect and every kind of living creatures.
We first need to get access to energy.

Energy... But if one works less, one consumes less, correct? So, basically, what's that human progress about?

From what I understand, animals are minimizers of energy consumption, people are maximizers (running the treadmill). People maximize energy solely because their civilization = extensive, expensive projects of dubious value to each individual.

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by silkies

No Collectivist ideology can stand without a great deal of murder being committed in the name of The Common Good. That is the absolute truth that no Communist will tell you.

But common good reigns in the West also! In fact, the denial of individual value is the primary feature of Civilization - Slavery!

You live in a forest, peacefully foraging across the jungle. Suddenly, a creature comes forward and says: "You must not forage for food (this is complex and primitive)! Forage for some difficult-to-get things just to burn them on the altar of deity (this is progressive, good, holy)! In exchange, I (the creature) will give you food in such amount as I see fit." Your response?

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Enrico32

Energy... But if one works less, one consumes less, correct? So, basically, what's that human progress about?

From what I understand, animals are minimizers of energy consumption, people are maximizers (running the treadmill). People maximize energy solely because their civilization = extensive, expensive projects of dubious value to each individual.

Hi Enrico,

When I was speaking about energy, I was speaking about eating.

When you wrote:

Originally Posted by Enrico32

Humans are different because their primary aims are metaphysical - progress, culture, religion (?), doing a thing for its own sake - rather than direct satisfaction.

I had to use google translate (I only get a basic English vocabulary) for the word "aim".
In French "aim" means "goal, target, end".
So when you wrote "primary aims", I only could disagree with that.
And believe me, it was not in the way to contradict you.
We, humans, are composed of cells and the first aim we had when we wake up is to feed ourselves.
In French we have a "saying" telling: "Ventre affamé n'a point d'oreilles."
That means "Hungry belly has no ears."

I don't know if you already listened to the Maslow's pyramid, that's a pyramid that we, humans, in my point of view, can extend to animals.



First aims: Physiological.
Second aims: Safety.
Third aims: Love/belonging
Fourth aims: Esteem
Fifth aims: Self actualization

If you have a dog, you will observe, if you treat him (or her) as a member of your family and as well as good friend, that he will reach the fourth aims.
The self-actualization of a dog is difficult for us to define. We don't know what deeply happens in his brain.

I do not want to speak for an ant, but I suppose that it will reach the second aims: Safety.

We, humans, as long as we can eat well, have a correct flat, get a partner that contributes to be happier, we often can reach the Third aims...

But that's not the case for a lot of people on this planet.
Speak with a working poor. How can he get: Esteem and even more complicated: self-actualization.
That's almost impossible.

But I agree with you. If we, humans, waste a lot of enery, it's probably because of a mixtures of the 3 last aims.
Evolution made us as a terribly unsatisfied animal.

Why birds do need to create an airplane or a car? They already fly.
I always thought that if human beings would have wings and could fly by themselves, we would have less devastated our ecosystems.

[silkies]

Originally Posted by Enrico32

But common good reigns in the West also! In fact, the denial of individual value is the primary feature of Civilization - Slavery!

You live in a forest, peacefully foraging across the jungle. Suddenly, a creature comes forward and says: "You must not forage for food (this is complex and primitive)! Forage for some difficult-to-get things just to burn them on the altar of deity (this is progressive, good, holy)! In exchange, I (the creature) will give you food in such amount as I see fit." Your response?

The Strong have always dominated The Weak, not only in humans, but in every aspect of nature. The Strong dominated The Weak in the Soviet Union, and The Strong dominate The Weak in China today.

The advantage of Western Democratic societies is that they have built societies which limit the extent to which The Strong can dominate The Weak. Your children cannot be sold into slavery if you fail to repay a debt, and no one can force you at gunpoint to sacrifice to their chosen deity.

In Collectivist society, every aspect of your life is run by coercion and the threat of force. Look at what the Chinese Communist Party is doing with regards to social credit scores to ensure that opportunities and resources are directed to the most dedicated and loyal communists and those who are less loyal and dedicated receive fewer opportunities and resources. To each according to his needs, provided he is loyal enough.

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by silkies

The Strong have always dominated The Weak, not only in humans, but in every aspect of nature. The Strong dominated The Weak in the Soviet Union, and The Strong dominate The Weak in China today. The advantage of Western Democratic societies is that they have built societies which limit the extent to which The Strong can dominate The Weak. Your children cannot be sold into slavery if you fail to repay a debt, and no one can force you at gunpoint to sacrifice to their chosen deity. In Collectivist society, every aspect of your life is run by coercion and the threat of force.

You don't like brute force, don't you?

Yet somehow you still believe that force is necessary for law and order.

But law can change at any moment, and what will be your response?