Why Socialism and Communism, or Marxism in general, is a bad deal

The only hope any of us have (as in those actually interested in collectivism as empowerment of the little people), is to do it the traditional way - the way all societies have done it since day dot. Independently.

 

A key feature of the Homo Sapiens evolutionary set of advantage over other species is the ability to work cooperatively.

 

I would submit that while we once shared the survival instinct of pack behaviour with our fellow social mammals, we're now very close to losing it. At least in the First World .. where the hubris of Welfarism has cost us the will to survive. Killed by misguided kindness, as it were (though calling it misguided rather than malicious, is a special kind of denial).

 

I think people today work in concert with one another on scales previously though unimaginable. It’s not individualism that’s a problem, it’s tribalism. One giant tribe fighting another giant tribe still requires co-operation within each tribe.

 

All I can see is nations of individuals, with every man for himself. The effect of Welfarism has been to remove the impetus to work for the group for reasons of survival (the only reason any form of collectivism exists, in any species). It has just about destroyed all sense of community, and the acceptance of the obligations and responsibilities which attend community. What you call 'tribalism', is the primary pathway to survival for social mammals. We do NOT do well flying solo, unless we're very very wealthy.

Deliberate, of course. Those who control the power/money want us divided from each other, because it makes us weak and dependent. When we (the little people) band together in groups, we gain power and independence beyond the sum of our parts. We become propertied, able to refuse the consumerism they want for us, and secure. When we know that kind of power, we can't easily be controlled or manipulated. We remain truly 'democratic'.

 

Thanks for telling us you've never read Marx's theories on history or sociology and don't understand them.

If you knew what you were talking about, then you'd know Radicals embrace Marxist history, sociology and economics. You'd also know that Constructivists (like me) accept Marx's views on history and sociology, but reject the economics.

And then you'd have an understanding of two of the many international relations theories operating presently, with the others being Conservatism, Liberalism, Neo-Conservatism, Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Liberal Institutionalism.

On top of that, you'd know there's no relationship between Conservatism and Neo-Conservatism (because the latter were formerly Trotskyites who were dubbed "neo-conservatives" by a New York Times reporter in 1974.)

 

Thanks for choosing to be wrong again.

If you had any knowledge of political philosophy, you would know not all radicals are Marxists.

If you had any understanding of intellectual history and terminology, you would know "constructivism" does not imply acceptance of Marx's views on history and sociology.

<yawn> I guess "Constructivists" are too busy contemplating their own navels to apprehend the fact that theories of international relations also include Realism, the English School, Feminism, Critical Theory, and Post-Structuralism, among others.

And on your planet, that would perhaps be relevant to something I wrote.